# DxOMark scores for 5DMkIII out - total score 81, 5DMkII had 79



## Fishnose (Apr 19, 2012)

Well, DxOMark has finally released test results for 5DMkIII.

Total: 81
Portrait (Color Depth): 24 bits
Landscape (Dynamic Range): 11.7 Evs
Sports (Low-Light ISO): 2293 ISO


----------



## mitchell3417 (Apr 19, 2012)

why waste our time? This is fake


----------



## MarkB (Apr 19, 2012)

The D800 is ~25% better at low light sports shooting? really? Seems a bit fishy to me. Most of what I have read indicates they are reasonably close only if you downsample the D800 to the Mkiii resolution. I have used the mkiii in near total darkness and have had a few real keepers at iso 12.8k.

I was pretty sure they would just bump the mkii score by a few points but I was really thinking it might have been 84-85. I guess Canon glass is just that much better on average? The difference in samples that I have seen is not that great.

That said, I do a lot of landscape photography and totally would have switched had I not just bought some L lenses when the rebates were tempting around xmas.


----------



## Fab_Angilletta (Apr 19, 2012)

Sorry dude, not fake : http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Canon/EOS-5D-Mark-III

Better ISO score was kinda expected (way higher actually) but I'm *very very dissapointed with ALL the scores* and ofcourse the overall score...

And they dare to ask $500 more than D800 for this crap with no improvements over the 5DII.

Now lets see how bad 1DX will suck compared to D4, lol even to D3s...

GJ Canon, thanks for stealing our money!


ps: Don't flame me for whining, open your eyes and see that Canon is the one to blame here!


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Apr 19, 2012)

trolololol said:


> Come on, it's not even on the site...



Yeah it is.....

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Canon/EOS-5D-Mark-III


----------



## tomscott (Apr 19, 2012)

Who cares about the scoring! Just use the camera! Sick of these threads


----------



## mitchell3417 (Apr 19, 2012)

Well then DxO clearly is run by nikon. Either that, or according to them we are all big fools.


----------



## mitchell3417 (Apr 19, 2012)

not there anymore. it was a screwup. if the 5diii loses to the d800 in iso sensitivity then dxo mark is completely invalid in my book. Although, as of right now it's hardly realistic.


----------



## well_dunno (Apr 19, 2012)

Wonder where the initial numbers came from though... Perhaps they are measuring public reaction to determine the score?  I kid, I kid...


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 19, 2012)

But as other reviews and tests indicate, DR at low ISO is worse than D800. What surprises is the overall score.


----------



## Fab_Angilletta (Apr 19, 2012)

mitchell3417 said:


> not there anymore. it was a screwup. if the 5diii loses to the d800 in iso sensitivity then dxo mark is completely invalid in my book. Although, as of right now it's hardly realistic.



so you claim that it should have better ISO score than D800, so pretty much better than D4/D3s? lol


----------



## Astro (Apr 19, 2012)

D800 is the new low light sports camera... well done NIKON!! 

_that was sarcasm!_

but now im worried that nikon trolls hack the DXO site. ;D


----------



## JR (Apr 19, 2012)

Lets see, the mkiii is worst then d800 in low light iso? That alone makes me question the validity of these test in real life situation. Just based,on the many sample already out, this is likely not the case!


----------



## Orion (Apr 19, 2012)

Exactly . . . the 5DmkIII is still listed and "PREVIEW" and "NOT TESTED."


----------



## S P (Apr 19, 2012)

5D Mark III data is coming up blank for me also.

FYI, the total score tends to be biased towards higher and higher MP cameras and at base ISO where I almost never shoot, so I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the D800 come out ahead over the 5DIII simply because it has more megapickels. I like to compare dynamic range and SNR at medium ISOs (like 400-3200) which isn't really represented in any final scoring number. Any camera is more than good enough at ISO 100 these days, and I almost never shoot beyond 3200/6400 so five and six-digit ISOs don't matter to me either.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 19, 2012)

Looks official now, press release just went out.


----------



## dshipley (Apr 19, 2012)

I'm seeing it as well:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Sensor-performance


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 19, 2012)

DXO is run by nikon fanboys take this with a very very very small pinch of salt!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2012)

It is, indeed, 'official'.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-improving-performance


----------



## jimmylazers (Apr 19, 2012)

*DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear....

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Sensor-performance


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 19, 2012)

There are two sites I will never link again, and one of them is DXO.

Numbers tests really bother me, because other people will use the DXO software and get completely different results. There will also be a range of results if someone is using Imatest. I've also seen the same person run DXO and Imatest and get different results. 

The other issue is how they weight their score. By the looks of things, during the D3/D700 days, ISO performance was the major stat that that weighted the "total score", now it appears they weight it to dynamic range.

I've honestly wondered at times if anyone that does numbers testing like this has actually taken a photograph and looked at it with their eyes. The D800 is NOT a better high ISO performer, even if you down rez the D800 files, the 5D3 trumps it.

I've talked to 3 folks that do this type of testing independently, and all 3 agreed above ISO 800, the 5D3 is the clear winner in dynamic range, but the D800 beats the 5D3 at lower ISO. 

These tests serve nothing positive to the community. If the 5D3 had a score of 291, I still wouldn't post it on the site.


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 19, 2012)

I expected DR to be worse than the Nikon but it should be better than the Mark II. How can they really say the D800 is the low light sports king with a straight face


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

So on the graphs you can see significant improvements in nearly all areas except low ISO DR and it gains "two points"?

I think at this point I have to question DxO's system.. or their bias..


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 19, 2012)

Ouch... so the 5D3 has worse DR with the better sensor than the 5D2? Something is wrong with their tests. Additionally, there is no way the D800 trumps the 5D3 at higher ISO, in terms of noise. Every test I've personally done with those two cameras shows the 5D3 has less noise than the D800 at higher ISO.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 19, 2012)

Rofflesaurrr said:


> The news broke on Nikon Rumors before it did here lol.
> http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/19/dxomark-verdict-nikon-d800-95-canon-5d-mark-iii-81.aspx/



It was actually on this forum before Nikon Rumors, I just won't link DXO.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

canon rumors is making me bonkers right now...I can't keep myself from reading this out of boredom and I just get frustrated with all these threads. I have a 5d3, I had a 5d2 and a 5d1. I can say this camera is absolutely #%$^*%* amazing!!! 

There is one test DxO fails to do, and is of great importance, Finished results!! Look through the d800/5d3 groups on flickr....what do you see?....I see pictures that look a lot better regardless of sharpness, MP, or DR. They just "look" better. It is this vary reason I switched from Nikon to Canon after having originally shot with the first digital rebel. I switched to nikon for my second camera because I liked the features and it seemed like a better camera. But as time wore on I just couldn't help but notice all the photos I truly enjoyed, were all off of Canons for the most part.


----------



## JayOhh (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

They've got to be kidding me. DxO is a joke. Theres no way that low light spec is real which puts all of their other specs invalid to me as well. I can't believe people actually rely on them for specs.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 19, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> There are two sites I will never link again, and one of them is DXO.
> 
> Numbers tests really bother me, because other people will use the DXO software and get completely different results. There will also be a range of results if someone is using Imatest. I've also seen the same person run DXO and Imatest and get different results.
> 
> ...



So DXO is the forbidden term now?  Should we spell it D..O? ;D 
First K..n Ro..ell and now D..O.


----------



## jimmylazers (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

Just to reiterate the gulf/chasm/etc:


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 19, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> So DXO is the forbidden term now?  Should we spell it D..O? ;D
> First K..n Ro..ell and now D..O.



haha, no you can still talk about them. I just want people to know I don't support this type of marketing by DXO.

I realize some may disagree with me on this topic, just trying to "keep it real".


----------



## JayOhh (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

And let me guess the new Nikon D3200 will score better than the 5D Mark III too.


----------



## RuneL (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

I never gave two S___s about any DxO-results, real world is interesting, what your eyes see, not some technocratic bullS___ that has little connection to reality.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 19, 2012)

Wow I was expecting a close result but the 5D3 gets DESTROYED by the D800. Canon needs a LOT of work in the low ISO/high DR department. In particular the low ISO banding issues.


----------



## Fab_Angilletta (Apr 19, 2012)

According to these scores 5DIII is not even better than D3/D700 (except for color depth)

Btw I don't understand why DxO is being flamed here?? Why would they rate 5DIII any lower than it really is?
Canon clearly failed this round.


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 19, 2012)

The 5D3 has the same DR as the 7D, which is worse than the Sony Nex series? 

Will that mean that the 1D X, Canon's flagship professional camera, will have a DR similar to the 3-year old 7D?


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

I can't help but chime in. I don't have both cameras so I can't really do any test. The only side by side comparison I've seen is high ISO jpg/RAW and I don't understand how the D800 makes it that much better in that area. I'm not calling bias on DxO's part either.

I just don't understand it. Is it an error in their procedure? Or does the down sampling affect the numbers? Or is a small pixel's noise less noticeable to the test? I would like an explanation on this.


----------



## ippikiokami (Apr 19, 2012)

So I expect everyone that takes DXO as the bible to buy one of these cameras in the near future. Their DXO scores are all rated the same or better than the 5d3

d3 (Mp a little low for me.. Should definitely be for all those than complain that the 22 in the 5d3 isn't enough)
nex7 (Again. Roight... if the NEX 7 is the kind of camera that suits your needs why are you even considering a regular DSLR)
k5 (Ummmm No Comment but according to DXO mark ! It's a better Sensor!!!)
d3s (Mp a little low for me.. Should definitely be for all those than complain that the 22 in the 5d3 isn't enough)
d3x (Have you seen the high iso pics??)
d4 (Another if you are looking for a camera like this then the 5d3 class shouldn't be something you are comparing to)

And then it comes down to the 
d800 It's supposed to be the best sensor EVER but give me a 5d3 file in higher iso anyday.. I was seriously considering jumping to the d800 for AF purposed (before I tried the 5d3 AF). And I do, do a lot of studio work so the extra mp would be great. But looking at examples from around the web of high iso on the D800, even from very established photographers. I was not happen with it. You can tell me that if you do this and that to the file it'll look the same or better... But when I shoot high iso there are usually gigs that involve a sizable amount of pictures. That extra time to get it to look the SAME or just a little better than a 5d3 file.. Totally a waste

Also after buying. Let us know exactly what about the camera you buy is better than the 5d3


----------



## MattBicePhotography (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

Someone on here said it best, "When all this hype has died down in two years 90% of pros will be shooting with the 5D3 over the D800, just like the 5D2 over and D700 and all Canon over Nikons"


----------



## hoghavemercy (Apr 19, 2012)

Fab_Angilletta said:


> According to these scores 5DIII is not even better than D3/D700 (except for color depth)
> 
> Btw I don't understand why DxO is being flamed here?? Why would they rate 5DIII any lower than it really is?
> Canon clearly failed this round.





Fab_Angilletta said:


> Sorry dude, not fake : http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Canon/EOS-5D-Mark-III
> 
> Better ISO score was kinda expected (way higher actually) but I'm *very very dissapointed with ALL the scores* and ofcourse the overall score...
> 
> ...



troll on over to your Nkon buddies!!


----------



## JayOhh (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



MattBicePhotography said:


> Someone on here said it best, "When all this hype has died down in two years 90% of pros will be shooting with the 5D3 over the D800, just like the 5D2 over and D700 and all Canon over Nikons"



8) Enough Said.


----------



## simonxu11 (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



EYEONE said:


> I can't help but chime in. I don't have both cameras so I can't really do any test. The only side by side comparison I've seen is high ISO jpg/RAW and I don't understand how the D800 makes it that much better in that area. I'm not calling bias on DxO's part either.
> 
> I just don't understand it. Is it an error in their procedure? Or does the down sampling affect the numbers? Or is a small pixel's noise less noticeable to the test? I would like an explanation on this.


I think they down sampling to 8mp for most cameras to do the test if I remember correctly.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

Seems very strange given the much higher level of PERCEIVED noise (you know, the important stuff you actually see on screen) of the D800. Every test I have seen Mark III considerably outperforms D800 at ISO 800+.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

In the end, you can make any test to mean any result... It is what it is, a car crash on the side of the road... Lets just move on, keep shooting, and be happy that independent tests are proving quite favorable for the 5d3.


----------



## JR (Apr 19, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > So DXO is the forbidden term now?  Should we spell it D..O? ;D
> ...



+1 this is almost too obvious that they are bias. Come on saying the d800 is better rat low light then the mkiii! I bet they never too a picture with either camera!


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

I cant seem to access DXO to get text for what I mean but I remember something about DXO's low light score being highest ISO that certain levels are still maintained at and one of those is I believe DR>9ev, so perhaps with the 5d3 sensor having lower dr it drops below their threshold figure at a lower iso than the d800 thus making the d800 appear to be better in low light by their measurement?

As I say I cant seem to access dxo to verify this... fanboys of both kinds will be hammering the site right now I should imagine...


----------



## jimmylazers (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



JayOhh said:


> MattBicePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Someone on here said it best, "When all this hype has died down in two years 90% of pros will be shooting with the 5D3 over the D800, just like the 5D2 over and D700 and all Canon over Nikons"
> ...



Who wrote that? Nostradamus?

Guys, if you put the ISO argument to one side you've still been annihilated on dynamic range, colour depth etc. Oh, and let's not forget price.

And your arguments regarding the DX0 Mark tests, bias etc. If the shoe was on the other foot, you lot would be putting the boot into Nikon and praising DX0 Mark for their testing techniques.


----------



## rocketdesigner (Apr 19, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> There are two sites I will never link again, and one of them is DXO.



.... the other site KR? I thought it was engadget...


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 19, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> haha, no you can still talk about them. I just want people to know I don't support this type of marketing by DXO.
> 
> I realize some may disagree with me on this topic, just trying to "keep it real".



Indeed, it *is* marketing. Though frankly, I think the infamous KR does marketing better.

I assume that's the other site you won't link to.


----------



## bernardovaghi (Apr 19, 2012)

I really like Canon stuff. I´m a Nikon, Canon user. The two brands have their advantages. But here in this topic, what i´m seeing is an attempt to "fire down" the DXO Lab. So i brought a link for you to know how scientific the tests are done there.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415777-76/how-dxo-labs-tests-hot-cameras-like-canons-latest-slr/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

Dude, for studio photos, landscape, advertising, portraits, food, the D800 blows the MK III out of the waterm it´s a matter o fact. For weddings, video, sports, journalism, wildlife the 5D MK III blows the D800. Like the D700 and the MK II , but this time switching "sides". 

Cheers!


----------



## TAR (Apr 19, 2012)

anyone has a link to download high iso RAW files from both cameras to compare same images shot outdoors ? . 5D3 jpeg might be better because of in camera post processing. Why don't you people accept the truth? canon failed .


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



jimmylazers said:


> JayOhh said:
> 
> 
> > MattBicePhotography said:
> ...



That's easy to say but you have no way of knowing what we'd do if the shoe was on the other foot anymore than we do, so that's a useless statement.

Even in the area of DN I've known Nikon was usually better on paper. But even as I've said before, I don't think anyone could honestly tell a difference between the majority of real world photographs.

I don't think DxO is purposefully bias, but I also don't think Canon sensors are that bad.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



jimmylazers said:


> JayOhh said:
> 
> 
> > MattBicePhotography said:
> ...



Someone on the forum wrote that, and I couldn't tell you who. If you read my first post in the thread you will see my other argument....DR,MP,Sharpness, Low light etc, etc aside, the images that come from Canon cameras have always captured me more than the stuff coming off Nikons.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 19, 2012)

TAR said:


> anyone has a link to download high iso RAW files from both cameras to compare same images shot outdoors ? . 5D3 jpeg might be better because of in camera post processing. Why don't you people accept the truth? canon failed .



I have actually. RAW files. And that is actually why I question the high ISO results.


----------



## Fab_Angilletta (Apr 19, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Wow I was expecting a close result but the 5D3 gets DESTROYED by the D800. Canon needs a LOT of work in the low ISO/high DR department. In particular the low ISO banding issues.





bernardovaghi said:


> Dude, for studio photos, landscape, advertising, portraits, food, the D800 blows the MK III out of the waterm it´s a matter o fact.





TAR said:


> Why don't you people accept the truth? canon failed .



As a frustrated Canon user myself, when I express myself and point out the facts, they call you a troll... so you better watch what you say cause they are looking for someone to blame Canon's failure.


----------



## rocketdesigner (Apr 19, 2012)

And what is sad is other "outlets" pick up the lame story:

http://cnet.co/IQYBiQ


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 19, 2012)

bernardovaghi said:


> I really like Canon stuff. I´m a Nikon, Canon user. The two brands have their advantages. But here in this topic, what i´m seeing is an attempt to "fire down" the DXO Lab. So i brought a link for you to know how scientific the tests are done there.
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415777-76/how-dxo-labs-tests-hot-cameras-like-canons-latest-slr/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title
> 
> ...



Lots of people test the way DXO does, I know a few guys that have remarkable testing facilities in their basements.

Your second paragraph is the issue, the D800 and 5D3 have completely different strengths and weaknesses as far as IQ goes, so how is their such a big gap in the "total score"?

My issue is not the results, my issue is how they weight results to get their magical number.


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 19, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> There are two sites I will never link again, and one of them is DXO.
> 
> Numbers tests really bother me, because other people will use the DXO software and get completely different results. There will also be a range of results if someone is using Imatest. I've also seen the same person run DXO and Imatest and get different results.
> 
> ...


+1 couldn't have put it any better myself


----------



## bernardovaghi (Apr 19, 2012)

Don´t think Canon "failed". It´s not so hard. Canon may have made a bad move, but the camera is great, and it is in stock! Nikon made a bad move, with the D700 without video, Nikon loses the battle for many years in the fullframe market. Now the D800 have the advantage, and this is good for the new stuff and for Canon do even better cameras. I love Canon sensors, the 5D MK II even with more noise in shadows than the D700, have a very nice "buttered" skin texture, and the colors are warmer too. I have both, 5D studio/landscape, D700 action/social/street. The upgrade is just needed for comercial purposes, to surprise the client with the "most modern" equipment. 

Take it easy boys, sometimes we are better, sometimes worse. Let´s drink some beer tonight! Cheers.



Fab_Angilletta said:


> bernardovaghi said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, for studio photos, landscape, advertising, portraits, food, the D800 blows the MK III out of the waterm it´s a matter o fact. For weddings, video, sports, journalism, wildlife the 5D MK III blows the D800. Like the D700 and the MK II , but this time switching "sides".
> ...


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 19, 2012)

listen for a start real world tests not stupid lab results prove that the 5dmk3 blows the d800 out the water in terms of higher iso capabilities,so go and keep shooting your charts and testing whatever you like instead of getting out there and doing real shooting!
i bet half the people on here buy there dslr's and shoot test charts theres a certain popular member who i could instantly name i think we all know who im talking about!


----------



## kozakm (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*

To be honest, I’m not that suprised. The biggest disappointment is banding and color blotches in the shadows even in ISO 100 and very small improvement compared to 5D II.


----------



## bernardovaghi (Apr 19, 2012)

Maybe for huge dinamyc of the D800, and very good ISO, and bit depth evolution over his predecessor, D700. 
Really the MK III it´s not so far from the MK II in those qualities. 

But for me, it´s a superb piece o technology.

; )



Canon Rumors said:


> bernardovaghi said:
> 
> 
> > I really like Canon stuff. I´m a Nikon, Canon user. The two brands have their advantages. But here in this topic, what i´m seeing is an attempt to "fire down" the DXO Lab. So i brought a link for you to know how scientific the tests are done there.
> ...


----------



## Wrathwilde (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



jimmylazers said:


> And your arguments regarding the DX0 Mark tests, bias etc. If the shoe was on the other foot, you lot would be putting the boot into Nikon and praising DX0 Mark for their testing techniques.



Exactly, I don't believe the results are biased at all... the data isn't collected for the purpose of giving sensor reviews, that's just a byproduct. The data is collected to form a basis of the camera sensor performance, so that DxO's software can try to exact the very best image quality from the known limits of the sensor. The RAW files the Nikons produce exhibit much less sensor noise, it has been said that Nikon cooks it RAW files to compensate for sensor noise, where as, Canon does not. This could be why the RAW tests seem to favor Nikon so heavily in DR at low ISOs.

That said, even my conservative estimates for the 5D3's DxoMark score were way off.



Wrathwilde said:


> _*This is what I'm expecting, for the 5D3 vs D800*_
> 
> Overall Score - 84 ( Actual Score - 81)
> 
> ...



I am actually disappointed that Canon hadn't made more strides in sensor performance in 4 years, don't get me wrong, it's still a great camera, but I was expecting four years of sensor development to yield more, and I was not expecting to lose ground in DR as compared to the 5DMk2.


----------



## bp (Apr 19, 2012)

The DR result is no surprise. The "sports" results just make me guffaw. D800 better than the 5D3 eh? OK

Hand these two cameras to any actual real-world sports shooter (or a wedding shooter in a typical reception), and see which one they set down on the ground. This just shows how useless their test results are


----------



## altenae (Apr 19, 2012)

Well even after the DXO numbers my 5D mark III is still just as good as before. 

This DXO numbers issue will continue for some time on all forums. 
I will be back when thinks are cooled down. 

Just for the record:

All Nikon counterparts lenses are rated better then Canon ones. 
I know for sure this is not true for al lot of lenses,because I have used them both. 

I can assure all photographers that it's a bad idea to buy a camera and let the DXO numbers decide for you. 

See you all later after the DXO storm


----------



## atvinyard (Apr 19, 2012)

I think people are forgetting that this is a sensor score, not a score for the whole camera. The D800 has a better sensor, but does it have better features, controls, autofocus capabilities, frame rates? Are the lenses available for it better?


----------



## psolberg (Apr 19, 2012)

JR said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > marekjoz said:
> ...



They normalize by resizing files to the same size. This is similar to what printing does. Thus the per pixel advantage of 100% crops does not help the lower resolution body. If you do a lot of 100% crops, then no doubt the 5D3 will be better. However I'm not sure 100% crops are what most people sell.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2012)

bornshooter said:


> DXO is run by nikon fanboys take this with a very very very small pinch of salt!



Ahhh...and you have proof to support that serious allegation?

Honestly, everyone should take a step back and consider what the DxOMark scores mean - and don't mean. They are quite transparent about their scoring metrics and methods, and there's no reason to suspect there's collusion or favoritism occurring. At the same time, it's important to remember that the sensor score is just that - a score of the sensor itself, not a 'camera score'. 

Furthermore, keep in mind that all of their *scores are based on reducing the image to 8 MP *- thus, the greater the starting resolution the more downsampling, which means lower apparent noise. That lower apparent noise means _apparently_ better ISO performance and _apparently_ more dynamic range (lower apparent noise lowers the 'floor' for the DR estimate). If you like, you can substitute 'artifically inflated' for 'apparently'. 

They have a page describing the mathematics of the normalization to 8 MP, and on that page, there's the following statement:

_What should be remembered is that doubling the resolution adds:
3dB to the normalized SNR
0.5 bit to the normalized DR
0.5 bit to the normalized TR
1.5 bit to the normalized CS._

So, compared to 8 MP the D800 is 4.5-fold higher (just over two doublings), whereas the 5DIII is 2.75-fold higher (just over one doubling). What that means, mathematically, is that the D800 has approximately one extra doubling of resolution relative to DxOMark's 8 MP normalized value - that accounts for all of the differences in the scores for both ISO and Color Depth, and part of the difference in dynamic range. 

Note that DxOMark _does_ provide the non-normalized data, they just don't use those data to calculate the overall scores, the rationale being that normalizing to 8 MP allows appropriate comparisons. In one sense, it does - if you're going to print 8x10" images all the time, then their scores actually apply pretty well.

Let me give a specific example for color sensitivity, which is the basis for DxOMark's Portrait Score. That's one area where the D800 with 25.3 bits 'beats' the 5DIII with 24-bits. Below is the comparison _without_ normalizing to 8 MP, where you can see that the D800's advantage pretty much entirely disappears.


----------



## tomscott (Apr 19, 2012)

Well if Canon did make such a mess of it go buy the Nikon whos stopping you?

Its amazing how much fire there is here! The D800 isnt good enough to trade in thousands of £ of lenses for, when the 5D MKII came out we were all amazed with 22mp! Not only does it provide fantastic IQ it provides a good file size. Its more than 90% of photographers need. How many who would use a DSLR print bigger than A1? If you do you need to go medium format for crisp images. 

IMO Canon made the best all round camera you can buy! The differences we are talking are so minuscule, unless you need the resolution then the Canon is much better IMO. All this crop rubbish, if you need to crop that far with an image you need to go back to basics.

There are going to be bad reviews, and poor testing just calm down. 

*OMG 81% THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## squarebox (Apr 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me give a specific example for color sensitivity, which is the basis for DxOMark's Portrait Score. That's one area where the D800 with 25.3 bits 'beats' the 5DIII with 24-bits. Below is the comparison _without_ normalizing to 8 MP, where you can see that the D800's advantage pretty much entirely disappears.



As always thanks for the level headed explanation. I was surprised that the canon scored so low, but it is good to know that these cameras aren't so night and day apart as far as the sensor goes.


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 19, 2012)

Thanks for the explanation neuro!


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 19, 2012)

The SNR test is also very reveling once you move from "print" to "screen". The 5D3 jumps out ahead.


----------



## steven63 (Apr 19, 2012)

How many people here that are bashing DxO for the results would NOT be bashing their results had they come in higher than the D800?

None of this 'it's how they weight their tests' or 'different results from different software users' would even be mentioned on this site if the scores were more respectable.

This is classic 'kill the messenger' tactics.


----------



## Mike Miami (Apr 19, 2012)

atvinyard said:


> I think people are forgetting that this is a sensor score, not a score for the whole camera. The D800 has a better sensor, but does it have better features, controls, autofocus capabilities, frame rates? Are the lenses available for it better?




^^^ Well said!! ^^^


----------



## traveller (Apr 19, 2012)

It will be interesting to see just how the 1D X sensor fares when it is tested. I've got a sneaking suspicion that Canon really haven't done an awful lot to the 21MP sensor design to produce the 22MP version in the 5D MkIII. If true, one would wonder whether this is a deliberate ploy to protect the 1D X or simply concentrating resources on other projects.


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



kozakm said:


> To be honest, I’m not that suprised. The biggest disappointment is banding and color blotches in the shadows even in ISO 100 and very small improvement compared to 5D II.


The only test i've seen banding and color blotches in, they took a shot underexposed, then added 4-5 stops of exposure to show the banding & blotches. I'm fine in most cases with pixel peeping, but seriously, there is no real world example to when you would need to push the exposure that far. Those kinds of tests are rubbish.


----------



## peederj (Apr 19, 2012)

Given neuro's explanation, quite a bit of the 5d3 advantage over the 5d2's DxO score would be similarly the increase from 21 to 22MP...something we would find photographically irrelevant but would be picked up on this test.

And given that effect, Canon's sensor technology didn't exactly improve on a Moore's law rate. The Jpeg in-camera processing did though. 

If the lenses were freely interchangeable a lot of the hysteria would go away. I am happy enough with the 5d3 for stills. I look forward to more quantification of the 5d3 vs others.


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bornshooter said:
> 
> 
> > DXO is run by nikon fanboys take this with a very very very small pinch of salt!
> ...


serious allegation lol yeah take me to court hahaha liste neuro you go play with your charts im going out shooting!


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 19, 2012)

anyway if people here are so disappointed with the results sell all your gear and go to nikon we wont miss you here let me know where you advertise your second hand stuff


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 19, 2012)

All the DXO score tells us (if you even believe it) is that at 8MP in perfect lighting, the Nikon D800 SENSOR is a bit better in certain areas. This test should make DXO rethink their testing though as a result of the Nikon resulting in higher sports high iso results when there isn't a single photographer that would ever say that. The D800 may be impressively close, but it isn't better in photos at high ISO speeds. 

What I really want to know is how the Nikon competes at 36MP...that is going to tell me what I want to know which is if it was better for Nikon to put a 36MP chip into the camera or stick with the smaller 16MP chip in the D4. The DXO result is like saying a Ferrari is worse at high speeds to a Lexus because while running the test at a top speed of 40mph, the Lexus ran smoother compared to the Ferrari. I bet my lexus would be better at towing than a F150 if you ran a test towing 20lb worth of bicycles. Try towing 3000lb and tell me which one wins. Stupid DXO tells me nothing I want to know.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 19, 2012)

traveller said:


> It will be interesting to see just how the 1D X sensor fares when it is tested. I've got a sneaking suspicion that Canon really haven't done an awful lot to the 21MP sensor design to produce the 22MP version in the 5D MkIII. If true, one would wonder whether this is a deliberate ploy to protect the 1D X or simply concentrating resources on other projects.


I still think the 5d3 sensor has been improved "significantly" - just not as significantly as the d800. The high ISO DR is better. Pattern noise has been reduced.

I do wonder if you're right though - maybe they left some of the improvements for the 1dx. That may prove to have been a mistake.

Regardless of the fact that I think the 5d3 is an amazing camera, I do think the market will be more impressed with the d800 'cos they don't really look at the camera as a whole. In that regard, Canons marketing has messed up.


----------



## ctmike (Apr 19, 2012)

The numbers are the numbers; the approach seems reasonable... for the specific conditions they test. It's still related to the sensor only, and it doesn't take away from the generally awesome performance of the MkIII.

Canon does have a significant marketing problem on their hands now, though. People are going to read today and for the foreseeable future that : Nikon Sensor > Canon Sensor, Nikon 36MP > Canon 24MP, and D800 costs less than MkIII. Most people aren't going to get in to many philosophical debates about what the DxOMark scores actually mean, they are going to see the above and buy Nikon. Quite frankly, Canon is going to have this problem at the low end as well, with whatever they release to compete against the D3200. 

I love Canon, but they got caught with their pants down, marketing-wise. Doesn't mean that their cameras take bad pictures. But taking great pictures is only part of the story when people decide what to buy.


----------



## kozakm (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



dswatson83 said:


> The only test i've seen banding and color blotches in, they took a shot underexposed, then added 4-5 stops of exposure to show the banding & blotches. I'm fine in most cases with pixel peeping, but seriously, there is no real world example to when you would need to push the exposure that far. Those kinds of tests are rubbish.



Not true. You definitely don't need to add 4 to 5 stops. And real world example? Shooting at the bright sunlight with deep shadows. I also tried several Nikon raw files and din't notice behavior like this.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

Personally, I think DXO provides a valuable service in posting their findings.

That said, two things: first, don't expect anything meaningful out of a single number (i.e. DXO mark) and second, when you DO look at the details, it's a good idea to keep things in perspective (i.e. the scale of the graphs matters):

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/767%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon

As we can see from the Measurements:

1) ISO sesitivity - no meaningful differences except the total range (5D3 beats D800 and D4 beats 5D3)

2) SNR 18% - no meaningful difference except high ISO (5D3 beats D800 and D4 beats 5D3)

3) Dynamic range - some meaningfull differences where D4 wins it all, D800 beats 5D3 below ISO 2400, 5D3 beats D800 above ISO 2400

4) Tonal range - some slightly meaningfull differences where D4 wins it all, D800 seems to beat 5D3 below ISO 2400, 5D3 seems to beat D800 above ISO 2400 and of course 5D3 extends the total range over D800

5) Color sensitivity - some meaningfull differences where D4 loses to D800 below ISO 360 and 5D3 beats D800 above ISO 16000

Bottom line is three fantastic cameras, just take your pick and be happy!


----------



## AJ (Apr 19, 2012)

well, here, how I look at it.

The camera: it is what it is.

The dxo score: hopefully it'll put some pressure on for Canon to lower the price, sooner rather than later.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 19, 2012)

ctmike said:


> I love Canon, but they got caught with their pants down, marketing-wise.



Yes, success leads to complacency. 
Just like the big trouble Nokia is in now. They had 37% of the whole cellphone market a couple of years ago, now they're #2 after Samsung and losing speed fast.

Situation:
2 Canon guys, from R&D and Sales, are sitting out in the sun, taking a (really long) break.
Something yellow and black comes by at tremendous speed, so fast they can't really tell what it was.
"A bumblebee, maybe?" says one.
"Yeah, I guess."
And they go on relaxing.

What was it? 
Nikon, going really fast.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2012)

skitron said:


> 1) ISO sesitivity - no meaningful differences except the total range (5D3 beats D800 and D4 beats 5D3)



Just to call this one out, DxOMark's ISO Sensitivity measurement isn't measuring what most people think it's measuring. It has no direct bearing on ISO noise performance (but an indirect one, see below). The name is perhaps misleading, maybe better to call it 'ISO Accuracy' or 'ISO Fidelity'. What this test measures is the _real_ ISO value (benchmarked against the actual International Organization for Standardization's criteria) vs. the ISO setting on the camera, or to put it another way, it measures how much the camera lies to you when you pick a given ISO setting. 

In the plot you can see that for ISO 50 and ISO 100, the dots for the 5DIII, D800, and D4 are all stacked on top of each other, and they're all at ISO 75 for both settings. What that means is all three cameras are lying to you in exactly the same way - whether you set ISO 50 or ISO 100 for your shot, the exposure is actually at around ISO 75 and then pushed or pulled by the camera as needed, although the ISO value you selected is what's actually recorded in the metadata. This lying is not new or unique - both Canon and Nikon do it routinely for fast lenses, where the incident angle of the light exceeds the refracting capability of the microlenses and exposure is 'secretly' boosted to compensate (i.e. about 1/2 stop of the light coming in at f/1.2-1.4 is not detected by a digital sensor, so the camera boosts the ISO half a stop - meaning half a stop more noise - without telling you).

Perhaps of a bit more significance is the way this plays out - if you compare just the D800 to the 5DIII and look at the ISO Sensitivity plot, you can see that the D800 is a little further off the nominal value at all the settings, with more separation at the higher ISOs. In other words, the D800 lies to you a little more than the 5DIII (but the 5DIII is still lying). For example, when you set both cameras to ISO 6400, the D800 is actually shooting at ISO 4211 (it's lying by 2/3-stop), whereas the 5DIII is actually shooting at ISO 5179 (it's lying by only 1/3-stop). Translation - artificial advantage for the D800 because it's shooting at a lower actual ISO than the 5DIII for a given setting.



skitron said:


> Bottom line is three fantastic cameras, just take your pick and be happy!



This is the take home message!


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > 1) ISO sesitivity - no meaningful differences except the total range (5D3 beats D800 and D4 beats 5D3)
> ...




Oh, I fully agree. And as you pointed out, it further drives home the idea that you have to pay attention to what was actually posted.


----------



## bp (Apr 19, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Nikon, going really fast.



"Nikon, going real fast"?

The DxO just tests the sensor. Sony makes the D800 sensor, not Nikon. Shouldn't all this fanboi love be giving Sony the credit? All Nikon did was stick it in a camera "system", that by all other accounts is far inferior.

So... Way to go Sony! Too bad Nikon f#@%ed it up by putting it in that body, but very nice job on the sensor.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > 1) ISO sesitivity - no meaningful differences except the total range (5D3 beats D800 and D4 beats 5D3)
> ...



No Sir, this is incorrect. Your technical explanations so far have been stellar, but here you're wrong. The 'ISO accuracy' you menton is a different measurement altogether.

Quote from DxOMark concerning what their 'Sports (Low-Light ISO)' measures:

"Sports & action photography: Low-Light ISO

....Photojournalists and action photographers often struggle with low available light and high motion. Achieving usable image quality is often difficult when pushing ISO.

When shooting a moving scene such as a sports event, action photographers’ primary objective is to freeze the motion, giving priority to short exposure time. To compensate for the lack of exposure, they have to increase the ISO setting, which means the SNR will decrease. How far can they go while keeping decent quality? Our low-light ISO metric will tell them.

The SNR indicates how much noise is present in an image compared to the actual information (signal). The higher the SNR value, the better the image looks, because details aren't drowned by noise. SNR strength is given in dB, which is a logarithmic scale: an increase of 6 dB corresponds to doubling the SNR, which equates to half the noise for the same signal.

An SNR value of 30dB means excellent image quality. Thus low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits."


----------



## psolberg (Apr 19, 2012)

bp said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon, going really fast.
> ...



apple designs the iphone, foxconn makes it. Nikon designed the sensor, sony makes it.


----------



## kozakm (Apr 19, 2012)

psolberg said:


> apple designs the iphone, foxconn makes it. Nikon designed the sensor, sony makes it.



To be correct, Nikon designed some supporting circuitry around the sensor, not the sensor itself...


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

So I wonder where all the D4 owners are screaming about how D800 kills it in color sensitivity below ISO ~360? Tt's a total embarassment I say!!!


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 19, 2012)

bp said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon, going really fast.
> ...



Boringggg.....

I'm talking about Nikon working hard to trump their competitors by making smart moves, and Canon doing other things because they're too complacent and comfortable. If Canon decides to make their own sensors and loses market share because of it, that's known as a marketing mistake. Simple.

Case in point: Nikon D3200. Higher resolution than any Canon ever made and it's their CHEAPEST model in the new line. The image quality is apparently darn good. Yes, I now it's DX, but it's still remarkable - and a brilliant move.

If Canon wants to avoid a disastrous loss in market share they need to DO something, not sit on their behinds.

I've worked with R&D and I know exactly how this works, how companies do well and then relax. And lose.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 19, 2012)

kozakm said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > apple designs the iphone, foxconn makes it. Nikon designed the sensor, sony makes it.
> ...



source?


----------



## hungp (Apr 19, 2012)

From DxOMark: "low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits"
I reviewed the chart and found though SNR chart are almost the same, 5D iii did not pass the terms "while".
The fact is who really care of color depth and dynamic range in low light real world? how many color and how much light in the dark?

I am not sure why DxO so bias like this? or is this just a trick from Nikon to break the benchmark?


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 19, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > skitron said:
> ...



You quoted the description for the SNR%18 result which is not what Neuro was talking about. He was explaining the ISO Sensitivity portion.


----------



## hungp (Apr 19, 2012)

hungp said:


> From DxOMark: "low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits"
> I reviewed the chart and found though SNR chart are almost the same, 5D iii did not pass the terms "while".
> The fact is who really care of color depth and dynamic range in low light real world? how many color and how much light in the dark?
> 
> I am not sure why DxO so bias like this? or is this just a trick from Nikon to break the benchmark?



I think DxOMark consider the benchmarked ISO, not the "lied" ISO.


----------



## Renato (Apr 19, 2012)

If you are looking for good files to compare then go here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A7.HTM
and
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiA7.HTM

I have found this site a great source for a FAIR comparison. 
My personal choice goes for 5D Mark3, I have one on order.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 19, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> You quoted the description for the SNR%18 result which is not what Neuro was talking about. He was explaining the ISO Sensitivity portion.



The text I quoted from DxO is their own description of how they test for "Sports (Low-Light ISO)". Which is the ISO value given in the sensor scores (2293 ISO in the case of the 5DMkIII).
Read their tech texts.


----------



## hungp (Apr 19, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > You quoted the description for the SNR%18 result which is not what Neuro was talking about. He was explaining the ISO Sensitivity portion.
> ...



Now I can sure Nikon sensor "better" in Sport-Low light because of it has a better Color depth (17 vs 18) which my eyes can not see any differences, especially in the low light situation, my 5d iii is great and I just don't care DxO any more.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 19, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > You quoted the description for the SNR%18 result which is not what Neuro was talking about. He was explaining the ISO Sensitivity portion.
> ...



I know what you did. But that has nothing to do with what he was explaining.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 19, 2012)

Renato said:


> If you are looking for good files to compare then go here:
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A7.HTM
> and
> ...



there is no such thing as "good" or bad. It is just different way of looking at things. The problem with that site is that it is a pixel to pixel crop comparison. you need to compare equal sizes to get a better idea of actual performance in real life since after all, your final output targets a print size, not a resolution. DXO's method is similar to the site below
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-review#iso_performance
(click next to see 5d3 vs d800).
conclusion from the review:

_As you can see, the Nikon D800 sensor has no competition, even from its biggest rival, the Canon 5D Mark III. Although the Canon 5D Mark III shows impressive levels of noise at lower ISO levels, it still cannot quite match what the D800 can do. Don’t forget that there is also a big resolution difference between the two – the Nikon D800 is 36.3 MP, while the Canon 5D Mark III is 22.3 MP. 
_

therefore pixel to pixel comparisons, while they do show the strengths of the 5DmkIII, aren't the only metric and whenever downsizing is involved, the D800 pulls ahead.


----------



## ippikiokami (Apr 19, 2012)

kozakm said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > apple designs the iphone, foxconn makes it. Nikon designed the sensor, sony makes it.
> ...



Totally wrong here

Look at the last few Sony DSLR's + Sony sensor announcements and see how Nikon's come AFTER things are announced or released. If you think that's just a coincidence then you are really wearing blinders. 

And even the first part of your analogy. foxconn puts it together. For example. The sensor in the Iphone 4s is well known to be a Sony 8mp.


----------



## altenae (Apr 19, 2012)

Go outside use the camera.
Nikon or Canon or whatever.

These BS numbers are not going to change the picture taken for 99,99 % of us.

Sorry for the word,but Come on GET REAL. 

-----
www.wildlife-photos.net
www.scramble.nl
www.planepix.nl


----------



## photosites (Apr 19, 2012)

kozakm said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > apple designs the iphone, foxconn makes it. Nikon designed the sensor, sony makes it.
> ...



I believe the relationship between Nikon and Sony is more like Apple and LG (or whoever their screen supplier is now), not Apple and Foxconn

LG develops the technology in display, manufactures it according to some specification and Apple uses it in their products. No shame and not issue in that in my opinion.

What really annoys me is this DXOMark scoring thing...

They come up with a bunch of numbers, without any correlation to any pictures to illustrate any perceptible differences in image quality as a result to whatever score difference they claim between cameras.

They claim the D800 is so much better at high ISO than the 5D3 when all the sample pictures point at most to a draw. They claim the D800 has so much better DRange than the 5D3 when changing the modes of the camera brings about such a huge difference in DRange measurements. One only has to play around with dpreview's DRange comparison charts to realize that.

They claim that their measurement is purely on the sensors and does not take into consideration image processing, lens and other peripherals.

How would one take a picture without these mentioned peripherals, may I ask? And if one uses all these peripherals to take a picture in real life, what is the purpose of throwing out a bunch of numbers which may not even be relevant in real life?

I think all these arguments about DXOMark scores is embarrassing to say the least. It is like a bunch of kids arguing over whose father is taller. If there needs for an argument, photographers should go out and take photos and then argue about whose pay check is bigger ;D


----------



## ippikiokami (Apr 19, 2012)

Would love to see how many people raise their hands when they are asked "When is your final output for your clients 8mp?"


----------



## rpschnerp (Apr 19, 2012)

I have a 5dM3 and was a little impatient waiting for the DXO results (should I return it and wait months for a D800, etc.). My main concern has been DR, where again Canon _appears_ to come up short. Last night, before the DXO results were released, I did a little test, comparing the 5DM3 with a Nikon D7000, which actually scores just about the same as the D800 for DR (14EV at ISO50).

I chose a nice challenging, contrasty scene with a lot of bright sky and deep shadows. I used same focal length (obv. not the same lens) and same exposure (also corrected for white balance). I then processed in LR4 with the express intent of pulling as much detail from shadows and highlights. I could pull a lot more out of the highlights on the 5DM3 image and ended up with an image that was HDR-like, while the D7000 image still had a blown-out sky. The 5DM3 image also just flat-out looked better, color-wise and tonally (several family members agreed.) It feels like this DR business is not adequately describing what one might see in the real world. What am I missing??


----------



## skyscape (Apr 19, 2012)

Killing the messenger, denial, and everything in between is not the way to solve a problem. When the dust settles, DXOmark score will remain standing. 

I remember number of years ago when Nikon fanboys were in the same situation when DXOmark scores came out. Canon's rise in market share proved DXOmark right. The opposite is happening now. Nikon is gaining back its market share. The D3/D700 generation set the bench mark for ISO, and D800 has set the bench mark for IQ. 

We can squint, cry, yell, throw our camera out of the window, and do other such things, but the DXO mark score will remain up there for the world to see, and you cannot change it.

Having said that, I've put up my 5DII for sale and pre-order D800. Sorry folks this time the grass on the other side is truly green. You can't beat or deny 95 score for D800 and my photog friends have confirmed that D800 is "a game changer".


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 19, 2012)

rpschnerp said:


> The 5DM3 image also just flat-out looked better, color-wise and tonally (several family members agreed.)


Sounds like hard science to me!


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 19, 2012)

skyscape said:


> It's a bad day for Canon, and especially for all the canon fanboys.
> Killing the messenger, denial, and everything in between is not the way to solve a problem. When the dust settles, DXOmark score will remain standing.
> 
> I remember number of years ago when Nikon fanboys were in the same situation when DXOmark scores came out. Canon's rise in market share proved DXOmark right. The opposite is happening now. Nikon is gaining back its market share. The D3/D700 generation set the bench mark for ISO, and D800 has set the bench mark for IQ.
> ...


I agree, but not being a "passionate enough" photographer to justify a D800, I'll just wait for a new crop Nikon (D5200 or D7100, not the D3200) before to jump ship: so I'll be a Canon "fun boy" still for one year or so, unless...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > You quoted the description for the SNR%18 result which is not what Neuro was talking about. He was explaining the ISO Sensitivity portion.
> ...



I have, and I suggest that you are misreading them. I was not discussing the "Sports (Low-Light ISO)" testing, but rather what they call ISO Sensitivity, which is one of their In-Depth Measurements that you can read about here, and is completely different from the Sports (Low-Light ISO) Score you're talking about, which is one of their Use-Case Scores and is described here instead. Please read a little more carefully, and post back if the difference is still unclear.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 19, 2012)

dichiaras said:


> rpschnerp said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DM3 image also just flat-out looked better, color-wise and tonally (several family members agreed.)
> ...



ROFL! Just what I thought.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > EYEONE said:
> ...



Apologies! You're quite right. 
No, I didn't misread them - I misread you. You were indeed discussing something else than Low-Light ISO. Apologies again.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

skyscape said:


> Killing the messenger, denial, and everything in between is not the way to solve a problem. When the dust settles, DXOmark score will remain standing.



DxOMark Overall Nikon D4 - 89

DxOMark Overall Nikon D800 - 95

Go ahead and convince yourself that a D800 is better than a D4... 

As you said, it's there for all the world to see.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Apologies! You're quite right.
> No, I didn't misread them - I misread you. You were indeed discussing something else than Low-Light ISO. Apologies again.




No worries. DxOMark's ISO Sensitivity ≠ Sports (Low-Light ISO), which is exactly the point I was making about the confusion stemming from naming it ISO Sensitivity - that name seems to correspond to what you're talking about, ISO noise performance, when in fact, it doesn't. It's confusing, and apparently you fell victim to that confusion.


----------



## hungp (Apr 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > Apologies! You're quite right.
> ...


Right, 5D3's SNR chart is almost the same as D800, it is "ISO noise performance". In term of "Sports (Low-Light ISO)", 5D3 fails on CS chart. Canon did not met 18bits barrier at higher ISO.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > Apologies! You're quite right.
> ...



No, I thought you were adressing the way they measure their ISO score, the one in the Sensor Scores table where 5DMkIII gets 2293 ISO. 
The other thing you were discussing is a different issue, I just missed that you were talking about something else.


----------



## t.linn (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



MattBicePhotography said:


> Someone on here said it best, "When all this hype has died down in two years 90% of pros will be shooting with the 5D3 over the D800, just like the 5D2 over and D700 and all Canon over Nikons"



Canon's inertia will only carry it so far. Half a decade ago it was Canon who had this kind of lead over Nikon and it cost Nikon dearly. The worm has turned and I believe Canon's complacency will cost them dearly if they don't focus on image quality. Canon's _sensors_ are technically inferior. They haven't advanced their CMOS technology in a significant way in years.

Only folks with their heads buried in the sand should be surprised by these results. As many have pointed out since the first 5D3 RAW files started to appear, Canon has done nothing to improve their basic image quality coming off the sensor. This isn't to say that the 5D3 isn't a great DSLR; I own one and it is—but not because the sensor is significantly different from the one found in the 5D2.

The most disappointing measurement on this chart is the DR rating. The DR difference between the 5D3 and D800 is real, demonstrable, and discussed ad nauseum prior to the release of these results so I won't belabor that again except to say that the fact that this figure actually went _down _compared to the 5D2 is pathetic.

Of course, as the glass-half-fullers correctly point out, none of this is to say that the 5D3 isn't completely capable of producing breathtaking images. Yet the real issue in my mind is the fact that Sony/Nikon continue to advance the state-of-the-art in sensor tech while Canon seems focused on $30k cinema cameras. I wonder if anyone at Canon HQ has bothered to drop by their sensor R&D facility to make sure these guys are still showing up for work.


----------



## t.linn (Apr 19, 2012)

skitron said:


> DxOMark Overall Nikon D4 - 89
> 
> DxOMark Overall Nikon D800 - 95
> 
> Go ahead and convince yourself that a D800 is better than a D4...



You say that as though it is obvious that the D800 is _not _better than the D4. I would argue that for most purposes it _is _better, high ISO/low light shooting and high frame rate shooting being the exceptions in my mind.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

t.linn said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > DxOMark Overall Nikon D4 - 89
> ...



Well, there you have it then...D800 is better than D4. Nikon should remove D4 from the market since it clearly sucks and DxOMark proves it.


----------



## q3chap (Apr 19, 2012)

I hope, because the DxOMark test, everybody will buy the D800. Then Canon has to mark down the price, and I will buy the mark III when it has a price of 2000 eur


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 19, 2012)

skitron said:


> t.linn said:
> 
> 
> > skitron said:
> ...


That's indeed quite a good point: people should remind themselves that these are ratings of the sensor. I've never seen somebody shooting while holding just a sensor in one's hands. There are no numbers to describe how good the AF, ergonomics, weather sealing, etc. are, so while probably most of the people don't need all the features of a D4, it's certainly a better camera than the D800.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

q3chap said:


> I hope, because the DxOMark test, everybody will buy the D800. Then Canon has to mark down the price, and I will buy the mark III when it has a price of 2000 eur



LOL, we should hack DxO's site to give it an overall of 16. ;D


----------



## traveller (Apr 19, 2012)

skitron said:


> q3chap said:
> 
> 
> > I hope, because the DxOMark test, everybody will buy the D800. Then Canon has to mark down the price, and I will buy the mark III when it has a price of 2000 eur
> ...



I think that you guys are onto something here! 

Articles like this should help as well: 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415773-76/canon-5d-mark-iii-underwhelms-on-sensor-test/

All joking aside, I don't think that Canon is going to sell nearly as many 5D MkIIIs as they did its predecessor. The 'all the gear and no idea' crowd will be buying the D800 for the megapixel count (they won't even get as far as looking at DR or ISO -they didn't when it was the 5D MkII vs. the D700) and the filmmakers are now moving on to more suitable platforms, either RED EOS-C or the Sony FSxxx series. Disappointing sales figures may be a good thing for all of us, as it would put pressure on them to lower prices and/or R&D on sensors.


----------



## Mike Ca (Apr 19, 2012)

It is clear that Canon and Sony/Nikon have made different trade offs in their sensor design.

The Sony Exmor technology has the analog to digital converters (ADC) on the sensor chip. The Canon sensors take the analog signals off the sensor chip to an ADC in another chip. Very weak analog signals can pick up noise from the circuit boards. This is why the readout noise of the Canon sensors is higher than the Sony Exmor sensors and why the Sony Exmor sensors have better DR and lower deep shadow noise at low ISO.

So why doesn't Canon put the ADC on the sensor chip? There may be some patent issues, but I suspect the real reason is that the Sony Exmor technology has problems with video. The ADC on the sensor chip generate a lot of heat when the sensor is being read quickly, as in high frame rate video. Some Sony cameras that used Exmor have had problems with sensor over heating. Sony has fixed those issues in it most recent cameras. The fix probably involved better cooling for the sensor chip. 

In the D800 36MP Exmor sensor has an additional problem. You cannot read the whole sensor at 30 fps to do HD video. Nikon is using some kind of pixel skipping to reduce the amount of data that has to be read off the sensor. This means the D800 is not using the whole sensor area, even the whole area within the HD image, to generate its video signal. 

Canon has developed on sensor circuits that allow the analog signals of multiple pixels to be mixed for downs ampling to HD video resolution. Canon uses analog signals from the whole sensor area, at least the part that is in the HD aspect image. This allows the Canon sensors to give better high ISO video. 

Dan Chung from DPR said that up to ISO 1600 the D800 and 5DIII video noise was similar, but above 1600 the 5DIII clearly had lower noise.

Sony Exmor puts the ADC on the sensor for lower read noise and improved DR. Canon puts analog video down sampling circuits on the sensor for improved high ISO video.


----------



## smithy (Apr 19, 2012)

While I was initially shocked by the score of 81, particularly after giving up the idea of buying a much cheaper used 1DS III in favour of the 5D III, I'm now not that bothered by it. I am hoping that it will prompt Canon to reduce the price of the camera to be the same as the D800, but I don't think it's going to happen.

I've seen the photos from the 5D and they look great. It is _obviously_ better at ISO1600+ photography, compared to the D800, so whatever testing methodology they are using is flawed.

I mean, how seriously can you take a review site like DXOMark when their 'hands-on review' of the 5D Mark III began with this statement:

_"Here is a first review based on the specifications and our first impressions..."_

Don't they know what a hands-on review is...?


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

smithy said:


> ...so whatever testing methodology they are using is flawed.



I don't think DxOMark is so much flawed as it's just formulated to reflect what they personally think is important to them. 

They obviously don't think extended ISO is very important and that is why D4 and 5D3 lag behind in their scores compared to D800.

Obviously both Nikon and Canon feel there is a customer base that feels high ISO is very important and will buy accordingly - hence the models offered.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 19, 2012)

skitron said:


> Well, there you have it then...D800 is better than D4. Nikon should remove D4 from the market since it clearly sucks and DxOMark proves it.


Ridiculous. 
The D4 has 3 specific and significant advantages for pros with specific needs, such as sports and news:

Astronomical ISO 
Very high fps
Fantastic build quality and sealing. 

For them, these are critical factors.
Since it is not possible to build a 36MP camera with high ISO and high fps (yet), they have to make a choice and do without the high MP. 
For most other photographers, these three issues are less significant and not worth extra dollars.

One day in the fairly near future it will be possible to have your cake and eat it - 36MP, 10 fps and 50K ISO. It's just a matter of time.

The exact same arguments apply of course to comparisons between 1Dx and 5DMkIII.


----------



## q3chap (Apr 19, 2012)

traveller said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > q3chap said:
> ...



Maybe, we all should create homepages, where we can praise the D800 

The one thing I have to complain about is the price policy of Canon. 3300 Euro for the MIII. 2300 Euro for the 24-70 L II. Unbeliveable. This su.... 

Till now, i am very happy with my MII.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 19, 2012)

DxO said:


> Phone cameras necessarily have tiny image sensors that can't capture as much light as the bigger sensors on compact cameras or the even bigger sensors of full-frame SLR cameras. But for a given surface area of image sensor, mobile phone cameras actually do better.



so all canon has to do is taking a mobile phone sensor and blow it up to fullframe.... and they would rule DxO mark.

hell that is a great idea.... i will just start calculating how many MP we will have then.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 19, 2012)

t.linn said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > DxOMark Overall Nikon D4 - 89
> ...



please remember that the DXO test only measures image quality. There are a lot of features the D4 has for the sports and action shooter that the D800 lacks. however image quality wise, the D800 IS indeed the better camera for most situtations.


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 19, 2012)

q3chap said:


> Till now, i am very happy with my MII.



Clearly you haven't been understanding this thread--all those pictures you've taken that you thought you loved now look much worse and you hate them.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 19, 2012)

> In the D800 36MP Exmor sensor has an additional problem. You cannot read the whole sensor at 30 fps to do HD video. Nikon is using some kind of pixel skipping to reduce the amount of data that has to be read off the sensor. This means the D800 is not using the whole sensor area, even the whole area within the HD image, to generate its video signal.


I hate to break it to you but no camera does, not even the 5DmkIII. as you say, has to do with data size. 36MP is a LOT of data to read in one pass. The D800 actually resolves more detail in video than the 5DmkIII as has been documented by EOSHD and other sites at the expense of moire. It's method also allows for less rolling shutter. It's a tradeoff.



> Canon has developed on sensor circuits that allow the analog signals of multiple pixels to be mixed for downs ampling to HD video resolution. Canon uses analog signals from the whole sensor area, at least the part that is in the HD aspect image. This allows the Canon sensors to give better high ISO video.



similar technology is no doubt present in sony video sensors. canon doesn't read the full sensor and downscales because of the amount of computational power required is beyond the abilities of their cameras. instead they pixel bin. pixel binning comes at a trade off in resolution as you can see.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii

neither canon nor nikon/sony have perfect video on their dslrs. Neither camera is even remotely close to a 1080p downsample of a full sensor readout. everything we have today is a compromise in one way or another.


----------



## Former Nikonian (Apr 19, 2012)

I was a nikonian in film era equipped with N90S, N 8008S bodies + SB25 speedlight + (were) high end Nikkor lenses. Because of situation, I have left phography since 2003. However, my eyes still have been following the progress from SLR to DSLR. I have a little changed my view from Nikon to Canon since the first time I had a chance physically seeing a Nikon and a Canon DSLR bodies sitting side by side in a camera store years ago. 
In my point of view, the Nikon looked cheap because of the orange stripe on left front. And I started loosing my love with Nikon.
Now, my situation has changed and I have opprtunity to come back with my love photogaphy. I was thinking and reading a lot of reviews online to choose among Nikon or Canon or Sony as it was an expensive investment in hobby (I was a Pro but have not been earning in photogaphy since the situation told above). After months of considering, I dropped Sony and paid attention on 2 new comers for my come back: D800 and 5D Mk iii
Finally, last night, I placed oderd 5d Mk iii and 2 L lenses. Why?:
- D800 looks cheap because the orange stripe as my view of aesthetics.
- I do not like the pop-up flash. It does not help much but is annoying, and looks cheap as well. As a Pro, external speedlight was always at my side.
- My composition used to be tight and in purpose. I do not shoot randomly then crop a lot later so I do not need extreme high MP. If 36 MP were good, it would be in D4.
- I used to take pictures in early morning and late afternoon and evening, so low light is a issue to me. 5D Mk iii gives me the convenience. I can rarely use speedlight.
- I am not biased by reviews online. I judged on my own eyes, especially the comparison on www.imaging-resource.com.
I am sad to leave Nikon and happy to join Canon.


----------



## revup67 (Apr 19, 2012)

In Addition, did anyone catch this inaccuracy within the article?

In the first section of the article it states:

*New Digic 5+ processor and bursts*

_... because while the DIGIC 5 is 17 times more rapid than the DIGIC 4, the DIGIC 5+ is 3 times more rapid than the DIGIC 5. Still..._

However on the next page it states:

_The latest-generation DIGIC 5+ processor, announced as being up to 17 times faster than the Digic 5 (which itself was 3 times faster than the EOS 5D Mark II’s DIGIC 4)._

How much credence can one have based on these inaccuracies ? The old adage comes to mind.."don't believe everything you read"

Rev

Anthony


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 19, 2012)

That's it, I'm sending my 5DIII back. I really like this camera, it produces amazing images, and the build quality and ergonomics are superb, but obviously these DxO scores are more important than my hand-on impressions of using it in the field.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 19, 2012)

*DxO results out for 5D3*

Despite all the incredible bashing and troll call outs (and worse) given to those who said the numbers for the new camera's sensors would turn out a certain way, well it turns out that DxO matches virtually exactly the predictions so maybe all those methods were not faulty or trolling after all? :

(check the DxO site for all the finer details and complete reports up and down the ISO scales.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/483%7C0/(brand3)/Canon

There is one extra curious thing though about their results though. As I've long said it is best to ignore their overall sensor ratings since they use some weird weighting of this and that which isn't really useful for most people since there is little chance that what you care about will exactly match their weightings. I've also said to be slightly wary of even their sectional overall ratings at times, due to weightings again, although they often hadn't been that bad before. Their plots are where they've had the good stuff, just look at their measurements section. But the weird thing is this time their overall sectional rating is so weird for low-light sports.

They gave the 5D3 a much lower sectional overall mark for that than D800. I think they rated it a tiny bit closer to the 5D2 than the D800 even for high ISO and yet if you look at all of their charts I don't see how they (sensibly) came up with that. They give the overall low-light sports win to the D800 by a large margin. How? Based on what? Something a little odd with that.... they punished the 5D3 for reducing the color-filter array, making it more color-blind, it probably is fair to push it for that since it has the worst metamerism ratings I've ever seen for a DSLR from what I recall, but OTOH in the real world usage the way they weight things exaggerated it all a bit I think so I think it rather overstates the apparent usable difference quite a lot, although it's probably useful to keep the camera makers honest, the filter has now been reduced as far as you'd ever want to go and it is true Nikon gets to the same noise level while using a less color blind filter)

Anyway they report that for base ISO dynamic range that the D800 has 2.5 stops better DR at base ISO (even more usable, but they don't take banding into account) than the 5D2 and that the 5D2 measures 0.12 stops more than the 5D3 (although the 5D3 usable is probably a trace more, but once you are talking 1/4,1/8th stops it's all meaningless anyway, IF the vertical banding can be removed with special software the 5D3 might end up with .25 to .4 or so more usable than the 5D2). (i.e. 100% exactly as predicted by all the incompetent trolls  as were much of the rest below)

I reallllllly wish we had been wrong though. This is the one area where the 5D3 blew it. Not one bit of progress for maximum dynamic range since the 1Ds3.... almost half a decade ago. And the camera scores even more color-blind than the 5D2 overall!

--------------
And DxO says that the 5D3 rates each ISO more conservatively than the 5D2 had. So, for instance, ISO3200 on the 5D3 is actually higher than ISO3200 on the 5D2 is so if you compare the two straight up you are actually under selling the 5D3 advantage over the 5D2 a little bit.
--------------
And DxO says that SNR is about 2/3 stops better than the 5D2 (and about the same as the D800). This is actually a really good result. It may not sound like much, but as many had been trying to say, talk of 1.5 to 2 to 3 stops better SNR was just not realistic or even theoretically possible. This brings the 5D3 into a few way tie (with D4 and D800 and D3s, the D3s drops out at ISO100 since it doesn't have that) for the best SNR across the board of any consumer camera ever (although the Canon seems to have to become a bit more color-blind than the others to do this).
-------------------------------------
And DxO says that the high ISO DR of the 5D3 is better than that of the 5D2, by a noticeable amount starting around ISO2000 and up (more than a stop better at the very high ISOs). And that it does better than D800 from around ISO5000 and up in that regard. This very much matches Aglet's chart predictions from a couple days ago, although is chart seems to have exaggerated all of the differences by almost a factor of two, across the board for some reason. Maybe something to do with LR?? But the pattern was exactly as his chart suggested.
----------------
Some had speculated that the 5D3 might have slightly better color sensitivity than the 5D2 and it does, although the difference is smaller than expected and surprisingly the D800 has a bit of an advantage here across the board, well at least ISO1600 and under, fairly surprising.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

(going by manufacturer ISOs and not rated ISOs in terms of when talking about various ranges)

In summary 5D3 vs 5D2:

5D3 has a full 2/3 stop better SNR across most of the range, expanding to a somewhat great than 1 stop advantage at ISO25,600. Considering how close the 5D2 already was to theoretical best, that is a really solid improvement, and realistically just about everything one could have hoped for. I'm really glad it did turn out to be the 100% full 2/3 stop better and not the more or less meaningless 1/4-1/3 stop some had feared. ;D We got everything that was realistically possible here. ;D

5D3 has better DR than the 5D2 from ISO2000 and up (but sadly not one touch better below ISO2000), although not much in it until ISO3200+.

5D3 has basically the same MP count.

5D3 has better color sensitivity than the 5D2 although it's basically a meaninglessly small improvement until you get to ISO6400 or so and even then it's not all that significant until you get above 12,800 where it does do significanty better in this regard.

The 5D3 has one of the worst metamerism scores I've seen though for daylight, much worse yet than even the 5D2, so it will blend even more shades together than the 5D2 did. However, it trades blue for red so it might actually handle pure reds better than the 5D2 although blues worse, so for reds and red-greens it should do better but for blues and blue greens it should do worse. In some ways I think red and red orange may matter more so in the end perhaps it would be a wash and not actually be any worse, maybe even a touch better?? Really hard to say. It's a very complex business and I don't have enough to go on. Have to think about it more. But overall it is one of the most color-blind of all DSLR it seems. They probably had to cheat to match the top SNR using older sensor technology.


---------------------------------------
LOW ISO ISO100-200: nothing doing sadly, wow, still can't believe they did nothing here, I had taken it as a given it would be so much better here prior to the first samples 
(The 2/3 better SNR perhaps mean you can sharpen it a bit more aggressively though? might be rather more color-blind though? maybe a touch less so for red though???)
------
MID ISO ISO400-800: it's a minor update in image quality
(you should be able to sharpen 800 a bit more without getting noise and I guess 800 now becomes as 400 used to be an ISO where you simply don't worry about noise at all)
-----
HIGH ISO ISO1600+: it is a solid improvement, especially ISO2500+ and a very considerable improvement ISO25,600+
------------
The 5D3 has a better sensor (other than perhaps for certain color blindness, but it's hard issue to sort out), but it doesn't really matter much at all until you are above ISO800 for the most part.

The low ISO is a real let down, not only the same MP (maybe OK if they had to for speed/video) but then nothing with the dynamic range or color? They've just sat around and done nothing. D4 doesn't use any fancy Exmor patents and yet they have greatly improved the low ISO dynamic range on it. The low ISO lack of improvement on the 5D3 is the one area I had been expected a certain improvement and feel most let down about the whole camera.

The high ISO SNR is noticeably better though and tied for best ever. ;D


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Yawn. (NO offense to the OP)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

In summary 5D3 vs D800:

They have the same SNR across the board (although since you can apply NR better to high MP counts, the D800 would after advanced processing end up doing slightly better for SNR across the board).

The D800 has radically better dynamic range at ISO100 and the same still holds at ISO400. EVen at ISO800 is still noticeably better in that regard. By ISO2000 they are even though. By 25,800 the 5D3 is 1/2 stop ahead.

D800 has a noticeably higher MP count.

D800 has better color sensitivity through ISO800 then very modestly so above that.

D800 has a much better metamerism index for daylight appearing to be less color blind for blues and blue-greens. (for tungsten lighting all three also respond differently but the overall amount of shades they can tell apart are about the same)

IF you want to maintain the reach detail advantage of the D800 over the 5D3 and wonder how they would compare in that case (100% view) the D800 would have to give up 1/2 top to over a stop of DR at ISO3200+) and it would have the same color sensitivity and about 1/2 to 2/3 stop worse SNR but still retain hugely more dynamic range at any of the lower ISOs.

The D800 clearly has a better sensor without any question (other than with two caveats*).

*1. If you shoot almost everything at high ISO it won't be all that much better and you'll have to store much larger files.

2. If you need 6fps speed AND shoot mostly at high iso AND can frame the subject fully at FF size then the 5D3 is better since you get 6fps at FF while the D800 does 6fps only at 1.5c crop and 5fps at 1.2x crop so the 5D3 will certainly give you better image quality, without question, by a noticeable amount. (That said if you subject is too far to be framed as desired at FF then the advantage of the 5D3 goes awawy again since you are basically shooting both at 1.5x crop at that point. So even for low light sports it would only have much better image quality sometimes and in some cases it could have slightly worse.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

In summary 5D3 vs D4:

They have the same SNR (D4 much better at 100% view but that is not fair, normalized they are the same).

The D4 has very much better low ISO dynamic range (and they don't use Exmor, proving that Canon has no patent excuse here) and noticeably better hugh ISO DR. D4 simply has way better DR than the 5D3 across the board.

The D4 has much better color sensitivy.

The D4 has much better metamerism index.

The D4 has noticeably less MP.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

In summary overall:

Basically the D800,D4,D3s,5D3 are all tied for the best SNR ever (other than the D3s has higher base so it doesn't top out as well as the others at lowest ISO).

The D4 has the best non-Exmor DR ever by a large margin.

The D4 and D3s have the best high ISO DR of any cameras ever by a large margin.

The D800 has the best maximum DR ever, although some other Exmors are close, even some that are only APS-C.

The Canon DSLRs have the worst low ISO DR of all modern cameras.

The D4/D3s have the best color sensitivity ever.

The D800 has the most MP ever for DSLR. And then come the D3x/sony, 5D3/5D2.

The 24MP DX has most reach ever and then come stuff like the 7D.

For all the talk, the D3s really never had the most amazing low ISO though, lacking ISO100 and with a low MP count. At lowest ISO for each, it has DR only modestly better than the 5D3, many less MP, 2/3 stop worse SNR, a trace worse color sensitivity.

Modern cameras are all becoming more and more color-blind as they cheat more and more with color filter arrays, it seems like the 5D3 sinks to a new low for color-blindness, adding some blue-green to the red-green color-blindness (OTOH the R does need less boost than the 5D2 so the red/red-ornages might be a bit better than on the 5D2 which might make it a touch better for say fall foliage or the red-orange type? whereas maybe people don't care about telling fine blue apart as much?). It may be how they managed to tie the top Nikons for best SNR ever while still using somewhat older technology for the sensor, perhaps?? This whole issue is very complex and I'd really need to dig into all the detail much more.


overall (sensor only, not talking about actually shooting with them and fps/AF/user interface/usability , etc. just sensor and nothing else):
For super duper high ISO I'd rank them D4/D3s then 5D3 then D800 then 5D2.

For high ISO I'd rank them D4 then D800/D3s then 5D3 then 5D2.

For medium high ISO I'd rank them D800 then 5D3 then D4 then D3s/5D2.

For lowest ISO I'd rank them D800 then D4 or 5D3 (depends whether you need MP or DR more) then 5D2 (can go above D4 if MP are all that matter) then D3s. 

(overall ratings are dangerous, since sometimes DR and sometimes SNR and sometimes color and sometimes MP matter the most)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

And finally, especially since DxO does not count MP count as something contributing to a score, I absolutely fail to see how the D800 scores considerably higher for low-light sports overall rating on DxO than the 5D3. How? Where did they come up with that??? Honestly, well something doesn't seem honest about that almost. Very odd.


----------



## JR (Apr 19, 2012)

Former Nikonian said:


> I was a nikonian in film era equipped with N90S, N 8008S bodies + SB25 speedlight + (were) high end Nikkor lenses. Because of situation, I have left phography since 2003. However, my eyes still have been following the progress from SLR to DSLR. I have a little changed my view from Nikon to Canon since the first time I had a chance physically seeing a Nikon and a Canon DSLR bodies sitting side by side in a camera store years ago.
> In my point of view, the Nikon looked cheap because of the orange stripe on left front. And I started loosing my love with Nikon.
> Now, my situation has changed and I have opprtunity to come back with my love photogaphy. I was thinking and reading a lot of reviews online to choose among Nikon or Canon or Sony as it was an expensive investment in hobby (I was a Pro but have not been earning in photogaphy since the situation told above). After months of considering, I dropped Sony and paid attention on 2 new comers for my come back: D800 and 5D Mk iii
> Finally, last night, I placed oderd 5d Mk iii and 2 L lenses. Why?:
> ...



well welcome former nikonian!


----------



## JR (Apr 19, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> That's it, I'm sending my 5DIII back. I really like this camera, it produces amazing images, and the build quality and ergonomics are superb, but obviously these DxO scores are more important than my hand-on impressions of using it in the field.



humm...think you need the Canon AF system to track all your fast moving cars V8 beast. Thank god we all know you are being sarcastic! lol


----------



## Mike Ca (Apr 19, 2012)

psolberg said:


> > In the D800 36MP Exmor sensor has an additional problem. You cannot read the whole sensor at 30 fps to do HD video. Nikon is using some kind of pixel skipping to reduce the amount of data that has to be read off the sensor. This means the D800 is not using the whole sensor area, even the whole area within the HD image, to generate its video signal.
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you but no camera does, not even the 5DmkIII. as you say, has to do with data size. 36MP is a LOT of data to read in one pass. The D800 actually resolves more detail in video than the 5DmkIII as has been documented by EOSHD and other sites at the expense of moire. It's method also allows for less rolling shutter. It's a tradeoff.
> ...



Canon does its down sampling by combining analog signals on the sensor chip before the ADC. This allows them to use signals from all the area illuminated by the HD image. The D800 is apparently using pixel skipping to down sample, which uses only part of the sensor area illuminated by the HD image. This may give the D800 slightly better resolution at low ISO video, but at high ISO the 5DIII video is clearly better.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 19, 2012)

Former Nikonian said:


> Finally, last night, I placed oderd 5d Mk iii and 2 L lenses. Why?:
> - D800 looks cheap because the orange stripe as my view of aesthetics.
> - I do not like the pop-up flash. It does not help much but is annoying, and looks cheap as well. As a Pro, external speedlight was always at my side.
> - My composition used to be tight and in purpose. I do not shoot randomly then crop a lot later so I do not need extreme high MP. If 36 MP were good, it would be in D4.
> ...



Fascinating. 
- The red stripe on the Nikon is VERY important to you....
- The popup flash on the D800 is NOT meant for use as a flash per se. It is meant to be used as master for controlling other flashes in the CLS (Creative Lighting System), which beats the hell out of Pocket Wizard and other primitive 'on or off' systems.
- You seem to think high MP is only for cropping, if you have 36MP one must crop, downsizing is impossible. Or maybe one gets sloppy and lazy from having SO many pixels.... what exactly is your point here?
The D4 doesn't have 36MP because it is impossible to have a ultra-fast camera with so much data to be shifted for every frame. Believe me, if it was possible, they would have 36MP in the D4. Maybe the D5 or D6 will get there. Depends on how successful R&D at Sony and Nikon are at resolving issues with shifting all that data in and out of buffers and onto cards.
- D800 handles low light as well as the MkIII. The difference is in fact so small that you have to pixel peep to see a difference.
- No, don't let online tests and reviews influence you. After all, the red stripe is the biggest issue, for sure.... :


----------



## revup67 (Apr 19, 2012)

> - The popup flash on the D800 is NOT meant for use as a flash per se. It is meant to be used as master for controlling other flashes in the CLS (Creative Lighting System), which beats the hell out of Pocket Wizard and other primitive 'on or off' systems.



This is one reason why I love the 7D..having this built in feature to be able to control an external master and slave(s) flash (A+B+C) as one example. I rarely use the built in flash of the 7D but use it's wireless feature to control the 580 EXII. I do wish for the $3499 Canon opted to include a built in flash not necessarily for it's built in use, but to avoid buying another device to trigger the external flashes.


----------



## JackM (Apr 19, 2012)

It doesn't make sense to rate a camera based on base iso performance and 8MP. Who shoots only at base iso and always downsamples to 8MP? What's the point in having 36MP or 22MP then? And the 2 point improvement of the Mk3 sensor compared to the Mk2 is ridiculous, the Mk3 is much better. Sensorscore is 560/781 (M2/M3), sounds more like it.


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 19, 2012)

I went to read the nikonrumors forum (for the first time, so don't crucify me), and I was expecting a wild party (Cartagena security team style, just to be clear), instead was surprised to see rather moderate comments. Somebody (two, at least that's what I found) was deriding Canon gear owners, others were mentioning that here at canonrumors the DxO conspiracy theorists were getting wild (I partially agree with that), but more in general they were toning down the importance of the ratings. Actually someone was finding flaws in the D800 compared to the 5D. I guess some people are never happy: they just want to own the perfect toy, but they never will.


----------



## Kernuak (Apr 19, 2012)

What I find rather arbitrary, is the use of a reduction in DR as part of the sports shooting score. The reality is, if you're shooting in low light, the dynamic range is typically very small, so looking to see when the DR drops below 9 EV is totally irrelevant. I'd much rather see R&D concentrate on low noise, than worry about DR at high ISO. At ISO 1600, DR does have some relevance if you have to use fast shutterspeeds (so the light is still relatively high), but beyond ISO 3200, it isn't generally a problem,


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 19, 2012)

DXO scores are only any good to DXO. Their testing methods are bunk tbh. 
They scored the D800 higher than a IQ180, morons.

For those that don't know, that's scoring a 14bit back higher than a 16bit back with twice the photon real estate and sensor size. Hahaha.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Anyway it is good to see that the SNR did, in fact, go up a full 2/3 of a stop.

So we do get improved noise and high ISO so it's not only all just AF/fps type stuff that was improved in the 5D3, the sensor is better to a degree that will be noticeable, even if only at upper mid and high iso really. 

The SNR was upped by as much as could have been at all hoped for.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> OK Jrista (and a few others), despite all the incredible bashing and grief you gave me (really us, since some others on DPR also did the same things and got the same results and as I said then, I was hardly alone in this) and all the being called incompetent trolls without a clue who were using faulty methods and how there was no reason to trust us (and worse), etc. etc. well it turns out that DxO matches virtually exactly my (and a number of others) predictions from weeks and weeks ago



You would have gotten more respect had you said that Bozo the Clown replicated your results while riding in a VW Bug with 20 other clowns. 

DxO is a joke. Their testing methodology is so bad that it results in low end APS-C DSLRs having a higher IQ ranking than medium format digital backs. Worse, the people performing the tests are so clueless when it comes to photography that they actually published those results rather than realizing the obvious, going back to the drawing board, and fixing the tests. Such people shouldn't be trusted to test a Kodak disposable camera.

I can say with confidence that if DxO has ever published a correct DR measurement, it was by accident. Their DR results are dead wrong for every camera I'm familiar with and/or have tested (properly) with a transmission step wedge.



> I had said (and I got like maybe 30 smites in one day ;D for it, even though I said that I hated to have to say this) that the D800 would trounce the 5D3 for DR at low ISO by over 2.5 stops and more like 3 usable and that the 5D3,



It's the Internet. You can say whatever you want. But until you can back up your claims with real shots of transmission step wedges and actual, real world scenes, it's a waste of time for anybody to pay any attention to what you (or DxO) claim.

We will see what the real DR differences are when DPReview publishes their tests. Until then people should remember to not feed trolls.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

I'm with Daniel, their lab scores mean nothing to my real output.


----------



## SpartanWarrior (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Numbers mean nothing to me and DxoMark are a bunch of clowns just like the Nikon trolls, trust your eye's and not BS numbers
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml


----------



## gmrza (Apr 19, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Bosman said:


> I'm with Daniel, their lab scores mean nothing to my real output.



To add to that, I don't think it is just about the sensor any more. Sensors have generally become so good (it doesn't matter which brand you go to) that really you have to look at the overall package, and then decide which one meets your needs.

with the 5DII, Canon could still get away with putting a great sensor in an otherwise mediocre package. People complained about that. In general, however, 5DII owners were not complaining about the sensor.

It will be interesting to see how success in the market plays itself out. I think Canon has answered the concerns of wedding shooters, who represent one of the biggest markets for the 5D series.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 19, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> DXO scores are only any good to DXO. Their testing methods are bunk tbh.
> They scored the D800 higher than a IQ180, morons.
> 
> For those that don't know, that's scoring a 14bit back higher than a 16bit back with twice the photon real estate and sensor size. Hahaha.



Haven't you heard? All the medium format guys are now switching to Nikon.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 19, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Fascinating.
> - The red stripe on the Nikon is VERY important to you....
> - The popup flash on the D800 is NOT meant for use as a flash per se. It is meant to be used as master for controlling other flashes in the CLS (Creative Lighting System), which beats the hell out of Pocket Wizard and other primitive 'on or off' systems.
> - You seem to think high MP is only for cropping, if you have 36MP one must crop, downsizing is impossible. Or maybe one gets sloppy and lazy from having SO many pixels.... what exactly is your point here?
> ...



Good points. I don't have 5D3 and D800, so I cannot tell which one is better. However, many websites give D800 really good reviews. People have to think about why only people here believe 5D3 is better D800.
Honestly if I don't have many Canon gears, I might jump to Nikon. It's too late for me to switch to Nikon.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 20, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> DXO scores are only any good to DXO. Their testing methods are bunk tbh.
> They scored the D800 higher than a IQ180, morons.
> 
> For those that don't know, that's scoring a 14bit back higher than a 16bit back with twice the photon real estate and sensor size. Hahaha.



Uh, no... the IQ180 beats the D800 handily on Color Depth (of course), is pretty much equal on DR and falls way behind on ISO (of course).

The total Sensor Score is nothing more an average of these 3 factors. Which of the 3 one has highest priority for you defines what camera (or type of camera) you should use.


----------



## andruzzo (Apr 20, 2012)

Jeez....

It's like comparing supermodels....

oh my supermodel has perkier breasts than yours, oh my supermodel has more pouty lips than yours....

5 years from now your supermodel will look old and crinkly.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 20, 2012)

andruzzo said:


> Jeez....
> 
> It's like comparing supermodels....
> 
> ...



Love it! Spot on. ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



MattBicePhotography said:


> Someone on here said it best, "When all this hype has died down in two years 90% of pros will be shooting with the 5D3 over the D800, just like the 5D2 over and D700 and all Canon over Nikons"



I'm not sure if the figure will be 90%, but it's still a good point. According to DxO, the 5DII and 1DsIII are turds, but they dominated the studio scene for quite some time. I can see the D800 cutting into this advantage, but I still don't think the gap is big enough for many working pros to consider switching systems. Many of them have probably never even heard of DxO before.


----------



## elflord (Apr 20, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> DXO scores are only any good to DXO. Their testing methods are bunk tbh.
> They scored the D800 higher than a IQ180, morons.



The overall score is an aggregate of high ISO, dynamic range and color depth. How well does the IQ180 perform at ISO 3200 ? Medium format cameras tend to lose on the high ISO portion of the test, so you can't really summarize the relative performance with one number. Thankfully, DXO explain how they get their numbers and publish the underlying measurements, so you can see how/why a camera scored a certain way. I suspect this complaining about MF cameras is a red herring -- people are upset that Canon's latest offering didn't score well on the test and are expressing their denial by insisting that the test must be wrong without even taking the trouble to look at the test results carefully. 

In this case, the performance is pretty close. People here are wondering how Nikon could do better at "high ISO" -- actually they are neck and neck in SNR. Where Nikon wins is in the dynamic range, especially at low ISOs. Nikons "low light ISO score" is probably largely due to the fact that its dynamic range tested better across the range, and the "low light ISO score" uses dynamic range (at higher ISO) as part of the criteria. 

I've got to say that I'm not the least bit surprised by the way this has played out. There's a standard pattern when a new product is released -- unrealistic expectations (e.g. improvement of 2 stops despite the fact that real increase in sensor performance has been very gradual) followed by inevitable disappointment, denial and rage when the hopes are dashed.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Wow, whatever you want a result to be is the right answer I guess.... If you don't think 2+2=4 makes sense just find some book that says it = 8 and then that is your truth. Don't like evolution, just make something up that fits your belief. etc.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



dtaylor said:


> I can say with confidence that if DxO has ever published a correct DR measurement, it was by accident. Their DR results are dead wrong for every camera I'm familiar with and/or have tested (properly) with a transmission step wedge.



Funny then that when top engineers and physics guys, some world renowned, measure engineering DR they get results pretty darn in line with DxO....

Also funny is that many of you, if not you yourself, was saying that we were full of it and DxO was the end and be all and now that they say what we said suddenly they are a joke. Of course if they had found all aspects best on the 5D3 sensor then they would've been the perfect test site of course....


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

steven63 said:


> How many people here that are bashing DxO for the results would NOT be bashing their results had they come in higher than the D800?



Add me to the list. Yes, there's a lot of fanboyism in this thread, but I bash anything that encourages focusing on tech specs instead of using those tech specs in real life to produce stunning images and advance the art of photography. So, even if the 5DIII scored 95 and the D800 scored 81, I'd still place very little credence to DxO testing. Unless you're in the business of producing counterfeits, art is not created in a lab.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2012)

andruzzo said:


> Jeez....
> 
> It's like comparing supermodels....
> 
> ...


I've selected the 1D X as my supermodel. She's built like a svelte tank, and she'll be perky and pouty long after the 5DIII and D800 start to sag.


----------



## elflord (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



V8Beast said:


> I'm not sure if the figure will be 90%, but it's still a good point. According to DxO, the 5DII and 1DsIII are turds,



Not quite -- they are neck and neck with the highest scoring sensors. Look at the numbers more closely and besides dynamic range at low (100-200) ISO, they do quite well. 



> but they dominated the studio scene for quite some time. I can see the D800 cutting into this advantage, but I still don't think the gap is big enough for many working pros to consider switching systems. Many of them have probably never even heard of DxO before.



If you wanted a high megapixel full frame camera, what were your choices ?


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

rpschnerp said:


> I chose a nice challenging, contrasty scene with a lot of bright sky and deep shadows. I used same focal length (obv. not the same lens) and same exposure (also corrected for white balance). I then processed in LR4 with the express intent of pulling as much detail from shadows and highlights. I could pull a lot more out of the highlights on the 5DM3 image and ended up with an image that was HDR-like, while the D7000 image still had a blown-out sky. The 5DM3 image also just flat-out looked better, color-wise and tonally (several family members agreed.) It feels like this DR business is not adequately describing what one might see in the real world. What am I missing??



I wish I could give you an answer. Experiences similar to the one you describe is why DxO doesn't have much credibility in my book. I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists that claims they have an anti-Canon bias. My problem is the concept of trying to judge image quality through standardized lab tests. Other than tech geeks that have yet to lose their virginity, who the hell does this in real life?


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

skyscape said:


> I remember number of years ago when Nikon fanboys were in the same situation when DXOmark scores came out. Canon's rise in market share proved DXOmark right. The opposite is happening now. Nikon is gaining back its market share. The D3/D700 generation set the bench mark for ISO, and D800 has set the bench mark for IQ.



That's assuming the only reason why Nikon gained back market share is due to DxO's clout. I seriously doubt that. Could it be that Nikon just offered better-balanced products? I considered buying a D700 over a 5DII because for my needs, it was a more well rounded machine. The 5DII's resolution advantage wasn't something I particularly needed, but I very much envied the AF system and FPS of the D700. You could make the same argument for the D3s when compared to the 1DIII and IDIV. 

Fortunately, Canon decided a build a 5DIII that's more like a D700, and Nikon decided to build a D800 that's more like a 5DII. Now the grass is greener on my side. Thanks, Canon


----------



## Bosman (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Dude, if a personal friend of yours took a personality test and did poorly because science says so based on various scientific values is their science more important than your experience with that person?
I'd wager your relationship and experience with them would trump their findings and you would say they are wack.
My camera and lens system is a relationship. Numbers don't give it value.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Always been of the opinion that the DXO tests using RAW data are about as much use as test driving a car with no gearbox.

Process via DPP, or use JPEGS, then compare. Unprocessed RAWs are about as real world as images of focus charts.

I stopped worrying about what DXO makes of my gear long ago, I find DPREVIEW and a few magazines more worthwhile as a guide.

I think that anybody buying or rejecting a camera on the basis of a DXO test needs their head felt. Buy it because it fits your hand, rests well against your eye, does the job you need. Not on the basis of unprocessed RAWs.

It's a good camera. It'll take good pictures if you put a good lens on it and use it properly.

If you want precision then I can only assume you'll be using CZ lenses on whatever body you buy?


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Daniel Flather said:


> Yawn. (NO offense to the OP)



+1 

This discussion was had a long time ago, many times over, and everyones positions are obviously still the same. I'm still adamant that the DR at ISO 100 and 200 is not the deciding factor in a camera purchase, and never will be (well, unless its like 2 stops worth...I might bitch and moan then...)


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Wow, whatever you want a result to be is the right answer I guess.... If you don't think 2+2=4 makes sense just find some book that says it = 8 and then that is your truth. Don't like evolution, just make something up that fits your belief. etc.



DxO has demonstrated a lot of bias with the D800 results and greater than physically possible DR numbers (for "print", as they call it...their "screen" DR numbers are still within the realm of reason and physical possibility). That, combined with the fact that _numbers_ are only a small factor in a decision to buy a particular piece of gear, doesn't change anything, regardless of how DxO (one of many reviewers) rates the 5D III. Vested Canon users are still going to buy Canon. It'll be the same regarding the 1D X whenever DxO slaps up some numbers for that as well. The amount of effort you put into this thread is a little sad (you should seriously spend the time you would otherwise spend hitting the refresh button on DxO's site out photographing something somewhere). You were apparently just waiting for the day to prove, once and for all, that Canon cameras _suck donkey balls_ and you were right and everyone else is just a raging buffoon idiotically using inferior cameras that are incapable of properly utilizing the bottom 3 bits of DR. Dude...you posted 7 times in a row trying to prove a point that doesn't really matter...lighten up man!  (Unless you have OCD or something that literally doesn't let you drop the issue...in which case, sorry for all the harassment.)

*Bottom line:*

Its a camera, it takes awesome photos with great IQ (just like the previous generation of all Canon cameras), millions of people will enjoy it and create fantastic artwork with it, millions more people will ENJOY the artwork created with the 5D III, and the world will keep on turning. Whether it beats the competition in a numbers game or not (especially one that seems more and more to be thoroughly biased in favor of a major sponsor and/or against a non-sponsor) is not what matters.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 20, 2012)

Waiting for 5d3, we've been predicting it's price. As we have currently nothing to do except hating D..O and K..n R..ll and making pictures let's think how 1dx would score in d..o.

Looking at 5d3 results vs it's specification, we might predict 1dx'es final dxo scores and graphs presenting data in particular categories - more flat curves in SNR18, Dynamic Range and Tonal Range. 

I'd predict it's:
- Portrait (color depth) =24
- Landscape (dynamic range) = 12
- Sports (low-Light ISO) = 2650
- Overall Score = 84

Craig, maybe in honour of d..o 5d3 tests some another contest - who predicts 1dx final score without even touching this camera?


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



MattBicePhotography said:


> Someone on here said it best, "When all this hype has died down in two years 90% of pros will be shooting with the 5D3 over the D800, just like the 5D2 over and D700 and all Canon over Nikons"



Looking at the Amazon best seller list I predict you'll be very likely wrong:

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3017941/ref=pd_ts_zgc_e_3017941_morl?pf_rd_p=1270018122&pf_rd_s=right-5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=507846&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0JABKZ0CEFB8XTBV2D7S

Nikon occupied the first three spots for the past month and a half (since the D800 come out), and now with the D3200 also the 4th is gone.


----------



## xthebillx (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Daniel Flather said:


> Yawn. (NO offense to the OP)



x2.
Get out of the lab & take some pichers o' stuff.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn. (NO offense to the OP)
> ...



+2

... and the technology used to capture the image is not critical either - the key factor is the image and how easy it is to get the image


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 20, 2012)

Why doesn't this thread appear on the Canon Rumors homepage Forum Discussion list?
It's by far the most viewed and replied thread as of today, and still it's not there: are they censoring it?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



SleeperSmith said:


> AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.
> 
> Enjoy your banding low DR pile of crap with a sensor from last century + a price tag that's from the next.
> 
> The fact that you have not slightest clue how to read DxO mark is your own problem.



2 posts and already abusing a poster - not good


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

If Canon would believe d..o score is the main decision factor at buying a new camera, then should offer a free upgrade to the next version as it happens often with the software...


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

dichiaras said:


> Why doesn't this thread appear on the Canon Rumors homepage Forum Discussion list?
> It's by far the most viewed and replied thread as of today, and still it's not there: are they censoring it?



Is this thread that important that it is worth kicking up about because it doesn't get on the homepage?

No - didn't think so


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



briansquibb said:


> SleeperSmith said:
> 
> 
> > AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.
> ...



This is where Karma would be useful...at the moment, we have no tool to combat trolls like this guy.


----------



## Jason Beiko (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

You know what is a big yawn? The abundant Canon fan boys on this forum....and yes I am a Canon user. The results rather clearly show that the newest model Nikons have major and measurable improvemts in many important aspects of camera performance. Just acknowledge this and move along. Too many comments try to ignore this by repeating inane statements such as:

1.It's not the camera that takes creative pictures but the photographer. Really? captain of the obvious.....
2. DXO is biased in favour of Nikon. Really? Well than how come so many other brands and formats are rated so highly?

For a forum that has a very technological viewpoint, I find it strange that so many people want to "defend" their brand in the face of objective evidence. Just evaluate and acknowledge the results without the fanboyism.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Jason Beiko said:


> You know what is a big yawn? The abundant Canon fan boys on this forum....and yes I am a Canon user. The results rather clearly show that the newest model Nikons have major and measurable improvemts in many important aspects of camera performance. Just acknowledge this and move along. Too many comments try to ignore this by repeating inane statements such as:
> 
> 1.It's not the camera that takes creative pictures but the photographer. Really? captain of the obvious.....
> 2. DXO is biased in favour of Nikon. Really? Well than how come so many other brands and formats are rated so highly?
> ...



What is being said is that the DxO results do not reflect the real world images produced by the cameras tested.

So if the numbers are unreliable then so are the conculsions.

Nothing about being a fanboy


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> well it turns out that DxO matches virtually exactly my (and a number of others) predictions from weeks and weeks ago ;D:



Can I have your autograph? When there are people like you out there who can predict DxO's results before DxO even has a chance to test a camera, why don't they just hire you and save themselves a bunch of money ?

All kidding aside, I think most people that are unfortunate enough to be aware of DxO's existence very much expected the D800 to trounce the 5DIII. It is the king of lab tests. Case closed.


----------



## Razor2012 (Apr 20, 2012)

The more you stoke the fire, the bigger it gets.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



briansquibb said:


> Jason Beiko said:
> 
> 
> > You know what is a big yawn? The abundant Canon fan boys on this forum....and yes I am a Canon user. The results rather clearly show that the newest model Nikons have major and measurable improvemts in many important aspects of camera performance. Just acknowledge this and move along. Too many comments try to ignore this by repeating inane statements such as:
> ...


+1 
My images aren't about lab scores or fanboyism
Kudos to the D800, I'm really happy for those who will use it to its potential and who own Nikon, what do i care about their Dxo score? No one is saying the d800 isn't a great camera we are just saying we don't need the scores to prove to us our images look fantastic so theres no grounds for lament that the D800 scored higher. Or the obvious one, no grounds to switch to Nikon.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Jason Beiko said:


> You know what is a big yawn? The abundant Canon fan boys on this forum....and yes I am a Canon user. The results rather clearly show that the newest model Nikons have major and measurable improvemts in many important aspects of camera performance.



Sure, there are improvements. I don't think anyone is denying that. I'd say DxO measures ONLY IQ performance, though. IQ is an aspect of camera performance overall, but most definitely not the only factor. DxO numbers do not take other aspects into account, and depending on what you shoot, many of those other factors may be more important than raw IQ numbers. Ergonomics, frame rate, AF performance, etc. are all still very important factors.



Jason Beiko said:


> Just acknowledge this and move along.



I think some people dispute the accuracy of DxO's results when they claim that the D800 is capable of more dynamic range than the hardware is rated for. I believe most of us here clearly acknowledge that the D800 is an amazing camera, and it does offer better DR and higher resolution. But there are things that many of us just can't accept. To claim a normalized image has 14.4 EV's, when the ADC's are 14 bit (which would limit the maximum physical DR the camera is capable of achieving to 14.0 EV's absolute) brings up questions about the validity and applicability of DxO's results. I am NOT denying they have a better sensor...Sony Exmor sensors are amazing pieces of technology and have certainly pushed full-frame DSLR's into new territory with a high DR 36.3mp sensor. 

That said, DxO's screen DR numbers still show that the D800 wins on the low-ISO DR front. It still gets 13.2 EV of native hardware DR. I have no interest in disputing that. Sony and Nikon made some brilliant moves with better technology, and *they deserve to take the win!* I still have a problem with DxO claiming that the D800 achieves "14.4 EV" in their Landscape category, and I always will. Its bogus. Its misleading trickery, and it doesn't do anyone any benefit to let a potential D800 customer think they can actually shoot a scene with 14.4 EV of dynamic range in a single shot with the D800 and actually be able to use all of the data. Its simply not true. I have a real problem with people, particularly people like LTRLI, trying to shove _what seems to be a *bogus* detail_ *down my throat* on a regular basis. I'm sorry, but downscaling is not a mystical tool that will magically fabricate additional DR. If you blow the highlights in-camera, no amount of downscaling or upscaling or scaling in any other form is going to RECOVER pixels that reached maximum saturation and then-some. I think such facts need to be disputed, not really for the good of Canon shooters (where generally all sticking with Canon gear)...but more for the good of potential camera buyers. I don't think it is physically possible for the D800 to capture more than 13.2 stops of DR when you account for physical hardware nuances, implementation details and overhead, however since DxO has claimed it is capable of 14.4 stops, they are misleading many potential Nikon users. Thats not a positive outcome, despite the fact that it has no effect on me whatsoever.

The real problem though, is if DxO is wrong about that, even if their method of deriving that number is consistent...what else could they be wrong about? If DxO can interpret "normalized DR" numbers such that they indicate a camera is supposedly capable of more than the hardware would allow, what else might they be wrong about? They certainly seemed to miss the ball on the 5D III low ISO performance...between DxO's own SNR and high ISO DR scores for the 5D III, I'd have figured it would win that category. What about their scores for medium format cameras, which are all pretty much LIMITED to lower ISO settings...some top out at ISO 800. I doubt anyone who has actually seen photographs, on screen or in print, from a medium format camera, would dispute that they are far superior to anything that comes out of a DSLR, yet many Nikon and even some Canon cameras beat digital MF camera scores from DxO. That indicates a problem with the model, even if the statistics are consistent relative to one another.



Jason Beiko said:


> Just evaluate and acknowledge the results without the fanboyism.



Certainly! I am *evaluating* them, however my evaluation results in discrepancies with DxO's final conclusions, and as such, I can't plain and simply "acknowledge" their results. I'm not a fanboy, I'm just a vested customer. Personally, I don't really care much about DxO numbers...they are a factor, but not the primary or most important factor, in the decisions I make. The fact that other people put so much weight on them, though, and seem to _acknowledge_ them at face value WITHOUT any _critical evaluation_, is curious to me, and I simply can't help but harass when I see just as much fanboyism regarding DxO as you claim Canon photographers here exhibit regarding their gear (the latter of which is more understandable, since it IS the physical piece of gear that actually empowers ones photographic creativity...not a set of numbers from DxO.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn. (NO offense to the OP)
> ...



Your position is then still that my results will be way different from DxOs even though they are now shown to be the same?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> *Bottom line:*
> 
> Its a camera, it takes awesome photos with great IQ (just like the previous generation of all Canon cameras), millions of people will enjoy it and create fantastic artwork with it, millions more people will ENJOY the artwork created with the 5D III, and the world will keep on turning. Whether it beats the competition in a numbers game or not (especially one that seems more and more to be thoroughly biased in favor of a major sponsor and/or against a non-sponsor) is not what matters.



Good points, only if all of you really believed that bottom line talk then why would you need to go crazy any time someone writes something implying some aspect of a Canon sensor is not class-leading?  You should just be able to see the numbers as they are and not call people names over it and make up twisted truths and move on.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



briansquibb said:


> Jason Beiko said:
> 
> 
> > You know what is a big yawn? The abundant Canon fan boys on this forum....and yes I am a Canon user. The results rather clearly show that the newest model Nikons have major and measurable improvemts in many important aspects of camera performance. Just acknowledge this and move along. Too many comments try to ignore this by repeating inane statements such as:
> ...



But they do reflect the real world. Look at the threads where people shoot both and compare. That is the whole point.

For years Canon sensor were way better in almost every way, now they are complacent and lagging in some aspects, maximum dynamic range most of all. They did largely catch up in terms of SNR now (although they had to cheat the color filter array a bit to get there, which is why DxO gave them a lower than expected high iso score, although they overdid the penalty a bit IMO).

They fixed up the AF and fps and all a ton. But the DR is simply worse. What do I do, lie and say it's not? And if it really is about the photographer and not the camera then why all the hating on anyone who posts results that make Canon not best in every last single thing?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> Sure, there are improvements. I don't think anyone is denying that. I'd say DxO measures ONLY IQ performance, though. IQ is an aspect of camera performance overall, but most definitely not the only factor. DxO numbers do not take other aspects into account, and depending on what you shoot, many of those other factors may be more important than raw IQ numbers. Ergonomics, frame rate, AF performance, etc. are all still very important factors.



Yeah and nobody pointing out the DR stuff is denying that. I said in other threads i like the Canon UI way more, the fps is way better, the shutter response, mirror blackout, AF, etc. that is a different thread. Of course that stuff matter too. And Canon finally delivered that now. Which is awesome.

But you come in and trash anyone to pieces if they make a sensor thread and if they mention that any aspect of a sensor is not the best in the world.






> I think some people dispute the accuracy of DxO's results when they claim that the D800 is capable of more dynamic range than the hardware is rated for.



that is only because you don't understand normalization




> That said, DxO's screen DR numbers still show that the D800 wins on the low-ISO DR front. It still gets 13.2 EV of native hardware DR. I have no interest in disputing that. Sony and Nikon made some brilliant moves with better technology, and *they deserve to take the win!*



OK, well you sure bashed and insulted and trashed me (and indirectly some famous scientists) to pieces in that other thread when I said that would be the case. 



> I still have a problem with DxO claiming that the D800 achieves "14.4 EV" in their Landscape category, and I always will. Its bogus. Its misleading trickery, and it doesn't do anyone any benefit to let a potential D800 customer think they can actually shoot a scene with 14.4 EV of dynamic range in a single shot with the D800 and actually be able to use all of the data. Its simply not true. I have a real problem with people, particularly people like LTRLI, trying to shove _what seems to be a *bogus* detail_ *down my throat* on a regular basis. I'm sorry, but downscaling is not a mystical tool that will magically fabricate additional DR. If you blow the highlights in-camera, no amount of downscaling or upscaling or scaling in any other form is going to RECOVER pixels that reached maximum saturation and then-some. I think such facts need to be disputed, not really for the good of Canon shooters (where generally all sticking with Canon gear)...but more for the good of potential camera buyers. I don't think it is physically possible for the D800 to capture more than 13.2 stops of DR when you account for physical hardware nuances, implementation details and overhead, however since DxO has claimed it is capable of 14.4 stops, they are misleading many potential Nikon users. Thats not a positive outcome, despite the fact that it has no effect on me whatsoever.



you need to read up more on this....



> The real problem though, is if DxO is wrong about that, even if their method of deriving that number is consistent...what else could they be wrong about? If DxO can interpret "normalized DR" numbers such that they indicate a camera is supposedly capable of more than the hardware would allow, what else might they be wrong about?



maybe it is not they who are confused



> They certainly seemed to miss the ball on the 5D III low ISO performance...between DxO's own SNR and high ISO DR scores for the 5D III, I'd have figured it would win that category.



They penalized the 5D3 for making the color filter array more color blind which helps improve SNR while making different colors harder to tell apart and worsening chroma noise, they may have over done it a bit, but that is where that came from and they have been consistent in their formula for that. I think it came out a little bit much in this case since the D800 slipped just above the bonus points zone and it perhaps overly penalizes the 5D3, but there is nothing technically wrong or confused about what they did measurement by measurement there although I think you can argue that their weightings are maybe not the most sensible for the overall score there. I do think it leads to some somewhat odd results at times. The overall sensor is even odder and even they say there is no way to make one number tell the story.

But their plots seem to be pretty legit.




[quote[ The fact that other people put so much weight on them, though, and seem to _acknowledge_ them at face value WITHOUT any _critical evaluation_, is curious to me, and I simply can't help but harass when I see just as much fanboyism regarding DxO as you claim Canon photographers here exhibit regarding their gear (the latter of which is more understandable, since it IS the physical piece of gear that actually empowers ones photographic creativity...not a set of numbers from DxO.)
[/quote]

A bit rich since you seriously harassed me post after post for a while because DxO was so much better than me and that so much weight had to be given TO DXO.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Anyway this is tiresome. I will only respond to strict technical questions and not bother responding to the trolling again.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > *Bottom line:*
> ...



Well, you seem to have missed my past points entirely. I never claimed Canon sensors were not class-leading. They haven't been class-leading for years. My point is IT DOES NOT MATTER! I don't know how many times I'll have to use those words...it does not matter....it does not matter...it does not matter....but someday maybe it will sink in. YES, I know the Nikon sensor is better. *I never disputed that!!* I thought at first, before ACTUAL numbers started coming out derived from proper black frames and the like, that Canon sensors _might *catch up* to Sony sensors_. It was my *hope*, certainly. I'll admit I'm a little bummed they didn't come out with a 28mp sensor, and a little bummed they are still stuck at around 11-12 stops of theoretical DR, but I'm pretty ecstatic about everything else. My claim all along has been that it is *not* a _critical factor_ that Canon doesn't have the best piece of technology in paper. Camera technology today in general is so _vastly superior_ to what we had a decade ago, which itself was vastly superior to what we had decades prior to that. *Numbers DO NOT MATTER!* They never have, and they never will! Thats my point. The only reason I keep arguing, particularly with you, is you can't seem to actually GET THE POINT! :

I argue more just as a matter of curiosity and persistence at this point, at your own persistence (and elation at having DxO confirm what we knew they were going to confirm) that ISO 100 DR numbers from DxO are the most important aspects of photography in the world, than arguing because I want to defend my precious Canon camera (which, BTW, I don't actually own a 5D III nor do I have a 1D X on preorder...I made the decision to wait let Canon fix hardware and firmware issues first, and possibly buy a nice big SCT 11" telescope instead this year. ;P) It is an incredible curiosity to me that so many people (not just you) are so intent upon proving that Canon cameras are, in fact, inferior and therefor worthless and useless...based solely on DxO numbers and correlation thereof by DxO fanboys. If those things really did matter...if FPN was really truly such a serious problem as DxO numbers indicate...why doesn't it seem to exhibit in 99.9% of the photos taken with Canon cameras? If banding and FPN really was a massive work-destroying problem as indicated by DxO numbers...why are there hundreds of millions of photographs plastered all over the web, office spaces, and peoples homes, taken with Canon cameras, that exhibit the same nasty forms of noise? If those things really did matter...THEY WOULD MATTER!! *They would AFFECT RESULTS!!*

But the simple fact is........ they don't affect results..... THEY DO NOT MATTER. Thats my point. It really doesn't matter that SoNikon is technologically superior in some ways...people still produce unbelievable photographs with 5-8 year old digital cameras, even 20-50 year old film cameras and _even some older than that_...all of which are technologically inferior in every way to any camera released in the last year. Thats my point. 

IT... DOES... NOT... MATTER. ;D


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



SleeperSmith said:


> > I think some people dispute the accuracy of DxO's results when they claim that the D800 is capable of more dynamic range than the hardware is rated for. I believe most of us here clearly acknowledge that the D800 is an amazing camera, and it does offer better DR and higher resolution. But there are things that many of us just can't accept. To claim a normalized image has 14.4 EV's, when the ADC's are 14 bit (which would limit the maximum physical DR the camera is capable of achieving to 14.0 EV's absolute) brings up questions about the validity and applicability of DxO's results. I am NOT denying they have a better sensor...Sony Exmor sensors are amazing pieces of technology and have certainly pushed full-frame DSLR's into new territory with a high DR 36.3mp sensor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bit depth indicates a MAXIMUM LIMIT on DR...not actual DR. Every additional bit is a doubling of the numeric space of the previous...i.e. a stop, so 2^14 would indicate the maximum numeric range of 16384. Maximum saturation would be less than that as you have to account for inefficiencies and overhead. Of course there is overhead, which is why the DxO's screen DR number of 13.2 is more realistic.


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dichiaras said:
> 
> 
> > Why doesn't this thread appear on the Canon Rumors homepage Forum Discussion list?
> ...



I see: we don't like reality, so it's better to cover it up. :-X


----------



## Former Nikonian (Apr 20, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Former Nikonian said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, last night, I placed oderd 5d Mk iii and 2 L lenses. Why?:
> ...


Thanks Fishnose.
Red stripe is just one of my issues. Photography relates to aesthetics; camera is a tool in photography. I just do not feel good when trying to use an ugly tool to creat aesthetic products. I miss my N90S and N8008S (all were sold years ago), they looked nice comparing to current Nikon's.
I only buy what I need, and 5D Mkiii gives me that while D800 does not.
My brother, who is an IT engineer and nikonian, has tons of Nikons since FMs (you know what they are?) and his latest is D700. He had a plan to upgrade to D700's successor; but after D800 release he gave up with huge frustration. He expected D700's successor would have something which 5D Mkiii has now. He choses sticking with his D700 and hoping for 4 years later.
When I called telling him about my oders, he said "Brother, you did the right job!"
Final words, Fishnose, we nikonian spend for what we need; so I spent for 5D Mkiii and my brother did not spend for D800. Period.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But you come in and trash anyone to pieces if they make a sensor thread and if they mention that any aspect of a sensor is not the best in the world.



No...I trash the idea that Canon not having the best sensor in the world matters. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > I think some people dispute the accuracy of DxO's results when they claim that the D800 is capable of more dynamic range than the hardware is rated for.
> 
> 
> that is only because you don't understand normalization



I fully understand normalization. Normalization doesn't create anything that you didn't start out with, though. It REMOVES things...such as noise, but it does not create. One way or another, scaling down or scaling up, you are destroying original, pure information and diluting it. You cannot create dynamic range you did not start out with. The only thing that might potentially increase is perception...but thats a subjective matter that cannot be objectively evaluated in a scientific test like those DxO runs.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > That said, DxO's screen DR numbers still show that the D800 wins on the low-ISO DR front. It still gets 13.2 EV of native hardware DR. I have no interest in disputing that. Sony and Nikon made some brilliant moves with better technology, and *they deserve to take the win!*
> 
> 
> 
> OK, well you sure bashed and insulted and trashed me (and indirectly some famous scientists) to pieces in that other thread when I said that would be the case.



I trashed your use of potentially inaccurate source data...at the time that thread occurred, you guys were using images created under inconsistent lighting with inconsistent exposure from source cameras that were either potentially or explicitly declared pre-release...then claiming accurate results. I wasn't disputing the numbers...just the methodology and proclamations of total accuracy. You'll notice that once people started getting their hands on actual release versions of the 5D III and tests were done on dark frames from legit copies, I took the results as far more accurate. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> you need to read up more on this....



Its just the normalization thing again, and its the same deal...you can't create what you don't have. If you didn't start out with dynamic range in-camera, you aren't going to correct blown highlights with some math and scaling. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > The real problem though, is if DxO is wrong about that, even if their method of deriving that number is consistent...what else could they be wrong about? If DxO can interpret "normalized DR" numbers such that they indicate a camera is supposedly capable of more than the hardware would allow, what else might they be wrong about?
> 
> 
> maybe it is not they who are confused



Not saying they are _confused_...I am not sure their model is as relevant as I used to think it was though. I don't have a problem with their screen DR numbers (at the moment...if they claim the next Nikon 14-bit DSLR is capable of 14.4 stops of screen DR, I'll completely reverse my opinion of DxO in total!) Same issue...you don't create what you don't have with a bit of averaging, and you don't recover what you lost at a hardware level with software. It was gone long, long before it even reached the software. I don't think anyone is confused...I think there is probably some bias in interpretation, and potentially a flaw in the model. That wouldn't mean their numbers are incorrect within the definition of their model...just that they don't demonstrate the real-world capabilities of the actual camera hardware as well as I used to think. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > They certainly seemed to miss the ball on the 5D III low ISO performance...between DxO's own SNR and high ISO DR scores for the 5D III, I'd have figured it would win that category.
> 
> 
> 
> They penalized the 5D3 for making the color filter array more color blind which helps improve SNR while making different colors harder to tell apart and worsening chroma noise, they may have over done it a bit, but that is where that came from and they have been consistent in their formula for that.



I think that may demonstrate my issue with DxO superbly. When comparing 5D III photos to D800 photos, from a direct-from-camera standpoint, the 5D III seems to have FAR better color. The D800 in many of the video reviews I've seen seemed to exhibit rather flat color, often with a distinct green cast. It wasn't just an LCD screen problem regarding the color cast either...the same green cast showed up during post-processing as well. So even if Canon tweaked the CFA to improve SNR, it certainly doesn't seem to have affected color rendition in the real world enough to penalize them as much as DxO did. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I think it came out a little bit much in this case since the D800 slipped just above the bonus points zone and it perhaps overly penalizes the 5D3, but there is nothing technically wrong or confused about what they did measurement by measurement there although I think you can argue that their weightings are maybe not the most sensible for the overall score there. I do think it leads to some somewhat odd results at times. The overall sensor is even odder and even they say there is no way to make one number tell the story.



I think the idea of "bonus points" in what is supposed to be an objective comparison is an odd thing at best, and an element of subjectivity in general. There shouldn't be "bonus points" for anything in an objective test...ISO is ISO, you don't give an ISO score bonus points because some dot on a plot fell just barely inside of a particular "zone" and call it a win, while another dot on a plot fell just barely outside of a particular "zone", and call it a loss. Its not objective.




> The fact that other people put so much weight on them, though, and seem to _acknowledge_ them at face value WITHOUT any _critical evaluation_, is curious to me, and I simply can't help but harass when I see just as much fanboyism regarding DxO as you claim Canon photographers here exhibit regarding their gear (the latter of which is more understandable, since it IS the physical piece of gear that actually empowers ones photographic creativity...not a set of numbers from DxO.)



A bit rich since you seriously harassed me post after post for a while because DxO was so much better than me and that so much weight had to be given TO DXO.
[/quote]

Same as my point above, I was disputing your _use of inaccurate source data _(inconsistent photos taken with pre-release cameras) and claiming total accuracy in your own results. The thing that really irked me at the time, though, was how you immediately started the doomsday reports about how Canon had failed all of their customers and failed to live up to untold years of expectation, yadda yadda...based on numbers derived from inconsistent pre-release source data...regardless of whether it was backed up by renown scientists or not. I'd slam you again for the same reasons if you made the same premature, sensationalist claims again. 

Regardless of how accurate they may have been in the end, the claim was a bit bogus, and my point about DxO at the time was that they never used a random, inconsistent set of source data to produce their numbers...they used very carefully produced images and a consistent process to produce consistent results (which, despite my current misgivings about DxO's new results for the D800, I still adhere to.) Within their model, their results are consistent...but I have some problems with how they have rated the D800 and given it what I believe are some unrealistic ratings (not everything, but a couple things.) Its hard to trust results when trust has been broken with what seem to be bogus numbers like 14.4 stops DR from a 14-bit camera, or giving some "bonus points" and a win to an ISO score when the competition was only fractionally worse. Sketchy, and worth disputing and discussing, at the very least.

And, in the end...it doesn't matter. Its clear that, despite its technological inferiority, however major or minor any given individual may wish to construe those inferiorities, the 5D III takes awesome photographs. Its clear that both the D800 and 5D III take awesome photographs. So, in the end...real-world results trump technological inferiority.


----------



## Maui5150 (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

DxO is about as relevant as Ken Rockwell and their numbers similarly make as much sense.

After all, according to their numbers the PhaseOne and D4 are pieces of crap compared to d800


----------



## Arun (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Suppose the 5D3 beat the D800 hollow. Or whatever. Even so, there would still be a lot of people taking photographs with "lesser" cameras. Like the 7D. Like the photos on display here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1097338

Nikon/Sony's sensor definitely open up new possibilities, and that is a good thing. But it is still only a small part of the art of the photograph.


----------



## Michael7 (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Thanks for posting the results. There's no way in heck I'm buying the 5D III now. The D800 is the camera to have it seems.


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



dichiaras said:


> MattBicePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Someone on here said it best, "When all this hype has died down in two years 90% of pros will be shooting with the 5D3 over the D800, just like the 5D2 over and D700 and all Canon over Nikons"
> ...



Because most of the pros get their stuff off of Amazon, right?


----------



## seekn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Patting yourself on the back is not attractive.
Anyway, the one thing that I just dont understand on these forums is why soooo much emphasis is placed on one aspect of a camera? I totally agree that the 5dmarkiii DR is subpar to the 800 but what about the other million aspects of the camera? Do they not count also?
Cameras are works of art if I may say so - but there has to be balance in the composition. If one side is too heavy, something else has to give. Canon and Nikon are just different companies with different emphasis. This OP is just concerned about the sensor and making it seem like Canon is hopeless when they have in fact turned out a wonderful camera. 
I really question the DXO results - how in the world can there be such a huge separation between high iso action shots? From all the other tests I have seen they are nearly equal or canon has the edge. These tests seem way to overblown to me - but just a feeling.
Either way - so many people on these forums seem to be ignorant to the aspect that not everything is all about the sensor. I have seen more than one test show that you get more "keepers" with the mark iii during action shots than the 800 - primarily due to the AF and FPS. The canon is said to have a faster, more responsive AF which surely results in capturing that fleeting moment. 
Do I wish that canon has better low ISO DR? Heck yeah! Do I truly sweat about it when I am looking over my shots of the day? Not really to be honest. I am more concerned about my lighting, my composition and the overall look and feel of the shot. 99.9% of my viewers or clients will never complain to me that they cannot see details in the darkest parts of my pictures. Honestly most of them are too busy looking to see what they look like in the shot than to examine how much DR there is! 
Either way, kudos to the OP for being right but that is in no way going to make me switch platforms or make me regret buying a mark iii. Its a great camera plain and simple. People jumping ship are going to be sorely disappointed when their bottom line doesnt increase just from switching. Anyway, Im finished with work and its time for me to head home and get my hands on my mark iii. Seriously I have shot every day with it and I already have had some Nikonites drooling at my photos! lol. Grass is always greener I guess.
And to the above poster - if you are going to buy the 800 just based on that I think you are making a mistake. You should test each out, see which feels better to you in hand and also see what images are more pleasing to you. Also, what camera suits your needs the best.


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



> I'm sorry, but downscaling is not a mystical tool that will magically fabricate additional DR. If you blow the highlights in-camera, no amount of downscaling or upscaling or scaling in any other form is going to RECOVER pixels that reached maximum saturation and then-some. I think such facts need to be disputed, not really for the good of Canon shooters (where generally all sticking with Canon gear)...but more for the good of potential camera buyers.



jrista: But downsampling also reduces noise, so since DR is calculated by taking into account where SNR drops to 1 (that's how DXO does it), the DR would increase upon downsampling b/c SNR would increase for any given dark patch. Hence a darker patch may yield a higher SNR (e.g. of 1) after downsampling than prior to downsampling... effectively increasing your calculated DR. You're right that highlights can't be retrieved by dowsampling; i.e. think the increased DR upon normalization is due to lower noise in shadows upon downsampling.

Alternatively, if you're calculating DR using LTRLI's method of DR = log(base 2)[max signal/read noise], read noise goes down upon downsampling, so your calculated DR goes up, yes?

That being said, I just don't understand how DXO rates the D800 has having higher DR than the D4 (both normalized & un-normalized), or the D800 having better ISO performance than the 5DIII.

I mean, just looking at these curves, there's something really fishy about ISO 100 on the D800:






Furthermore, LTRLI: you keep claiming how it's cool that your calculation of DR based off of black/white RAW files from the camera match DXO's lab tests (where they actually shoot patches of varying brightness).

What I find interesting is that no one seems to *question that methodology* of calculating DR from black/white RAW files! I know jrista had issues with the source files LTRLI was using, but what of the methodology?

Why does it match DXO so well? I find that _interesting/weird/fascinating_... wish some of you would comment on it, especially LTRLI!

Also, FWIW, I've been shooting quite a bit w/ the 5DIII lately, & preliminarily, IQ-wise, I have to say:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Every time I try to lift shadows of ISO 100 images in LR (no I'm not talking about +100) it's a banding mess. So there's really not that much leeway in terms of screwing up your exposure or single-shot HDR
[*]I tried averaging dark frames to do a dark frame subtraction on ISO 100 images. No luck yet b/c the FPN does change somewhat from day to day. Could try averaging frames from multiple days to only try & subtract out the FPN that does persist strongly
[*]At least there's not much banding in high ISO shots. Sometimes strange horizontal banding shows up at really high ISOs. Again, no surprise here, b/c when you add enough noise to FPN, you effectively mask the FPN with all the other random noise
[/list]

That being said, I really don't think we should be bashing people or going off-topic by talking about the other aspects of the camera that make it good. That's not the point of LTRLI's thread, & I think all the other talk dilutes those of us with a semi-academic interest, as well well as those of us interested in optimizing our setup. Yes, I agree, the AF has been amazing so far, & the 600EX-RT flashes have been reliable & great; in fact, those are the reasons I'm sticking with Canon for now b/c I now do more people photography than landscape photography. But heck, I really would've liked it if the Canon served me as well as Nikon during those times I do revert to landscape shooting. Then again, I used to love shooting slides so one may wonder why I'm complaining  In all seriousness, though, if you're into optimizing, you're into finding the tool that best serves whatever needs you have... and sometimes we have multiple needs/interests.

Therefore these tests are relevant to me, as are discussions of the validity of these tests. Let's try & not bash anyone.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



thepancakeman said:


> Because most of the pros get their stuff off of Amazon, right?



Damn straight. Amazon is the vendor of choice for all serious photographers, followed closely by overstock.com and Wal-Mart.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> > I'm sorry, but downscaling is not a mystical tool that will magically fabricate additional DR. If you blow the highlights in-camera, no amount of downscaling or upscaling or scaling in any other form is going to RECOVER pixels that reached maximum saturation and then-some. I think such facts need to be disputed, not really for the good of Canon shooters (where generally all sticking with Canon gear)...but more for the good of potential camera buyers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess I would call that making *existing DR* (in these cases, in the shadows) _more usable_, where as before downsampling it may be less usable. It can't increase DR beyond the capabilities of the hardware, however, regardless of how you work the math. There are physical attributes of the electronics in a sensor and in an ADC that limit the actual range. If the D800 has a 14bit sensor, then it has a theoretical maximum limit of 2^14 discrete levels of luminance, and a theoretical maximum limit of 14 stops of dynamic range. When you factor in overhead and losses (some of which might be mitigated with better hardware...i.e. CDS), you arrive at the physical limitations of the hardware, which both from a saturation point (maximum discrete luminance levels) and DR standpoint, will be less than the theoretical maximums. Downsampling might be able to recover some of what was lost, possibly generating a normalized result that has slightly better characteristics than the hardware, but you still can't gain more than the theoretical maximum as limited by the hardware. You can't really gain anything at all...your just better realizing the potential of what you already have, up to physical or at best mathematical limits.

I'm not sure if a simpler strait forward equation like what LTRLI uses is indicative of real-world downsampling, either. All forms of downsampling are variations of averaging and filtering algorithms, which sample multiple source pixels to produce some kind of cross-processed result pixel. If you have a range of input shadow samples from 0-5, the only way you could gain DR would be if the output was always 0...however an averaging algorithm will rarely always result in the best output for DR from a given set of input. If you have 0, 2, 1, 2, 5, 3, 4, 1, 0, 1, 5 as input samples, the unweighted average would be 2.1818 or ~= 2.2, which would result in an output pixel of 2. You actually lose DR from a real-world standpoint, be it a simple nearest neighbor sampling or something more advanced like bicubic or possibly a fractal algorithm. The original DR for shadows was 5 levels, where as the final DR for shadows is 1. The same thing would occur for the entire DR of an input image, from shadows to highlights, so for any real-world downsampling algorithm that most photographers would have access to, I don't see how you can really gain anything from the act of downsampling. I think at best you can maintain, and at worst lose a minor amount, of overall dynamic range, even if you improve the characteristics of noise. You might also improve the perception of the image overall...it'll appear less noisy and probably sharper...but mathematically, in actuality, those improvements are perceived out of a loss. Perception is by definition a subjective measure, though, hence the issues I have with using DxO Print DR as a primary measure of IQ.



sarangiman said:


> That being said, I just don't understand how DXO rates the D800 has having higher DR than the D4 (both normalized & un-normalized), or the D800 having better ISO performance than the 5DIII.
> 
> I mean, just looking at these curves, there's something really fishy about ISO 100 on the D800:
> 
> ...



I have a LOT of issues with DxO's methodology. I've commented about them on other threads in more detail...but that is essentially what I'm arguing. Statistically, DxO results seem to be accurate relative to one another, but the whole model seems to be flawed in some way that skews results and doesn't accurately reflect real-world results, and with each new Nikon camera, the gap between what is well-known in the real-world as EXCELLENT seems to...theoretically...fall farther and farther behind Nikon cameras specifically (not even Sony cameras, which use the same Sony sensors as Nikon cameras do, seem incapable of keeping pace with Nikon cameras for some reason...which is VERY ironic.) The fact that digital MF sensors, which produce some of the most astounding output I've ever seen (particularly of portraiture, but also for landscapes), their sensor ratings on DxO are rather "sucky", particularly in relation to Nikon cameras. I'm called a fanboy for calling such discrepancies out...but its a relevant issue, in my opinion, just as relevant as the nature of Canon's DxO ratings or quirky results like 14.4 stops of DR for the D800. Just too many odd discrepancies relative to the actual real-world performance of these sensors that begs questioning the results, and possibly the entire approach.



sarangiman said:


> Also, FWIW, I've been shooting quite a bit w/ the 5DIII lately, & preliminarily, IQ-wise, I have to say:
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Every time I try to lift shadows of ISO 100 images in LR (no I'm not talking about +100) it's a banding mess. So there's really not that much leeway in terms of screwing up your exposure or single-shot HDR
> [*]I tried averaging dark frames to do a dark frame subtraction on ISO 100 images. No luck yet b/c the FPN does change somewhat from day to day. Could try averaging frames from multiple days to only try & subtract out the FPN that does persist strongly
> ...


[/quote]

I think you may be encountering banding, which is different from FPN (which by definition is fixed and cannot vary.) Banding, according to a couple who have posted on this forum and over on DPR, is often the result of electronic interference...possibly even from the camera's own battery interface, possibly from other sources. I've seen a lot of sample shots from new 5D III owners...some exhibit definite banding at low ISO in the deep shadows, where as some don't seem to exhibit banding at all. It may just be related to manufacturing tolerance, and you might be able to resolve the issue by swapping your body for another one (although you might have to do that a few times to get one that doesn't exhibit banding...assuming its a sample issue at all...you may just have some electronic or radio frequencies in the areas you've been shooting that are strong enough to interfere with any inadequately shielded electronics in the camera.)


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Thanks jrista for your reply. A couple of things:



> I guess I would call that making existing DR (in these cases, in the shadows) more usable, where as before downsampling it may be less usable. It can't increase DR beyond the capabilities of the hardware, however, regardless of how you work the math.



The DR the camera can capture/record is (partially) hard limited by the ADC, yes?

In other words, an 8-bit ADC would necessarily limit your DR to 8EV? Want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. For example, if full-well capacity is 65,536e-, & you use a gain of 256e-/ADU, but now your blacks are crushed even if the read noise of your sensor is, say, 30e-. Even though your sensor may be differentiating blacks, a lot of blacks will be binned to an ADU of 1, correct?

If so, then, yes I totally see your point.



> I'm not sure if a simpler strait forward equation like what LTRLI uses is indicative of real-world downsampling, either.



I wasn't talking about a downsampling equation... I don't remember LTRLI ever providing one. I was talking about his calculation of DR:

DR = log(base 2)[max pixel value in white file/read noise in ADU]

I understand that's a general way of determining PDR, but my issue, which I raised a number of times before, is that to relate this calculation to the DR the camera is capable of recording requires a *number of assumptions* that I do not know are valid! I even provided a thought experiment that, if implemented into the signal processing pipeline, would make Nikon appear to have greater dynamic range even though it may not (basically: if you bin certain low signals to 0, rather than allow both positive & negative variation around a black point of, like 2048, you can reduce the stdev of pixels in a resultant black frame).



> I don't see how you can really gain anything from the act of downsampling.



All I'm saying is: take a black frame from your camera, load it up in IRIS, measure the stdev of pixels. Now downsample that file 4x or something; now measure the stdev of pixels. I just did for a black frame from my 5DIII, & here are my results:

[list type=decimal]
[*]100%: stdev = 5.9ADU | *DR=11.4EV*
[*]25% (bilinear downsampling): stdev = 1.61ADU | *DR=13.2EV*
[/list]

Wow! ~2 stops more DR! Kinda makes you question that DR formula... what say you? 



> (not even Sony cameras, which use the same Sony sensors as Nikon cameras do, seem incapable of keeping pace with Nikon cameras for some reason...which is VERY ironic.)



That is interesting & to me points to the signal processing pipeline in Nikon cameras doing something different that yields better results (real world? DXO? both?... I can't comment yet b/c I haven't yet done my 5DIII vs. D800 transmission wedge test, which I'll do as soon as my friend gets his D800).


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Since all this hooha started about DxO figures for DR I have been deliberately been trying to get the maximum from my 1DS3 which according to DxO should be about 12 stops

Now I dont have all the fancy testing gear and nor do I care enough either so I just monitored the RAW histogram in DPP which seemed to me to show the DR as the scale. I dont really care whether it is accurate or not - it is the relative DR that I was interested in.

These are the findings from my pictures which are pretty varied in terms of content and lighting

1. Most of my pictures sit between 8 and 10 at iso100 and these are in quite contrasty situations

2. Of all the thousands of pictures I only got a handfull over 10 and a couple approaching 12 - and these were theatre shots which one could visually see went from pure black to pure white

3. On the >10 I could see no noise, and they gave beautiful prints - as did all the others taken at iso100

4. Use of flash on the whole gave better looking pictures, but reduced the DR

I have come to the conclusion that I dont need DR >12 - In fact 10 would probably be sufficient for 99.9% of my taken shots. I am not sure that losing a little DR would make any difference to either the screen shots or prints

In view of the wide variety of shots I take at iso 100/200 I would suggest that there would be very few circumstances where the shot where it would be possible to tell the difference in DR between 12 stop DR or 14 stop DR bodies because there are so few images in real life that require it

I believe the real issue lies in what happens to DR at higher iso. Below is one of the pictures that pushed the DR to the max at iso1600, registering a DR of 10 - there is a little dr clipping in the blacks - but I would suggest it doesn't matter as the blacks are not a integral element of the image.

So at iso1600 I would say the DR is OK - but what of the trend towards the curent low light favourites - iso12800 and higher. On my 1D4 the DR is way down, the images are clean, reasonably sharp but visually lacking in DR. This is the area where I feel more DR would be useful (on the 1D4 at 6400/12800). I VERY rarely shoot at these isos - only as a last resort. At weddings (with the 5DII) I avoided anything over 1600 by using flash - yes you can use flash in the reception - with all the iphones going off then a man sized flash doesn't attract attention. Or set up a picture booth - you will be surprised at the length of the queue that you will get, especially after the beer starts flowing 

My bottom line is that:

- arguing over the DxO testing methods is largely irrelevant 
- monitor your own DR requirements using DPP histogram
- take test shots and see how they match up to your eye, pleasing images are far more important than any lab testing
- avoid high iso wherever possible ('high' being body dependant)
- personally I dont believe that fraction of a point with high DR are relevant to field taken images for the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE for ALL their images

What I am saying here in this thread context is that both the 5DIII and the D800 seem to have more than adequate DR to cope with all of the pictures for the majority. Certainly DR is not going to be a deal breaker for either. 

Several posters here have mentioned that good technique is key to good images, and for DR best practice is to keep iso in that 'golden' part of the curve (for the 1D4 and 1Ds3 that seems to be iso1600 or less) where of course coincides with the golden part of the curve for least obtrusive noise. The responsibility for highest IQ is down to the shooter to use best practice and with todays technology you will be rewarded with great images.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



V8Beast said:


> According to DxO, the 5DII and 1DsIII are turds, but they dominated the studio scene for quite some time. I can see the D800 cutting into this advantage, but I still don't think the gap is big enough for many working pros to consider switching systems.



The 1DS3 has moved into the sports area now and is hosing the D800 with its massive 25% advantage in fps


----------



## q3chap (Apr 20, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> q3chap said:
> 
> 
> > Till now, i am very happy with my MII.
> ...



hehe .. yeah .. but if the pictures looks bad, than it's because of me and not of the camera  ... 

But I miss the new AF in my MII, but it is not 1500 euro worth. Maybe 400 euro, but not 1500, but I think, in a year or two, the price of MIII will be 2500 euro instead of 3300 euro.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> - The popup flash on the D800 is NOT meant for use as a flash per se. It is meant to be used as master for controlling other flashes in the CLS (Creative Lighting System), which beats the hell out of Pocket Wizard and other primitive 'on or off' systems.



I guess this is a comment made by someone who has no significant expence with PW/Odins/Pixel King.

But hey it is a good thow away remark often repeated by like minded people


----------



## Matthew Saville (Apr 20, 2012)

Is it just me, or didn't this happen once before? When DXO published a test, and then changed it? Or was that a different review site? (I know Luminous Landscape got itself into trouble once or twice, but I could swear that DXO also "changed it's mind" too once...)

Just wondering. I'm a Nikon owner, and I don't believe the findings lol. The 5D 3 should perform much better in low light, from the images I've seen. I dunno, maybe it's chroma noise that is bringing the 5D mk3 RAW score down? I never consider color noise because it's so dang easy to remove, but Canon usually does have more color noise in RAW files even if the "properly NR'd" files end up being better... *shrug*

(I do post-production for a living, so I spend all day staring at D700 12 MP files and 5D 2 sRAW1 files. The 5D mk2 cleans up really well in sRAW1, and beats the D700 "in the real world", ...but the un-NR'd 21 MP files are what kill the DXO score.

=Matt=


----------



## Aglet (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

LTRLI - pretty hard to feel vindicated here, eh? 

This thread goes all over the map. Only noteworthy SENSOR difference I'm really seeing is low ISO DR from DxO's results. Mine are showing the noise structures.

Numbers don't matter for those who may not fully appreciate their significance and their limitations. They're a tool, like any other, to help us differentiate the things they describe. They're certainly more valuable if we know the complete methodology behind them, tho.

I finally had a chance to load the screen results for 5d2, 5d3 and d800 as I couldn't earlier.
They're all pretty darn close at everything except low ISO DR, as expected. whether screen or print, the significance is considerable and disappointing that Canon didn't do better. I still find the screen numbers more believable and useful since I'm not interested in the downscaling benefits as their normalizing doesn't match mine. With screen numbers I have a better idea what to expect when comparing different camera hardware, printing drivers and issues are removed.

Given that, I don't think the D800 deserves a total score as high as it received, nor the 5d3 as low as it received. Not knowing how they weight that final total score means, to me, that it is about the only irrelevant part of DxO's presentation.

OTOH, everything else about the 5D3 has been significantly improved, going by all the numbers and features. It also should be capable of slightly more pushing in post because of reduced banding vs the 5d2, so that raises its subjective IQ and DR a little more than the numbers might suggest.

if I were in the market for the 5D3, at least for stills, I've have no hesitation in buying one. I don't give a rodent's sphincter about video tho, so whatever those results are have no sway in my decision.

As it is, there's not much compelling me to upgrade from my 5D2 unless I get rid of my 7D too and trust the 5d3 can cover both of those bases adequately. Losing the extra "reach" of the 7D is a worthy trade for me considering how horridly bandy mine is. It's good for high speed snapshots, not something I can really massage in post like the 5d2 or D800.

Not having seen more images from the 5d3, or having used it myself, I'll stay with the devils I know for the moment. Well, not counting the new Devil800 I ordered to augment my toolkit because I know I could put faith in some of those abstract numbers describing it.

Now for some visual aids.

images below are from my +4 EV push test. scaled 1/8 linear using bicubic-sharper and then equally fudged in GraphicConverter to quickly bring up the levels just to really show the large-scale banding structure differences. cropped to the upper-left 600x400 so as not to suffer any uncontrolled scaling losses on this forum.

Now, could some lumberjocks please tell me again how much you like plaid and that it just doesn't matter? ;D

Some of us really don't like plaid, I don't want my prints to wear it either.
So I won't be using more bandy-sensored Canons, much as i love using them otherwise, when I need to do some single shot, high-DR imaging.
Use the best tool for the job. (or hire one  )


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Canon has better color in video because the D800 only reads ever third line for video. That has nothing to do with stills performance. The 5D3 has better video SNR than the D800, perhaps by 1.5-2 stops or so, yeah, and avoids the color moire the D800 has.

I was using actually black frames from actual 5D3s, as were the others, and you trashed us to pieces. And went on and on about how who do we think we are, DxO? and just wait, DxO, will show our ridiculously carried out results to be totally wrong, etc. etc. at first.

Normalization. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;D
Someone else can give it a go and try to explain.

The bonus points are objective in the sense that they are given in a strictly defined way and have always been doled out the same way. They are subjective in that the whole weighting of their overall ratings is just what they decided to go with and I do think their overall low light ratings system is a bit weird myself and the overall sensor rating is just plain weird since how do you compare ten different factors with one number? But their plot data looks good. I've always largely ignored their over sensor ratings and their overall sub-ratings and just focused on there plot data. But yeah the overal low light score does seem a bit unfair to the 5D3. The one good thing is it might keep Canon from cheating the color array filters any further though.

The color array filters don't determine colors directly, that's really on how well the associated color profile for the camera is in DPP or ACR or C1 or whatnot, they more determine whether the sensor can tell different shades apart of not and how much you need to boost channels to reach a normal profile under different lighting conditions (under tungsten they all have about the same metamerism, under daylight they differ a lot more). A more color-blind CFA means you need more boost some channels more and that leads to more chroma noise (although it helps keep down luma noise, which is why they do it).


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

Matthew Saville said:


> Is it just me, or didn't this happen once before? When DXO published a test, and then changed it? Or was that a different review site? (I know Luminous Landscape got itself into trouble once or twice, but I could swear that DXO also "changed it's mind" too once...)
> 
> Just wondering. I'm a Nikon owner, and I don't believe the findings lol. The 5D 3 should perform much better in low light, from the images I've seen. I dunno, maybe it's chroma noise that is bringing the 5D mk3 RAW score down? I never consider color noise because it's so dang easy to remove, but Canon usually does have more color noise in RAW files even if the "properly NR'd" files end up being better... *shrug*
> 
> ...



As there was issues with the software I wonder what DxO used?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



seekn said:


> Patting yourself on the back is not attractive.



Yeah I know. It's stooping to the bashers level in a way. And no matter what happened before, it never goes down well.

But it's also necessary since they had many people believe all sorts of tests methods were invalid that were not invalid and they shouldn't be misled into not believing in the methods.

I knew I should've been more light-hearted about it, that always goes over better and it's a better way to act. Normally I do.



> Anyway, the one thing that I just dont understand on these forums is why soooo much emphasis is placed on one aspect of a camera? I totally agree that the 5dmarkiii DR is subpar to the 800 but what about the other million aspects of the camera? Do they not count also?



They do count and I've said so many times. The AF and fps and all that, awesome improvements. I've even said this in this thread earlier. I said it was great that is tied for best SNR ever.

But if you praise something then the usual suspects don't respond and the thread quickly falls off the charts but if you dare mention anything not the best about Canon they attack you and then the threads go on forever as you explain and defend everything so it seems like you only talk about one thing when you actually talk about all sorts of things.

Also, it takes a LOT to get Canons attention and some inside hints are that they haven't really cared to pay attention to low ISO DR much internally.





> Either way, kudos to the OP for being right but that is in no way going to make me switch platforms or make me regret buying a mark iii. Its a great camera plain and simple. People jumping ship are going to be sorely disappointed when their bottom line doesnt increase just from switching. Anyway, Im finished with work and its time for me to head home and get my hands on my mark iii. Seriously I have shot every day with it and I already have had some Nikonites drooling at my photos! lol. Grass is always greener I guess.
> And to the above poster - if you are going to buy the 800 just based on that I think you are making a mistake. You should test each out, see which feels better to you in hand and also see what images are more pleasing to you. Also, what camera suits your needs the best.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> I mean, just looking at these curves, there's something really fishy about ISO 100 on the D800:



It's actually all of the other curves that are fishy ;D. Ideally it WOULD be a straight line plot. It's read noise issues at certain stages of the read out that cause them to curve flat towards ISO100 for the non-exmor cameras.



> Furthermore, LTRLI: you keep claiming how it's cool that your calculation of DR based off of black/white RAW files from the camera match DXO's lab tests (where they actually shoot patches of varying brightness).
> 
> What I find interesting is that no one seems to *question that methodology* of calculating DR from black/white RAW files! I know jrista had issues with the source files LTRLI was using, but what of the methodology?
> 
> Why does it match DXO so well? I find that _interesting/weird/fascinating_... wish some of you would comment on it, especially LTRLI!



Probably because I think they are actually doing the same thing. I think they only use all the other parts of their fancy wedge for SNR and the integrated tonal response stuff and all that other stuff. For the basic dynamic range I think they just take their top blown out wedge (same as the white frame we talk about) and for then take a bottom wedge that contains the blackpoint (same as out lens cap on black frame) and then do the same thing we did, so I suspect it's the same, although they are not 100% clear. (also it's not really MY method since plenty of others use it and used it well, well, well before I ever did)





> Therefore these tests are relevant to me, as are discussions of the validity of these tests. Let's try & not bash anyone.


----------



## Eric_S (Apr 20, 2012)

The DXOMark scores are normalized to allow an appropriate comparison of sensors. In essence, their concept is to treat the camera as a black box and compare performance when printing to a fixed image size. That seems reasonable. The 5DMkIII has better pixel level noise performance than the D800, but when printed to the same size, the overall noise of the Nikon sensor is lower. The 5DMkIII produces cleaner jpegs than the D800 and it has a higher frame rate. The 5DMkIII is a phenomenal camera. Unfortunately, the pre-release hype seems to have deviated a bit farther from reality than usual. Anybody who is thinking of changing brands, either way, because of the differences between the D800 and the 5DMkIII must not have much of an investment in glass. When it comes to capturing a great image, does the difference matter? I say Hooray for Nikon. I applaud their technical achievement. Assume the that D800 sensor really is better...So what. I prefer the system I have and I am certainly not going to replace all of my glass. Given that the 5DMkIII is an excellent camera, what does the DXOMark score really mean to me? ... It means that Canon is going to pull out all of the stops and give us something really jaw dropping for the next iteration. When you are number one its easy to become a bit complacent. As such, the D800 may well be the best news long time Canon shooters have had for a long time. If specs matter all that much in your final image, by all means go out and whine, gnash your teeth and cry foul. If on the other hand, you want to take great pictures, then the MkIII is a significant improvement over the MkII and its a great camera. I don't actually put camera specs on my images...do you?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> I think you may be encountering banding, which is different from FPN (which by definition is fixed and cannot vary.) Banding, according to a couple who have posted on this forum and over on DPR, is often the result of electronic interference...possibly even from the camera's own battery interface, possibly from other sources. I've seen a lot of sample shots from new 5D III owners...some exhibit definite banding at low ISO in the deep shadows, where as some don't seem to exhibit banding at all. It may just be related to manufacturing tolerance, and you might be able to resolve the issue by swapping your body for another one (although you might have to do that a few times to get one that doesn't exhibit banding...assuming its a sample issue at all...you may just have some electronic or radio frequencies in the areas you've been shooting that are strong enough to interfere with any inadequately shielded electronics in the camera.)



It's super hard to get rid of all banding without using digital CDS and column ADCs because it's hard to tune all the read out electronics the same and make sure they all react to the stuff you mention in ways that won't make banding.


----------



## 2020digging (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Bosman said:


> Dude, if a personal friend of yours took a personality test and did poorly because science says so based on various scientific values is their science more important than your experience with that person?



Maybe not, but it would certainly inform your current and future relationships with your friend from that point on. Your friend might have been assessed as having sociopathic tendencies - something you would ignore at your peril. And at the same time if you're not open to this information then it's pointless anyway. 
Similarly with the camera I guess! Added technical information may assist in making you see more objectively about something which can obviously be measured objectively but in most cases is measured subjectively. Unlike the analogy with your friend though a camera is less likely do you any more harm than not allow you to optimise it as you believe you could or should - given the technology that is offered to you against your current and/or other competing brands. Which, I dare say, most people buy on spec, reputation, brand loyalty etc rather than extensive subjective experiences with the model.
In any case, you can disregard any technical information you want to and continue to enjoy your camera regardless of what others say. Take a photograph and feel good about it regardless of the box. 
But there is no argument about the fact that Canon surely would have performed their own technical tests to bundle out a camera that is targeted to a particular audience and price point. And this after measuring what the camera should be able to do from a primarily technical perspective. How else would they fundamentally differentiate their models. Problem is it seems they obviously did it without knowledge of the Nikons.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

The absolute numbers don't even matter, it's just relative comparisons.
Everyone would have a different criteria for what DR amount is usable. They can agree on relative comparisons though. 

DxO randomly chose 8MP file, it doesn't matter what you chose or what the absolute #'s are when comparing things, who cares, it's all good.

If you don't normalize then you could get a 22MP 5D3 looking worse than 4MP earlier generation camera perhaps. They just do the most basic normalization of all. 

Strictly speaking one might better apply NR until the higher MP camera gets reduced to detail capture by the lower MP camera and this would give a bit more boost to higher MP cameras than the simple method. 

But it's tricky since NR always changes over time and it's hard to say when detail from one is reduced to the other, it may not be uniform, etc. it would be so tricky to decide what to use for normalization in that regard so the simple method is used and is good enough if you keep in mind that say a 22MP cam vs an 8MP cam might do a bit better in real world processing than implied.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Bosman said:


> Dude, if a personal friend of yours took a personality test and did poorly because science says so based on various scientific values is their science more important than your experience with that person?
> I'd wager your relationship and experience with them would trump their findings and you would say they are wack.
> My camera and lens system is a relationship. Numbers don't give it value.



Personality is astonishingly complex, far too complex for any formula or trivial personality test to remotely fully encompass. So I'd go with my personal experience with them.

Basic sensor data is orders of magnitude beyond orders of magnitude more simplistic and basic. It's very different. That said some tests, like DxO, don't even mention things like whether noise looks nice or ugly, etc. so some other things warrant looking into as well.

And once more of course AF and fps and all that matter. I've said a ton of times it's totally awesome that they put in the 1DX AF and bumped it to 6fps and so on. That makes it much easier to use than a 5D2 for some stuff.

And the SNR is tied for the best in any consumer camera, ever (although at the expensive of a bit extra chroma noise compared to the others tied with).


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



> It's actually all of the other curves that are fishy . Ideally it WOULD be a straight line plot. It's read noise issues at certain stages of the read out that cause them to curve flat towards ISO100 for the non-exmor cameras.



Right, that's kind of what I meant... I stated it poorly. Now, don't you find it strange that the D4 also flattens at ISO 100? We're not supposed to believe it has worse read-out noise than the D800, are we?

As for the method for calculating DR from white/black frames... I just don't see that as an accurate method, b/c of complications potentially arising from the signal processing pipeline.

I also don't understand why DXO doesn't *explicitly* publish their testing protocol. It's vague, while sometimes trying not to be by proffering some equations. It's annoying, almost disingenuous... they should just list the entire protocol for peer review, like all research papers... they're not making money off their testing, are they?



> For the basic dynamic range I think they just take their top blown out wedge (same as the white frame we talk about) and for then take a bottom wedge that contains the blackpoint (same as out lens cap on black frame) and then do the same thing we did



Yeah, I'm almost inclined to believe you, given that now my calculations this way from black/white frames of 5D2, 5D3, & D7000 suspiciously match DXO's numbers to almost a decimal point! Of course, if all these cameras religiously map white to that highest value on the white file & black to the mean of the pixels in the black file, with no other fancy signal processing in between, then maybe that's just a testament to DXOs testing protocol (if they actually base DR by imaging patches of a range of brightnesses).

FYI I started doing some DR tests on my 5DIII using a Stouffer Transmission Wedge (T4110). I'm working on my methodology here, but the following method yielded 11.2 stops for DR:

At ISO 100:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Find longest shutter speed at f/11 that is just short of no longer capturing any detail between Step 1 (not enumerated on wedge) & Step 2 (shooting RAW, using any/all sorts of HR & exposure reduction to pull detail out of highlights... i.e. +1/3stop from this shutter speed & Step 2 now has same signal as blown-out white file)
[*]Find shortest shutter speed where signal at Step 2 is ~12 (so, SNR of 2 if 5.9 is read noise, according to dark frame) 
[*]DR = log2(longest shutter speed/shortest shutter speed) = *11.2*
[/list]

Guess I could also do the above for SNR of 1 as the acceptable lower end.

But, 11.2 (lowest acceptable SNR = 2)... pretty close to 11.7 (lowest acceptable SNR = 1). 

Will try w/ friend's D7000 this weekend... then D800 soon (hopefully).


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > - The popup flash on the D800 is NOT meant for use as a flash per se. It is meant to be used as master for controlling other flashes in the CLS (Creative Lighting System), which beats the hell out of Pocket Wizard and other primitive 'on or off' systems.
> ...


No, it's not a throwaway remark.
CLS is intelligent, controls flash settings in real time. 
Pocket Wizard for instance only tells the flashes to flash. Everything else must be set manually. Other systems may well be smarter, sure.

Anyway, my point was, the built-in flash on the D800 has a specific function. I'm not interested in discussing the different systems, they all have advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Fishnose said:
> ...



PW/Odins etc send full eTTL therefore nothing is set up manually - so I guess you need to read up a bit more


----------



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

DXO is testing sensors for when they reaches a certain noise threshold.
it says nothing about how good images can look under the best circumstances.

so imo it´s no wonder that medium format cameras don´t have outstanding scores.


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



> At ISO 100:
> Find longest shutter speed at f/11 that is just short of no longer capturing any detail between Step 1 (not enumerated on wedge) & Step 2 (shooting RAW, using any/all sorts of HR & exposure reduction to pull detail out of highlights... i.e. +1/3stop from this shutter speed & Step 2 now has same signal as blown-out white file)
> Find shortest shutter speed where signal at Step 2 is ~12 (so, SNR of 2 if 5.9 is read noise, according to dark frame)
> DR = log2(longest shutter speed/shortest shutter speed) = 11.2



I should probably mention that I used IRIS for my analysis of the RAW data, & when I went looking for the file where Step 2 registered as 12ADU, I did compute the *average* across the patch... i.e. I looked for the exposure that had a *mean of 12ADU* for *Step 2*.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> PW/Odins etc send full eTTL therefore nothing is set up manually - so I guess you need to read up a bit more



Well, I never once mentioned Odin or Pixel King. You did. 
The most common Pocket Wizards by far (the Plus and Multimax series) are not TTL.

Amd I still say, I was talking about the reason for the built-in flash on the D800. 
And I still say that the CLS system is far better than dumb 'on or off' systems.

There are other systems, sure. What does that have to do with my original point?


----------



## seekn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> seekn said:
> 
> 
> > They do count and I've said so many times. The AF and fps and all that, awesome improvements. I've even said this in this thread earlier. I said it was great that is tied for best SNR ever.
> ...


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > PW/Odins etc send full eTTL therefore nothing is set up manually - so I guess you need to read up a bit more
> ...



I guess this fooled me



> Pocket Wizard and other primitive 'on or off' systems.



I think you will find that Canon flash lights are controlled by eTTL controllers (mini and flex) rather than the studio light types.

These PW and others are a straight radio replacement for the Canon IR systems - which are the direct equivalent of Nikon CLS. If you slag off PW you might at least get the context right or qualify which PW you are slagging off.

I guess you didn't think to compare CLS with the Canon equivalent which would have been easier for us to understand


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



thepancakeman said:


> dichiaras said:
> 
> 
> > MattBicePhotography said:
> ...



Well, I see your point, and I agree of course. But at the same time the fact that 5DIII has been always so far behind the D800, gives a good indication of the weakness of the sales of the former relative to the latter camera.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 20, 2012)

Eric_S said:


> The DXOMark scores are normalized to allow an appropriate comparison of sensors. In essence, their concept is to treat the camera as a black box and compare performance when printing to a fixed image size. That seems reasonable. The 5DMkIII has better pixel level noise performance than the D800, but when printed to the same size, the overall noise of the Nikon sensor is lower. The 5DMkIII produces cleaner jpegs than the D800 and it has a higher frame rate. The 5DMkIII is a phenomenal camera. Unfortunately, the pre-release hype seems to have deviated a bit farther from reality than usual. Anybody who is thinking of changing brands, either way, because of the differences between the D800 and the 5DMkIII must not have much of an investment in glass. When it comes to capturing a great image, does the difference matter? I say Hooray for Nikon. I applaud their technical achievement. Assume the that D800 sensor really is better...So what. I prefer the system I have and I am certainly not going to replace all of my glass. Given that the 5DMkIII is an excellent camera, what does the DXOMark score really mean to me? ... It means that Canon is going to pull out all of the stops and give us something really jaw dropping for the next iteration. When you are number one its easy to become a bit complacent. As such, the D800 may well be the best news long time Canon shooters have had for a long time. If specs matter all that much in your final image, by all means go out and whine, gnash your teeth and cry foul. If on the other hand, you want to take great pictures, then the MkIII is a significant improvement over the MkII and its a great camera. I don't actually put camera specs on my images...do you?



Could not agree more. Very very well said and exactly what I have been thinking whilst reading these threads. I can't be bothered reading the canon rumors forum anymore. 90% specifications comparisons and 10% actual photography.
I shoot with the 5D original and I'm a working wedding photographer. Clients could not be more pleased.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 20, 2012)

Matthew Saville said:


> Is it just me, or didn't this happen once before? When DXO published a test, and then changed it?



When did they change it?
My capture showing the results (first post in this thread) was grabbed off their site literally seconds after it went up.
The results are still the same now. So what did they change exactly?


----------



## psolberg (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review*



dichiaras said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > dichiaras said:
> ...



I think many will be surprised just how many more D800's are going to sell this year compared to the D700's. The 5DmkIII recall will not help matters and the 5DmkIII best competitor is the last generation due to it's ridiculous price. Take the 5DmkII. It is now a lot more affordable and just as good. Need speed? then how about a D700 which shoots up to 8 FPS leaving even the 5DmkIII in the dust and can be had brand new for a mere 2200 bucks or used for around 1800. 

The world has changed and the 5DmkIII has a LOT of compeitition which will inevitably mean it won't be able to be the wonder camera everybody had like its prior incarnation was. Amazon sales numbers are a good sample of what the market is demanding most and so far, it isn't 5DmkIII's and there is no indication they will unless canon drastically lowers the price.


----------



## Orion (Apr 20, 2012)

Eric_S said:


> Given that the 5DMkIII is an excellent camera, what does the DXOMark score really mean to me? ... It means that Canon is going to pull out all of the stops and give us something really jaw dropping for the next iteration. . . . .



Although I don't really care about all this, you have to realize that this time WAS the "next iteration." They succeeded! It's just that the price, and the DxO score now, leaves some scratching their heads.. . . Do people honestly think that Canon did not think that Nikon would come out with a monster camera?? and casue Canon to think, "ah no worries . . . we will do the jaw dropping thing for a future release. btw, DxO????"


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 20, 2012)

Orion said:


> Although I don't really care about all this, you have to realize that this time WAS the "next iteration." They succeeded! It's just that the price, and the DxO score now, leaves some scratching their heads.. . . Do people honestly think that Canon did not think that Nikon would come out with a monster camera?? and casue Canon to think, "ah no worries . . . we will do the jaw dropping thing for a future release. btw, DxO????"



By definition this was the previous iteration. The next iteration will be the next generation of cameras and sensors. An then a new iteration after that and so on and so on. Just like cell phones, computers, TVs etc etc.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 20, 2012)

Eric_S said:


> ...I say Hooray for Nikon. I applaud their technical achievement. Assume the that D800 sensor really is better...So what. I prefer the system I have and I am certainly not going to replace all of my glass. Given that the 5DMkIII is an excellent camera, what does the DXOMark score really mean to me? ... It means that Canon is going to pull out all of the stops and give us something really jaw dropping for the next iteration. When you are number one its easy to become a bit complacent. As such, the D800 may well be the best news long time Canon shooters have had for a long time.


Exactly.

We the camera buyers should be very pleased that we have at least 2 giants fighting for market share. It means they stay on their toes and push R&D (and marketing) all the harder to try and trump each other next time. 

Both are of course already working on coming generations - this is a long-term business.


----------



## JR (Apr 20, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Eric_S said:
> 
> 
> > ...I say Hooray for Nikon. I applaud their technical achievement. Assume the that D800 sensor really is better...So what. I prefer the system I have and I am certainly not going to replace all of my glass. Given that the 5DMkIII is an excellent camera, what does the DXOMark score really mean to me? ... It means that Canon is going to pull out all of the stops and give us something really jaw dropping for the next iteration. When you are number one its easy to become a bit complacent. As such, the D800 may well be the best news long time Canon shooters have had for a long time.
> ...



+1


----------



## smithy (Apr 20, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Both are of course already working on coming generations - this is a long-term business.


I do genuinely wonder if this is really the case. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that development of the next 5D doesn't start for another year or two, given that it was 4 years between the Mark II and Mark III. There's clearly *not* 4 years of technological improvement in the Mark III, perhaps with the exception of the DIGIC processor, but this has been gradually developed and improved across the full range of Canon SLRs during this time period.


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 20, 2012)

My conspiracy theory:
I wonder if DxO is purposely picking the 8MP downsize option to boost Nikon scores. All nikon cameras that receive great scores have all had multiples of 8MP as the sensor output resolution. The 16MP D7000, 16MP D4, and 36MP D800. Since the DR calculation that Dxo uses is not based solely on the ratio of light to dark but only those values where a signal to noise ratio is below 0dB. I wonder if by perfectly dividing those numbers they are able to achieve a lower noise floor in the shadows enabling larger dynamic range numbers on paper. Notice the random Pentax K5 extremely awesome DR rating also contains a 16MP sensor. I also find it interesting that the $800 16MP Nikon D5100 has an equal DR to the Phase One...hmmmmmm. The Sony NEX-7 with its 24MP sensor (multiple of 8) and the 24MP D3x and 24MP Sony A580 also have top spots to both $40,000 medium format cameras known their dynamic range and all Canon bodies. 

Can it really be a coincidence that EVERY top body in DR happens to have a MP count that is a multiple of the 8MP that DxO mysteriously uses for all of its calculations?
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_landscape


----------



## skitron (Apr 20, 2012)

I heard a rumor that Nikon is going to rebrand it's entire family of cameras as the "Amazon" series. 

The D800 is reportedly going to be rebranded as the DxO-95.

Nikon has also reportedly updated their firmware to first display a side by side comparison of the 5D3 and (formerly) D800 DxO marks for ten seconds before reviewing the photo. Owners have apparently demanded this feature as a reassurance that their photo does indeed look good before actually reviewing the photo.

Also, the rebranded version of the new Amazon series are reported to now have red bodies with a black stripe instead of black bodies with a red strip. A Nikon spokesperson who would only speak on the condition of anonymity expressed that Nikon customers have historically been intimidated by the red stripe on competitors lenses and felt the red stripe on the (formerly) D800 was a good first step, but simply did not go far enough.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> Thanks jrista for your reply. A couple of things:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That would indeed be exactly correct.  

Canon also uses a bias offset in each frame. The exact nature of it and exactly how it is used by a RAW processor is not fully known to me, but at the very least it sets a black point, allowing the total ADU range to span from -2048 to whatever maximumSaturation-2048 is. I don't know how that might affect results if you simply subtract 2048 from the original maximum saturation...to me, it sounds like you might be knocking off 2048 discrete levels of potential shadow luminance, since only the maximum saturation and stdev of noise is involved in DR calculations.



sarangiman said:


> > I'm not sure if a simpler strait forward equation like what LTRLI uses is indicative of real-world downsampling, either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, sorry. I know LTRLI's formula is not a downsampling formula, what I was trying to say is I don't think it takes into account the _realities_ of downsampling properly. To put it another way, I think it produces a result without context, which is why it seems to produce much higher numbers for DR than would seem realistic when computing DR for a downsampled image. In its own right, taken at face value (without any context) its certainly not an invalid formula...but do the results produced by it have real-world applicability? Do they represent something real, or is the formula too simplistic? I used to believe that DxO's Print DR numbers, which are derived the same way, were simply demonstrating that once you eliminate noise, you are then realizing the sensors full potential. Kind of tough to keep believing that, though, when the D800's Print DR numbers are BETTER than the sensors full potential...its not quite like a star trek warp drive...you don't get 120% of maximum out of a 14-bit sensor. 



sarangiman said:


> > I don't see how you can really gain anything from the act of downsampling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow! So odd...  I definitely question the DR formula...although it is interesting that you got 13.2 EV. I should have actually run that calculation myself to prove earlier points...that there is some biased skew between Canon Print DR results and Nikon Print DR results. Why is it that Nikon images gain so much more than Canon sensors when doing Print DR? Especially if Nikon images already contain a near-minimum noise floor and wouldn't logically seem to be able to benefit as much from normalization, where as Canon sensors still have some pattern noise forms at low ISO, and it would logically seem that they have MORE to gain, not less, from normalization.

Well, all I can say is yeah, the DR formula is fishy, and thats the key point I debate whenever these threads pop up. But I'm just a hater for saying so, and I personally don't care all that much about DxO results, so it doesn't really matter in the end anyway. ;P



sarangiman said:


> > (not even Sony cameras, which use the same Sony sensors as Nikon cameras do, seem incapable of keeping pace with Nikon cameras for some reason...which is VERY ironic.)
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting & to me points to the signal processing pipeline in Nikon cameras doing something different that yields better results (real world? DXO? both?... I can't comment yet b/c I haven't yet done my 5DIII vs. D800 transmission wedge test, which I'll do as soon as my friend gets his D800).



Perhaps, but the major differences only seem to exist in normalized results. The two brands are a lot closer in performance when comparing native results...which makes me suspect that there may be some kind of software-level bias involved, rather than significant hardware-level differences. There is definitely a value to producing normalized results for consistency in comparison...but DxO is a bit of a black box. They expose some details and a little bit of math about their process, but there are also a lot of unknowns. Involving software in the process can affect results in a LOT of ways that could affect the objectivity of the final outcome. Who knows, for sure, exactly what their software actually does. Does it have any brand-specific optimizations that aren't publicized? If so, how are they skewing results? 

The ironic thing here is that you can completely ignore the normalized results, and the native hardware results still indicate that Nikon and Sony sensors are technologically superior. Thats all someone really needs to say, and its not something that can really be (nor should be) disputed...but the Print DR results and funky S___ like "bonus points" are involved in the final "scores" that DxO gives to each camera. I find that to be fishy as well, and unnecessary. You don't need biased results to demonstrate that Sony Exmor based cameras offer superior IQ, and the actual meaningful differences between the best of the vest (D800) and the best of the competition (5D III or any one of the measured Digital MF cameras) are not really as big as DxO is making them out to be. Thats where my pet peeve lies...bias and skew when its unnecessary and not really honest or helpful to potential customers of any brand.


----------



## Razor2012 (Apr 20, 2012)

Come on guys, competition is good for all of us, and now it's time for the other camp to rejoice a little. Just look at the overall figures, Nikon had to jumpstart sales.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

skitron said:


> The D800 is reportedly going to be rebranded as the DxO-95.
> 
> Nikon has also reportedly updated their firmware to first display a side by side comparison of the 5D3 and (formerly) D800 DxO marks for ten seconds before reviewing the photo. Owners have apparently demanded this feature as a reassurance that their photo does indeed look good before actually reviewing the photo.



Good stuff ;D ;D I heard that Nikon is also developing a 36-inch tablet that tethers wirelessly to the D800, I mean DxO 95. That way users can more easily see the astonishing detail in the snap shots of their dogs and fake floral arrangements.


----------



## daniel_charms (Apr 20, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> My conspiracy theory:
> I wonder if DxO is purposely picking the 8MP downsize option to boost Nikon scores. All nikon cameras that receive great scores have all had multiples of 8MP as the sensor output resolution. The 16MP D7000, 16MP D4, and 36MP D800.



36 is not a multiple of 8.


----------



## ugury (Apr 20, 2012)

i don't believe dxo mark test results. i saw both dx800 and mk3 raw samples. mk3 high iso performance is definitely better than d800 especially after 800 iso.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> My conspiracy theory:
> I wonder if DxO is purposely picking the 8MP downsize option to boost Nikon scores. ... Notice the random Pentax K5 extremely awesome DR rating also contains a 16MP sensor. I also find it interesting that the $800 16MP Nikon D5100 has an equal DR to the Phase One...hmmmmmm. The Sony NEX-7 with its 24MP sensor (multiple of 8) and the 24MP D3x and 24MP Sony A580 also have top spots to both $40,000 medium format cameras known their dynamic range and *all Canon bodies*.



Remarkably, that 'all Canon bodies' includes the *16 MP* 1D IV. Another conspiracy theory shattered against the cold, hard rocks of reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Egad, sorry, but that's a whole lot of verbal diarrhea. As Inigo Montoya said, "Let me explain...no, there is too much, let me sum up..." (or analogize, as the case may be): 

DxOMark scores are like the US EPA's automobile fuel economy figures. I'm not going to base a car purchase decision on that particular number. I've never come close to the mpg figures I'm supposed to be getting with any car I've ever owned. The number says nothing about how fun the car is to drive, how comfortable the seats are, or whether a dresser can fit in the trunk. Still, it's a useful number to use as one factor, among many more important ones, in a decision.

About normalization: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Will the debate ever end? "It'd take a miracle..."


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 20, 2012)

ugury said:


> i don't believe dxo mark test results. i saw both dx800 and mk3 raw samples. mk3 high iso performance is definitely better than d800 especially after 800 iso.


The DxO test is not a religion, so it doesn't care if you believe in it or not: it's real.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> > It's actually all of the other curves that are fishy . Ideally it WOULD be a straight line plot. It's read noise issues at certain stages of the read out that cause them to curve flat towards ISO100 for the non-exmor cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, that's kind of what I meant... I stated it poorly. Now, don't you find it strange that the D4 also flattens at ISO 100? We're not supposed to believe it has worse read-out noise than the D800, are we?



Actually we are supposed to believe that the D4 has worse base ISO dynamic range than the D800 because it doesn't use any of the Exmor technology (and also more MP actually can tend to make it easier to get better read noise, but the main thing is the Exmore technology) so it was an expected result.



> As for the method for calculating DR from white/black frames... I just don't see that as an accurate method, b/c of complications potentially arising from the signal processing pipeline.



It's not accurate at all as to what the sensor itself captures, the Canon sensors are grabbing way more DR than we measure. But it's totally reasonable because it's not like we can magically beam the direct sensor capture onto our cards, the camera has to use read out electronics to read the signal and convert it to digital bits.

If you maybe meant more because how it may play around with things, it seems that most things have been touched up in any sort of unfair for the vast majority of cameras. Once you get in exposures more than a few seconds I think Nikon does, unfortunately, play with the RAW files a bit. Some say the 5D3 may play with the RAW a bit at 25,600 and above, not sure. I think for a few months one of the Sonys was playing with the RAW files. Mostly when people check there doesn't seem to be an issue though.




> > For the basic dynamic range I think they just take their top blown out wedge (same as the white frame we talk about) and for then take a bottom wedge that contains the blackpoint (same as out lens cap on black frame) and then do the same thing we did
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm almost inclined to believe you, given that now my calculations this way from black/white frames of 5D2, 5D3, & D7000 suspiciously match DXO's numbers to almost a decimal point! Of course, if all these cameras religiously map white to that highest value on the white file & black to the mean of the pixels in the black file, with no other fancy signal processing in between, then maybe that's just a testament to DXOs testing protocol (if they actually base DR by imaging patches of a range of brightnesses).





> FYI I started doing some DR tests on my 5DIII using a Stouffer Transmission Wedge (T4110). I'm working on my methodology here, but the following method yielded 11.2 stops for DR:
> 
> At ISO 100:
> [list type=decimal]
> ...


[/quote]

11.2 is actually awfully close to what the other method gets for the 100% view (it seems like you are doing 100% view with the wedge)


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Remarkably, that 'all Canon bodies' includes the *16 MP* 1D IV. Another conspiracy theory shattered against the cold, hard rocks of reality.


Well Done


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> Right, sorry. I know LTRLI's formula is not a downsampling formula, what I was trying to say is I don't think it takes into account the _realities_ of downsampling properly. To put it another way, I think it produces a result without context, which is why it seems to produce much higher numbers for DR than would seem realistic when computing DR for a downsampled image. In its own right, taken at face value (without any context) its certainly not an invalid formula...but do the results produced by it have real-world applicability? Do they represent something real, or is the formula too simplistic? I used to believe that DxO's Print DR numbers, which are derived the same way, were simply demonstrating that once you eliminate noise, you are then realizing the sensors full potential. Kind of tough to keep believing that, though, when the D800's Print DR numbers are BETTER than the sensors full potential...its not quite like a star trek warp drive...you don't get 120% of maximum out of a 14-bit sensor.



Imagine you have 32MP sensor and you then averaged every 16 pixels into 1 and got 2MP output. And you then measure the Std Dev of the black frame. It's measure lower from the 2MP version than from the 32MP version but the white frame max saturation will measure the same in both cases. Plug into the DR formula and it goes up. It's not magic because the 2MP file also shows a heck of a lot less detail than the original 32MP file did so you traded that detail away for the higher score on the other aspect in a sense, what you are really trying to do it just compare the two files at the same scale. Even if the simplistic normalization didn't quite match in practice and over-stated something a little, the thing is in practice used use advanced NR to equalize them which would be doing better anyway, so there would be no problem there at all.


As for SNR stuff they want to compare at the same noise scale otherwise you might be comparing a 32MP file that has lots of high frequency noise to a 2MP file that all the higher powers of noise automatically clipped away so it's not fair to compare the two images as if they were at the same noise scale. So they are really just normalizing the power scale of the noise between the two to not unfairly make the higher MP cameras look worse. You are reducing noise and signal so it's not like the image really improves any, it's actually a worse output really, yeah but you are just trying to do relative noise comparisons here and to compare it to the other file fairly that already had all the high frequency noise clipped away otherwise you are comparing the total noise over a larger frequency range than for the other one where the upper end of the range was hard clipped off which isn't fair. To do it well (not talking in terms of processing images for use but just for this relative comparison) you want to first gaussian blur away the high freq noise and then downsample to the scale you blurred it away to. or maybe more simply upscale the lower MP cam to the match the higher. Or you could just look at both at 100% on a monitor but stand back farther from the screen for the higher MP camera whatever distance is needed to make it's detail the same as what the lower one can capture. i think i garbled that a bit


Do you think the D700 has much better ISO1600 than the 5D2? Because if you don't normalize, and you now seem to say that normalization doesn't make sense and isn't fair, then the D700 will stomp your 5D2, when the reality is it isn't fair to say that it does.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> Wow! So odd...  I definitely question the DR formula...although it is interesting that you got 13.2 EV. I should have actually run that calculation myself to prove earlier points...that there is some biased skew between Canon Print DR results and Nikon Print DR results. Why is it that Nikon images gain so much more than Canon sensors when doing Print DR?



Not all of them do. The D800 gains more because it has a ton of MP, 36.

OTOH compare the D700 to the 5D2 and then the Canon gains more, because it has a ton of MP 21.






> Perhaps, but the major differences only seem to exist in normalized results. The two brands are a lot closer in performance when comparing native results...which makes me suspect that there may be some kind of software-level bias involved, rather than significant hardware-level differences. There is definitely a value to producing normalized results for consistency in comparison...but DxO is a bit of a black box. They expose some details and a little bit of math about their process, but there are also a lot of unknowns. Involving software in the process can affect results in a LOT of ways that could affect the objectivity of the final outcome. Who knows, for sure, exactly what their software actually does. Does it have any brand-specific optimizations that aren't publicized? If so, how are they skewing results?



it's just the MP scale

if you compare a 9MP cam print vs screen there it will look almost the same, if you compare a 32MP print ot screen it will look different since it is farther from their 8MP target.

if you compare a 32MP cam and a 6MP cam the relative difference print vs screen there will be a lot more than if you compare a 32MP to a 30MP cam or a 21MP to a 10MP, etc.



> The ironic thing here is that you can completely ignore the normalized results, and the native hardware results still indicate that Nikon and Sony sensors are technologically superior. Thats all someone really needs to say, and its not something that can really be (nor should be) disputed...but the Print DR results and funky S___ like "bonus points" are involved in the final "scores" that DxO gives to each camera. I find that to be fishy as well, and unnecessary. You don't need biased results to demonstrate that Sony Exmor based cameras offer superior IQ, and the actual meaningful differences between the best of the vest (D800) and the best of the competition (5D III or any one of the measured Digital MF cameras) are not really as big as DxO is making them out to be. Thats where my pet peeve lies...bias and skew when its unnecessary and not really honest or helpful to potential customers of any brand.



Once again you need to compare image at the same scale other you compare noise at different frequencies as if they were the same. And don't forget that there are other cases where it then 'biases' in favor of Canon, say comparing 5D2 vs D700.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

And to not bubble burst too much so once again it is awesome they gave it 1 series AF and increased fps and all, it's quite a beast and handles way better than the 5D2 from what I read, and well much of that is simply fact, 6fps is faster than 4fps and the faster shutter response etc are fact, AF is a better on paper, didn't try it yet myself, reports sound very, very good so far though. So for non-liveview tripod shooting it should work anywhere from a little bit better to vastly better depending what you are doing with it.

And the SNR is tied for best ever which is all that we could have hoped for there (at expense of a bit of color-blindness which is why DxO scores it lower for high iso, although their weighting probably exaggerates the usable difference for SNR/DR alone, sorting out the color-blindess effects is really tricky, anyway DxO just weighs that in heavily as an incentive so that one makers doesn't just totally thin it out while others don't and make the ones who don't look bad, you can argue what the weighting should be).

The DR was already known to be coming in no better than the 5D2. So nothing new here.

The SNR part of results here are something positive though since there were some questions about exactly where it would end up. The early talk, in this case, was just best guesstimates. Some had said it might only be 1/4 to 1/3 stop better, i.e. nothing doing, so the results here showing it to be around 1/2 to 2/3+ better depending upon the ISO are pleasant.

It was nice to see it ended up at the high end of the early predictions and matching the D800/D4/D3s.

(and real world, since the D3s has much lower resolution I think you can say it would often look worse at high ISO than the others, if you ignore DR where it has a full stop better than D800 and 5D3, so it's darker shadow areas will look better at high iso and you won't feel quite so clipped in with teh dynmaic range, but the lower res means clumpier larger sized noise and less detail which tends to look uglier and doesn't take advanced NR as well so overall for scenes not having tons of deep shadows it probably wouldn't look quite as good as the others at high iso actually, although for certain scenes it might look better than the D800 and 5D3)

The people suggesting the lesser SNR improvement for the 5D3 over the 5D2 were failing to take into account that the 5D3 rates ISOs more conservatively than the 5D2 does I think.

Not that 1/2 to 3/4 stop is insanely OMG but it's realistically all we could have hoped for (nobody has done better yet in any typical consumer camera). And the high iso banding is also lesser in the 5D3 than the 5D2. You also get 1/2-2/3 stop more DR at the much higher ISOs than the 5D2.

Anyway so long as you are not a 100% tripod/liveview shooter the 5D3 certainly improves tons of things compared to the 5D2.








But it would be nice if Canon finally paid some attention to low ISO DR and image quality. They haven't done a single improvement there since the 1Ds3 (which is arguably still the best Canon, by a tiny trace, at ISO100).
(I saw a tiny bit of talk from some with bit of Canon connection say that they got the impression that Canon was apparently taken by surprise that Nikon/Sony decided to push their FF exmor stuff out the door so quickly and they didn't think they had to push their FF sensors yet and though they could focus on improving body handling mostly for now. As some have been saying, Canon management was acting way too complacent and king of the hill resting on their laurels. I also saw some disturbing talk that they seem to think it was only the MP that are exciting about the D800 and they still don't get the dynamic range stuff, not sure if that is true, but at least a few seem to have that unfortunate, IMO, point of view and that they, or at least a few (few? some? many? who knows) might consider a MP count higher than the D800 a huge success even if it had the same old 2007 dynamic range again. Anyway that is somewhat hearsay so who really knows exactly what they are thinking.)


----------



## straub (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Normalization. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;D



Since you seem to be the self-proclaimed go-to guy regarding normalization, you can probably easily answer this. Suppose you have a sensor that captures 1Gpix of data with DR of 2 stops. You expose the highlights to LV+15 and thus record luminosities between LV+13 and LV+15. How do you suppose "normalizing" this data will somehow generate luminosity values below LV+13 and/or above LV+15?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



straub said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Normalization. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;D
> ...



Why would the sensor suddenly not record any data lower than 2 stops below LV+!5? It would. It would be a mess of noise at 1GP scale though but it would still grab the data.


----------



## straub (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> straub said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Ah, I should have also mentioned that the camera would have 2-bit ADC. Which then means that in this case anything below LV+13 is recorded and interpreted as LV+13. It is a silly hypothetical camera, but the principle is the same for any N-bit ADC--you simply don't have any data beyond the range of the ADC. And no amount of normalization is going to change that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



straub said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > straub said:
> ...



But the way you are reading it out doesn't make sense since it wouldn't store LV 13-15 from scene.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



straub said:


> Ah, I should have also mentioned that the camera would have 2-bit ADC. Which then means that in this case anything below LV+13 is recorded and interpreted as LV+13. It is a silly hypothetical camera, but the principle is the same for any N-bit ADC--you simply don't have any data beyond the range of the ADC. And no amount of normalization is going to change that.



Clearly, you have a dizzying intellect, but you fail to understand normalization. Let's define it:

*Normalization* (ˌnôrmələˈzā sh ən): n. A magical process by which certain data are removed from images and other, nonexistent data are added to images, the net result of which is that those images can be used to support any conclusion in which I firmly believe.

See...it all makes sense, you just had to see it in context.


----------



## straub (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



neuroanatomist said:


> straub said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, I should have also mentioned that the camera would have 2-bit ADC. Which then means that in this case anything below LV+13 is recorded and interpreted as LV+13. It is a silly hypothetical camera, but the principle is the same for any N-bit ADC--you simply don't have any data beyond the range of the ADC. And no amount of normalization is going to change that.
> ...



Ah magick, now I understand!


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Right, sorry. I know LTRLI's formula is not a downsampling formula, what I was trying to say is I don't think it takes into account the _realities_ of downsampling properly. To put it another way, I think it produces a result without context, which is why it seems to produce much higher numbers for DR than would seem realistic when computing DR for a downsampled image. In its own right, taken at face value (without any context) its certainly not an invalid formula...but do the results produced by it have real-world applicability? Do they represent something real, or is the formula too simplistic? I used to believe that DxO's Print DR numbers, which are derived the same way, were simply demonstrating that once you eliminate noise, you are then realizing the sensors full potential. Kind of tough to keep believing that, though, when the D800's Print DR numbers are BETTER than the sensors full potential...its not quite like a star trek warp drive...you don't get 120% of maximum out of a 14-bit sensor.
> ...



I understand the nature of scaling, that wasn't in question. Perhaps we just need to qualify what we mean by DR when we discuss these things. When it comes to "hardware DR"...I consider that a fixed constant, and an intrinsic attribute of the camera. If a camera has 14-bit hardware and X amount of overhead, it is going to be capable of a fixed, unchanging amount of "hardware DR"...or lets call it "true DR". If you saturate pixels beyond the True DR, say 15000 ADU, no amount of software-based tuning will be able to recover what you lost.

When we normalize two source images to a common image size, were affecting what I'd like to term "perceptual DR", or perhaps "virtual DR". You are not actually changing the characteristics of the hardware...there is still a hard limit on what a 14-bit camera can do. Virtual DR can only help you fully realize what that hardware is capable of, up to, but not exceeding the limits of, the hardware itself. I don't have a problem with the idea that with normalization of LOTS of pixels into FEW pixels, you might be able to fully realize 13.2 stops of DR, and possibly get a little bit more than that because your mitigating noise. I wouldn't be surprised if Virtual DR for a 13.2 stop sensor ended up being 13.8 stops, and if you had some REALLY GOOD algorithms to handle your normalization for you, I'd be ok, albeit surprised, if your normalized results achieved exactly 14.0 stops...but ok, fine...your making more effective use of data in the "noise floor" of your dynamic range. To achieve 14.4 tops, your somehow creating information...additional levels of luminance (over 5000 of them) to achieve a higher dynamic range than your sensor is capable of. Your adding information above and beyond the maximum number of ADU the ADC is capable of producing for a single pixel at maximum saturation. 

Saying the D800 is capable of 14.4 stops, even though that is based on "normalized" data, is misleading. The camera itself is NOT capable of 14.4 stops...its capable of 13.2. Sure, it still wins the DR contest even with 13.2, but were were talking about over a full stop here...thats not within the margin of error. There is something wrong with the methodology here...something extremely UNrealistic about the way DR is being calculated from normalized data. Its not even remotely realistic when your claiming the D800 is capable of more than DOUBLE the dynamic range it ACTUALLY IS capable of _*at a hardware level*_. This also begs the question why a mere 36.3mp sensor from Nikon gains SO MUCH MORE than say a 60mp sensor from Hasselblad when downscaling. According to the approach you and DxO use, the more megapixels you start out with, the better the ultimate results when you downscale to an 8mp image. There is obviously a serious disconnect when a FF DSLR sensor with half the resolution as a MF sensor achieves several stops better results, when if the key factor that determines normalized results is how much information you started with. The hassy should win hands down every time, even against a D800, if that was the case...and in visual comparisons even a 40mp hasselblad offers far more highlight recovery room and far better color rendition than a D800. There is a disconnect somewhere in the approach DxO uses and real-world results...and its not an insignificant disconnect.... I'm not sure if I'm portraying my point well enough here... I think sarangiman gets it, but I'm not sure if anyone else does.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> As for SNR stuff they want to compare at the same noise scale otherwise you might be comparing a 32MP file that has lots of high frequency noise to a 2MP file that all the higher powers of noise automatically clipped away so it's not fair to compare the two images as if they were at the same noise scale. So they are really just normalizing the power scale of the noise between the two to not unfairly make the higher MP cameras look worse. You are reducing noise and signal so it's not like the image really improves any, it's actually a worse output really, yeah but you are just trying to do relative noise comparisons here and to compare it to the other file fairly that already had all the high frequency noise clipped away otherwise you are comparing the total noise over a larger frequency range than for the other one where the upper end of the range was hard clipped off which isn't fair. To do it well (not talking in terms of processing images for use but just for this relative comparison) you want to first gaussian blur away the high freq noise and then downsample to the scale you blurred it away to. or maybe more simply upscale the lower MP cam to the match the higher. Or you could just look at both at 100% on a monitor but stand back farther from the screen for the higher MP camera whatever distance is needed to make it's detail the same as what the lower one can capture. i think i garbled that a bit



I get your meaning there. I think, however DxO is doing it, that their "normalization" overcompensates for higher resolution and undercompensates for lower resolution, thereby unfairly making the lower MP cameras look worse than they really are. You effectively apply noise reduction to the higher MP camera, and none to the lower MP camera. I completely understand the value of normalized comparisons, but is the process of normalization valid? Scaling a smaller image up is actually not the same as scaling a larger image down. The former would actually leave noise characteristics largely in-tact for both images, without giving either of them a clear advantage. The problem with that is its harder to keep things consistent, as with each new higher resolution sensor, you need to reprocess old data to the new larger size and recompute the results. I get that, however I also believe it would still be more accurate...it would eliminate a lot of bias towards higher megapixel sensors (assuming that is the only bias...as I mentioned before, if the normalization process caters to higher resolution sensors because your factoring multiple source pixels into each output pixel of an 8mp target image, then medium format cameras should be trouncing everything else...as they well should...but there is clearly something else far less obvious going on with the D800's results.)



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Do you think the D700 has much better ISO1600 than the 5D2? Because if you don't normalize, and you now seem to say that normalization doesn't make sense and isn't fair, then the D700 will stomp your 5D2, when the reality is it isn't fair to say that it does.



At a hardware level, I would say the D700 and 5D II have roughly the same performance at ISO 1600. I think the D700 wins by about 1/4 of a stop. That doesn't surprise me, and sensitivity and dynamic range *are strongly correlated with* larger pixel area. Both cameras are full-frame, so the D700 certainly has a lot more area per pixel than the 5D II. I would EXPECT the D700 to offer more DR at any given ISO setting, since DR is closely linked to maximum saturation and standard deviation of read noise. (Barring any other improvements, making a pixel's total area larger will always allow for a larger maximum saturation level, and assuming all other things remain equal, I would expect the noise characteristics of two identical sensors with differing pixel sizes to be the same.)

Now, from a NOISE standpoint, which is obviously something we regularly correct with software, normalizing the two images to the same dimensions makes sense, and will help the 5D II's standing *from a post-processing standpoint*...we all use software to clean up noise after we've imported our photos from our camera. But any side effect in terms of improved DR or color fidelity or anything else that you might get, at least according to the log(base2)(maxSaturation-stdevReadNoise) formula, is not reflecting a hardware capability in any way. Actually, the improvement in noise achieved by downsampling is also not reflecting a hardware capability in any way. None of the results gleaned from a software-normalized 8mp image will tell you anything about what the hardware itself is physically capable of...all it will tell you is what the software your using to perform the image normalization is capable of. DxO Analyze is apparently capable of doing amazing things with Nikon RAW files...but the fact that DxO Analyze is capable of doing amazing things with Nikon RAW files doesn't tell me anything about the Nikon cameras itself...its just telling me that DxO Analyze is amazing for processing Nikon RAW files.


----------



## straub (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If you had a 2 bit monitor would you set 0=bright gray and have the backlight shining through a lot even when fed signal 0? You'd still set 0= liquid crystals block backlight as much as they can = black and then dither to build up lots of intermediate tones and if it had some huge resolution like that you'd build lots of tones.



You can certainly dither between LV+13 and LV+15 in the example system. Not above and not below though. As far as the sensor in this case is concerned, LV+13 *is* black. It is zero in the ADC output scale of [0,3]. Anything below that has ceased to exist after the ADC has digitized it.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

Something that should also be pointed out is that image comparisons on a normal basis only make sense if that is actually how you are going to use the images. If you only print at 8x10 size, then comparing all images at that size makes sense. However one of the primary reasons you buy a higher resolution camera is to help facilitate the need to print at a higher resolution, or crop to a greater degree and print at a lower resolution. In either of those cases, comparing normalized results at 8x10 size is not going to tell you much about how the camera will perform *for your needs*, which might require you to print at 13x19, 17x22, or even higher. If you regularly scale your images up to immense sizes, say 30x40 or greater, then the IQ of your camera at its native resolution will be paramount, and not properly reflected by the 8x10 results.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> Something that should also be pointed out is that image comparisons on a normal basis only make sense if that is actually how you are going to use the images. If you only print at 8x10 size, then comparing all images at that size makes sense. However one of the primary reasons you buy a higher resolution camera is to help facilitate the need to print at a higher resolution, or crop to a greater degree and print at a lower resolution. In either of those cases, comparing normalized results at 8x10 size is not going to tell you much about how the camera will perform *for your needs*, which might require you to print at 13x19, 17x22, or even higher. If you regularly scale your images up to immense sizes, say 30x40 or greater, then the IQ of your camera at its native resolution will be paramount, and not properly reflected by the 8x10 results.



Yes and if you want to know how it might look if you maintain max detail from the same viewing distance then you look at 100%, but when comparing one camera against another and asking what has better noise performance you don't do that since it it not fair.

For their SNR tests they are just comparing to a middle gray signal and featureless gray slab that no information other than it's shade and looks the same at any resolution.

For the 14bit limit stuff, yeah if you calculate it using 14bit math and store the normalized result in 14bits you are stuck at 14bits max but who says you should stick to 14bit math, you need to go to a higher bit space to carry it out.


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

I tend to agree w/ the idea that your DR should never exceed the max bit-depth of your ADC. Simply b/c at best your stdev of pixels in a black frame can *at best* be 1ADU, in which case the DR formula will give you, in EV, the bit-depth of your ADC. But someone somewhere mentioned that you can theoretically get 1.2EV, or something like that, more than the bit-depth of your ADC... somewhere on dpreview forums, can't remember where.

jrista: While I understand your points, I'm not sure I see this 'bias' you mention re: normalization for different brands. LTRLI I think rightly points out that it's just a matter of the magnitude of the effect increasing the greater the normalization needed (i.e. higher MP cameras will see better gains). For example, here are some normalizations (screen DR on left -> print DR on right):

11.37->12.5 (HD39)
11.35->12.7 (HD50)

11.85->12.2 (D700)
11.16->11.9 (5DII)

So you can see that the 39MP Hasselblad got a 0.8EV boost upon normalization, & the 50MP one got a 1.2EV boost, much like the Nikon D800 (13.2->14.4). The 5DII got a bigger boost than the D700, b/c of its higher MP count. So even though this formula may not be perfect, it seems somewhat consistent. But, yes, I still don't understand a DR greater than the bit-depth of the ADC.

You mention the highlight headroom of the Hasselblad MF cameras. While this may be true, if the read noise is high, then the DR is limited by the poor performance on the lower end. Put another way, sure the headroom of the Hasselblad may be higher than that of the D800; however, with the D800, you just underexpose your image (say by 2 stops), and then pull detail out of the shadows b/c the read noise is so low (not the case for the Hasselblad, or Canon sensors, hehe).

So while it's weird to hear that the D800 has higher DR than a MF camera, it's _theoretically possible_, *IF* the read noise on the MF camera is significantly poorer than that on the D800. Yes?

What I'm saying is: I'm allowing for the possibility that DXO's scores *are* valid  I just wish they published their protocols explicitly. 

Is it true that the D800 uses Exmor technology but the D4 doesn't? That'd be weird.


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> I tend to agree w/ the idea that your DR should never exceed the max bit-depth of your ADC. Simply b/c at best your stdev of pixels in a black frame can *at best* be 1ADU, in which case the DR formula will give you, in EV, the bit-depth of your ADC. But someone somewhere mentioned that you can theoretically get 1.2EV, or something like that, more than the bit-depth of your ADC... somewhere on dpreview forums, can't remember where.
> 
> jrista: While I understand your points, I'm not sure I see this 'bias' you mention re: normalization for different brands. LTRLI I think rightly points out that it's just a matter of the magnitude of the effect increasing the greater the normalization needed (i.e. higher MP cameras will see better gains). For example, here are some normalizations (screen DR on left -> print DR on right):
> 
> ...



Thanks for the numbers for each of those cameras. I guess I'm still not entirely convinced though. The HD50 has 50% more pixels (which is a LOT!) than the D800, and it has half the read noise of the 5D II and III. I'd expect it to realize better gains than the D800, despite the fact that its read noise is higher, yet it realizes apparently the same exact gain from downsampling. In all honesty, I don't really see the same bias for most of the rest of Nikon's cameras...its primarily the D800 that seems to be so out of wack. The D4 seems to be pretty spot on with what I expected before the cameras were tested by DxO, the 5D III is a touch worse than I expected and about a stop worse than I hoped for (I was hoping for 12.7 stops at ISO 100, but it seems Canon opted for SNR improvements rather than DR improvements.) 

I find the results for the D800 to be very odd, and the Print DR results, which seem to be what DxO camera scores are primarily computed from, seem to be way off. The DR seems literally impossible at 0.4 stops higher than the hardware is capable of, and the low light ISO rating seems to be significantly skewed relative to that of the 5D III, when the actual data for both cameras doesn't seem to actually indicate that much of a difference...and visual comparisons of the 5D III at higher ISO definitely seem to give it the edge (even when normalized.) I'm suspicious that is the result of bonus points (a ridiculous concept, if your trying to produce objective results) offered to the D800 for barely falling within a certain region while the 5D III barely falls without, and perhaps its just their rating system that is skewing the results, not intentional bias.

Either way...the D800 score and results seem to be unduly skewed, making pretty much all the competition (including $40,000 digital medium format cameras) sound "crappy" in comparison, when the reality is so very far from that.


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



> (I was hoping for 12.7 stops at ISO 100, but it seems Canon opted for SNR improvements rather than DR improvements.)



Oh yeah. That reminds me. How does the 5D Mark III have SNR improvements (due to better QE/microlenses?), but worse DR than the 5D Mark II? 

Those kinds of conclusions really make me wonder if they're actually doing DR measurements or just reading the black/white files... the Mark III this time suffering because it's black level has been raised from 1024 to 2048... Which I don't think should impact DR much...

And I agree that ISO sensitivity ratings don't make much sense either between the 5D Mark III, D800, & D4.


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> > (I was hoping for 12.7 stops at ISO 100, but it seems Canon opted for SNR improvements rather than DR improvements.)
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. That reminds me. How does the 5D Mark III have SNR improvements (due to better QE/microlenses?), but worse DR than the 5D Mark II?



The QE improvements are part of it, which was facilitated by gapless microlenses. I think the other factor is weaker color filters in the CFA for red and blue pixels. Both pixels now let in more green light than they used to, and in the case of red, it lets in ever so slightly less red light. The filters were effectively made "more translucent" than they were previously. Greater transparency to light means more light overall, so you can achieve a higher SNR. I think the CFA thing is kind of a cheap trick, and I'm not really sure why the opted to go that route.

That said, Canon must REALLY have some major kind of roadblock to improving the noise efficiency of their CMOS sensor design. I checked sensorgen.info a short while ago, and the 5D III has even HIGHER ISO 100 read noise (33.1e-) than the 5D II, which in its own right had ridiculously high ISO 100 read noise (27.8e-). The 5D III has a higher saturation point, which is why at higher ISO's, SNR is better (read noise drops to 3-4e- beyond ISO 400 most of the time for most cameras), but Canon seems to have literally gone backwards in regards to low ISO.

Until I read the sensorgen.info data (which is derived from DxO RAW data), I wasn't too worried about 5D III low ISO...it seemed pretty much status quo (which would be fine...at least status quo is not a step backwards). And even despite the higher read noise, the 5D III images still appear consistently better than the 5D II images at all ISO's (nose appears far more random than it did before)...but its still a rather odd result, for Canon's latest and greatest to have that much read noise at a low ISO. Its a total difference of 5.3e-, or a 19% increase. Thats not just a margin of error thing there, thats a major mistake! In that respect, I'm entirely in line with LTRLI...Canon is seriously missing the ball in regards to low ISO performance. While I applaud their efforts to increase the range of usable native high ISO settings (which certainly caters to the kind of photography I do most of the time), and they have definitely produced a camera capable of some stellar high ISO performance, doing so at a _*20% loss* of efficiency on the other end is unacceptable_. I figured things would stay pretty much the same and hoped they would get maybe 10% better...but now I'm actually concerned. If Canon releases a big-mp camera next year (something I have been looking forward to since I also do landscape photography alongside my wildlife and bird photography), that has the same low ISO read noise issues as the 5D III, then I might seriously have to consider a D800e and a 14-24mm lens for my landscape work.

Going 20% in the wrong direction is unacceptable, totally in line with you there, LTRLI! Canon needs to get their asses in gear and solve their read noise problem...which at this point seems to be a problem growing at an unmanageable rate. I was willing to forgive Canon for some things because they made so many other improvements to the 5D III, but now that the actual results are in, I have no option but to capitulate and agree...the low-ISO trend is very concerning. (And to that end, I intend to open up direct dialog with Canon about the issue, I as just discussing it on this forum is not going to actually have any kind of real impact on the issue at Canon.)



sarangiman said:


> Those kinds of conclusions really make me wonder if they're actually doing DR measurements or just reading the black/white files... the Mark III this time suffering because it's black level has been raised from 1024 to 2048... Which I don't think should impact DR much...
> 
> And I agree that ISO sensitivity ratings don't make much sense either between the 5D Mark III, D800, & D4.



Well, they make sense if arbitrary "bonus points" are awarded to the ISO category. ;P I mean, the sensor doesn't ACTUALLY get bonus ISO points in reality, so such bonus points are 100% pure subjectivity in a test that is supposed to be objective. You don't reward hardware for being a "_good boy_".  ISO is ISO...it shouldn't be changed in any way as part of computing a "score" or "rating".


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > > (I was hoping for 12.7 stops at ISO 100, but it seems Canon opted for SNR improvements rather than DR improvements.)
> ...



Apparently it takes Sensorgen for you to finally find someone you can trust , but now that even they say the same thing as myself, the DPR crowd and DxO and so on, I'm glad you finally see. ;D

Also for those who claim all the DxO charts and graphs are nonsense as all technical charts are since charts and numbers never have anything to do with reality  see here, some rather clear demonstrations of reality by an excellent professional photographer (brace yourself though since Canon really has be totally dusted for low ISO image quality, and this guy is not a troll, he an established pro and a long time Canon shooter):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

(to be fair if you shoot something where you don't need lots of MP and the scene doesn't have a wide difference between the bright and dark, then the difference won't matter at all)

also check out (where he does find some of the Nikon lenses and their liveview implementation to be a mess, as have others, on the D800 they messed up liveview by feeding it from video mode for some ridiculous reason, so their liveview zoom mode is based on line-skipping):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/



http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_final.html


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> > (I was hoping for 12.7 stops at ISO 100, but it seems Canon opted for SNR improvements rather than DR improvements.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because at base ISO it has slightly worse read noise vs saturation well size than the 5D2. The difference is so minor though. So it has a touch worse DR down there. 

But it has better SNR because it is more efficient at converting photos to signal. It uses gapless microlenses so it grabs more photons, you don't them hitting between lenses and going to waste. They may have done something with the sensor to make it convert better perhaps too. And they reduced the color filter array yet even more.

(the old DSLRs had much more peaked color filter arrays, DSLRs have been becoming more and more color-blind, the metamerism score on the 5D3 is by far the lowest I can recall having seen on a DSLR yet, it trades ability to tell apart subtly different shades of color and chroma noise for better luminance noise performance, so it manages the same luminance noise as D4 and D800 but will have a bit worse chroma noise and be able to tell apart less different shades of colors, as for the different shades stuff that is very tricky since some shades some may care about more than others so as to what is actually better overall gets complex and we'd need tons more data and all sorts of visual tests to be carried out, never seen such a test done for DSLRs; DxO knocks the 5D3 high-iso overall score down as punishment for this)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> I tend to agree w/ the idea that your DR should never exceed the max bit-depth of your ADC.



It can't looked at at the native scale of the sensor and none of DxO's number ever have that happen at native scale. If you go to less than native scale you can since you are getting extra bits in a sense by spatial averaging and combing multiple in an area into extra bits in the DR depth.




> Is it true that the D800 uses Exmor technology but the D4 doesn't? That'd be weird.



It is true. Probably SOny didn't care to make such a low MP sensor so Nikon had to design most of it itself and they maybe preferred getting extra dynamic range at the high iso range since the D4 is a fast action, low-light sort of camera more than the D800, on average.


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Also for those who claim all the DxO charts and graphs are nonsense as all technical charts are since charts and numbers never have anything to do with reality  see here, some rather clear demonstrations of reality by an excellent professional photographer (brace yourself though since Canon really has be totally dusted for low ISO image quality, and this guy is not a troll, he an established pro and a long time Canon shooter):
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html



HOLY SH_i_T!!

Original






5D III





D800





I still don't believe DxO's 14.4 Print DR results (I stand by my previous arguments, and still think the same of DxO in regards to their normalization)...but I do indeed believe that 13.2 stops of hardware DR is a SIGNIFICANT improvement over the 11.7 Canon is stuck at. I mean, the chroma noise in the Canon is almost a crime. If it was just luma noise, that would kind of be a different story...but wow. I'm happy to admit it now, with that visual evidence to back it up...Canon *dropped the frackin ball*.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Also for those who claim all the DxO charts and graphs are nonsense as all technical charts are since charts and numbers never have anything to do with reality  see here, some rather clear demonstrations of reality by an excellent professional photographer (brace yourself though since Canon really has be totally dusted for low ISO image quality, and this guy is not a troll, he an established pro and a long time Canon shooter):
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html



Dude, why didn't you post this earlier ? This is the best test I've seen so far to illustrate the DR differences between the D800 and 5DIII. Even as a Canon shooter, I have no problem admitting that the D800 absolutely kicked the $h!t out of the 5DIII in this example. That said, Canon sensors have always sucked at shadow recovery, so this really isn't a surprise. Canon sensors are so notorious for this and exposing to the right has become such a common work around, that we even have short-hand lingo for it (ETTR) . I'd like to see a similar test that compares the highlight recovery of both bodies. 

Fortunately, I've only encountered one or two situations in the last 10 years where an image would require the amount of shadow recovery in this test. Also, while a white building casting deep shadows during the middle of the day is a great way to illustrate the need for DR strictly for testing purposes, the way the shot was framed I wouldn't really care to see what's in the shadows of that scene anyways, unless is was some scantily clad blonde standing there. In that case, you'd just compose the image so that the blonde fills up the frame, which would allow reducing the contrast in the scene and exposing accordingly ;D 

I'm curious to see how the 1Dx will perform in similar situations. With the 5DII, Canon didn't hold back on the sensor technology, but rather the rest of the feature set (AF, build quality, etc) to distinguish it from the 1DsIII. Perhaps their strategy this time around is to cripple the 5DIII's sensor instead, especially since the AF system between it and the 1Dx are so similar. I wouldn't expect Sony Exmor performance, but maybe the DR will be competitive with the D4.


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

There is really something interesting about those comparison photos from fredmiranda. Nikon seems to allocate FAR more levels to the shadows than most cameras. Generally I think the deep shadows are allocated the first few stops (bits), which would be about 12-32 discrete levels of luminance. Nikon seems to have far more than that. I'm not really sure how they do it...it can't simply be just the reduction in noise...that would be a difference of maybe 10 electrons. Unless there is a fractional gain at ISO 100...there are far more levels than that in those recovered shadows...I'd say there are at least a hundred or so discrete near-noiseless levels of luminance on the D800 version of the shot. I wonder, if that is indeed the case, how it affects their highlight DR. I wonder if Nikon cameras clip sooner? On the other hand, highlights generally to tend to have thousands of levels allocated to them, so trading a hundred or so levels from highlights to shadows is probably not really as huge an issue as it might sound...


----------



## Former Nikonian (Apr 21, 2012)

I read but never totally trust any reviews online, especially no-no with reviews just give words or graphs without illustrating samples. Anybody, including you guys and me, can put those words and graphs online without a camera in hand. 
Does it make sense when DxO puts D800 over D4 and Markii over Markiii? It's the business (not charity), stupid. 
Pls use your commom sense to think. The oddity is very clear, but why they purposefully do that? It's a big question.
I guess DxO is playing a huge Black Humor game to extract those stupid guys, who believe on their nonsense conclusion, out of commom photographers. And they are laughing and enjoying reading what is going on here. Have fun, DxO, you are a true comedy writers.
If you have time, with your own naked eyes and non biased mind, should take looks on: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml;
http://www.imaging-resource.com/; 
http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2012/04/01/video-shootout-nikon-d800-vs-canon-5d-mkiii/;
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/04/5d-mark-iiid800-hands-on-review-part-3/;
Of course you need powerfull PC, especially video card, and high resolution monitor. If not, it would be tough. Have fun.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> There is really something interesting about those comparison photos from fredmiranda. Nikon seems to allocate FAR more levels to the shadows than most cameras. Generally I think the deep shadows are allocated the first few stops (bits), which would be about 12-32 discrete levels of luminance. Nikon seems to have far more than that. I'm not really sure how they do it...it can't simply be just the reduction in noise...that would be a difference of maybe 10 electrons. Unless there is a fractional gain at ISO 100...there are far more levels than that in those recovered shadows...I'd say there are at least a hundred or so discrete near-noiseless levels of luminance on the D800 version of the shot. I wonder, if that is indeed the case, how it affects their highlight DR. I wonder if Nikon cameras clip sooner? On the other hand, highlights generally to tend to have thousands of levels allocated to them, so trading a hundred or so levels from highlights to shadows is probably not really as huge an issue as it might sound...



I'll leave it up to tech savvy people like you or LTRLI to figure that one out  All I have to go off of are colleagues that shoot Nikon. Forgive me for spreading hearsay, but I don't have first-hand experience, so this will have to do. I know hardcore Nikon guy that shoots with a D3 and a 5DII. Both have damn near the same DR (12.2 vs. 11.9 stops), but according to him, the Nikon recovers the shadows much better while the Canon handles highlights better. 

The only reason this topic even came up is when I mentioned that I was thinking about buying a D800. He simply advised that there isn't as much of a need to ETTR with the Nikon since they handle shadows better, hence allowing for a more neutral exposure.


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



> Apparently it takes Sensorgen for you to finally find someone you can trust , but now that even they say the same thing as myself, the DPR crowd and DxO and so on, I'm glad you finally see.



Um... doesn't Sensorgen just fit the data from DXO to get their numbers? Look at the methodology on Sensorgen's site...



> Because at base ISO it has slightly worse read noise vs saturation well size than the 5D2. The difference is so minor though. So it has a touch worse DR down there.



Again, if Sensorgen is just fitting DXO data, and you suspect that DXO is just looking at black/white frames from the cameras, especially with 5DIII's boosted black levels of 2048... do you even trust those read noise values in e- from Sensorgen?

LTRLI, thanks for posting those samples. Nothing surprising. I run into shadow banding *all the time* w/ my Canon bodies, which is why I'm so interested in this. Just shot a high dynamic range sunset tonight in Seattle using a 4-stop Daryl Benson Reverse Grad ND filter... still can't lift the shadows much in buildings that also happened to be within the 4-stop ND band of the filter... the noise in those buildings looks like the noise in the 5DIII shadows you posted... i.e. 1 or 2 more stops of DR would've cleaned that up nicely. No I couldn't use a soft-ND filter b/c the brightest portion of the sky was along the horizon where the sun set. Yes I could use HDR, but why would I do that when I could get a D800 & nail it with my ND grads? *AND* get more MP to boot? *AND* not deal w/ Canon's ridiculous decentering issues that keep popping up on every copy of a 17-40 & 16-35 I buy where I have to go to f/16 to get edge to edge sharpness? (I hear the Nikon 14-24 is sharp edge-to-edge even at f/2.8... though I'll believe it when I see it)

</vent> 

Also, the results weren't surprising b/c I'd already seen this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=41012886

Here's the relevant image from that thread:





Once again, 5DIII gets pwned by D800, though not as badly as in the example LTRLI posted. Also, the sunstars are so much more pleasing on the Nikon image... even w/ a 1970s lens  Incidentally that's why the Nikon image is so soft... bad old lens. Regardless, Canon really needs to stop making 8-blade aperture lenses.

Like I said before, only thing keeping me from switching right now is the 5DIII AF & the wireless flash setup, since I tend to shoot people/events more these days... *sigh*.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

How many stops have the shadows been lifted in each of these samples?


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

I dunno V8Beast, but the original shots are in that thread, if you follow the link.

Still remembering how awesome your car shots are, haha


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> I dunno V8Beast, but the original shots are in that thread, if you follow the link.
> 
> Still remembering how awesome your car shots are, haha



Thanks! Good thing I don't shoot landscapes


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

jrista et al.: speaking of highlight headroom...

I'll do the DR test I did with my Stouffer transmission wedge w/ my friend's D7000 this Sunday & post back. That'll give us some idea of real world DR. Since I got a number of 11.2 for my 5DIII, I'm somewhat confident this test might at least show if DXO's DR numbers are meaningful.

Also, do you know if the blinking highlights on the LCD display on the 5DII/III indicate blown highlights for a sRGB conversion? Or does it actually show pixels who's RAW values are at saturation?

In my Rizal Bridge shot tonight, I ETTR'd such that I got just very little blinking highlights -- most of those were recovered very well in LR though. So I'm wondering if I could've pushed it even more. A stop probably would've really helped clean up those dirty shadows in the buildings I was talking about...


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> In my Rizal Bridge shot tonight, I ETTR'd such that I got just very little blinking highlights -- most of those were recovered very well in LR though. So I'm wondering if I could've pushed it even more. A stop probably would've really helped clean up those dirty shadows in the buildings I was talking about...



There's only one way to find out. Keep pushing it to the right  A lot of times I'm shooting shiny stuff like chrome or polished aluminum bits inside a black engine compartment with lots of dark nooks and crannies, which is a contrast nightmare. I gets even worse since I insist on using off-camera flashes to balance with the ambient and fill in some of the shadows. I can usually push well beyond the point where the highlights are flashing in the LCD and still recover them in post.


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> > Apparently it takes Sensorgen for you to finally find someone you can trust , but now that even they say the same thing as myself, the DPR crowd and DxO and so on, I'm glad you finally see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





sarangiman said:


> Here's the relevant image from that thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, so the image there is more balanced. I definitely see differences in the highlights as well...there are *much* nicer transitions into the bright highlights reflecting on the water in the Canon image than in the D800 image. In the D800 image, there is a rather rapid and harsh transition into the maximal levels of the reflected lights on the water. The color rendition on the Canon also seems a lot better...the Nikon has a distinct pinkish tint to it, which feels rather unrealistic to me (sodium vapor street lamps are distinctly orange like in the Canon shot.) 

I think at the very least the sample here does seem to indicate an earlier cutoff for highlights in Nikon cameras than in Canon cameras, though. The harsh transition from the halo reflection to the actual light source reflection really does seem to indicate that some highlight tonal range was trades for shadow tonal range in Exmor sensors. The Canon shot lends a bit more credence to ETTR with Canon cameras. You can probably eek more shadow detail out with ETTR and end up with a more Nikon-like highlight cutoff, although I still don't see how a Canon could compete with a Sony Exmor sensor in general even with some judiciously tight right histogram shifting.


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> jrista et al.: speaking of highlight headroom...
> 
> I'll do the DR test I did with my Stouffer transmission wedge w/ my friend's D7000 this Sunday & post back. That'll give us some idea of real world DR. Since I got a number of 11.2 for my 5DIII, I'm somewhat confident this test might at least show if DXO's DR numbers are meaningful.



Looking forward to the results...



sarangiman said:


> Also, do you know if the blinking highlights on the LCD display on the 5DII/III indicate blown highlights for a sRGB conversion? Or does it actually show pixels who's RAW values are at saturation?



The blinking highlights are based on JPEG conversion, be it AdobeRGB or sRGB (whatever you configure). They are fairly inaccurate as well...sometimes only small areas blink, but they turn out to be completely blown and entirely unrecoverable in post...often with that ugly gray halo around them of nearly-blown highlights. Other times, when processing RAW in post, there might not be any blown highlights at all despite the camera blinking half the image. Its kind of a useless feature, although personally whenever I see blinking highlights in the momentary preview after a sequence of shots, I'll bump exposure down by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop and take another sequence just to be safe (assuming the moment isn't already gone...when it comes to birds in flight, you have to be pretty conservative with your ETTR...which often means none at all.) 



sarangiman said:


> In my Rizal Bridge shot tonight, I ETTR'd such that I got just very little blinking highlights -- most of those were recovered very well in LR though. So I'm wondering if I could've pushed it even more. A stop probably would've really helped clean up those dirty shadows in the buildings I was talking about...



I'd try pushing pretty far. I spent a lot of time photographing the moon, as it was the only subject I was really able to photograph for a while during the winter (we get some pretty short days here in Colorado during winter, and at the time my work schedule was pretty bad for afternoon photography.) I've taken photographs of the moon where it appeared almost entirely white, and the camera would blink quite a bit of it...but in post every last scrap of luminance data would be recoverable. Its pretty amazing how you can push highlight data around with a Canon camera. I think the moon might be a fairly unique subject though...it has a pretty low DR in general, so its not quite the same as a step wedge. (And I'm still getting used to my 7D's iFCL metering...when focus and color are taken into account, the histogram distributes differently. There are often very small amounts of disproportionately bright highlights that you can't really see on the histogram, and if you do see them, they might only register as a single red, green, or blue pixel in the corresponding channel very near the far right edge. If you ETTR without looking for that little bit of highlight, you can blow a surprising amount of highlights way beyond recovery.)


----------



## Former Nikonian (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

read but never totally trust any reviews online, especially no-no with reviews just give words or graphs without illustrating samples. Anybody, including you guys and me, can put those words and graphs online without a camera in hand. 
Does it make sense when DxO puts D800 over D4 and Markii over Markiii? It's the business (not charity), stupid. 
Pls use your commom sense to think. The oddity is very clear, but why they purposefully do that? It's a big question.
I guess DxO is playing a huge Black Humor game to extract those stupid guys, who believe on their nonsense conclusion, out of commom photographers. And they are laughing and enjoying reading what is going on here. Have fun, DxO, you are a true comedy writers.
If you have time, with your own naked eyes and non biased mind, should take looks on: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml;
http://www.imaging-resource.com/; 
http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2012/04/01/video-shootout-nikon-d800-vs-canon-5d-mkiii/;
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/04/5d-mark-iiid800-hands-on-review-part-3/;
Of course you need powerfull PC, especially video card, and high resolution monitor. If not, it would be tough. Have fun.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



V8Beast said:


> Dude, why didn't you post this earlier ?



Because Fred only just posted his review tonight. 



> Fortunately, I've only encountered one or two situations in the last 10 years where an image would require the amount of shadow recovery in this test. Also, while a white building casting deep shadows during the middle of the day is a great way to illustrate the need for DR strictly for testing purposes, the way the shot was framed I wouldn't really care to see what's in the shadows of that scene anyways, unless is was some scantily clad blonde standing there. In that case, you'd just compose the image so that the blonde fills up the frame, which would allow reducing the contrast in the scene and exposing accordingly ;D



Yes but what about all the times there turns out to have been a super model lurking in the shadows and you didn't realize it until you got back home and went to process! 
That's 90% of my shots! 



> I'm curious to see how the 1Dx will perform in similar situations. With the 5DII, Canon didn't hold back on the sensor technology, but rather the rest of the feature set (AF, build quality, etc) to distinguish it from the 1DsIII. Perhaps their strategy this time around is to cripple the 5DIII's sensor instead, especially since the AF system between it and the 1Dx are so similar. I wouldn't expect Sony Exmor performance, but maybe the DR will be competitive with the D4.



It will be interesting to see if the 1DX is old tech or new.


(on that other board some guys who have a certain degree of in with Canon got the impression Canon got caught with their pants down, they though Nikon and SOny would dribble sensor stuff out much more slowly and thought they could just sit around on the sensor tech and not bother as much and more just focus on fixing body performance and then they saw the D800 and were like.... oh. Guess they they brought what they had right away instead of dribbling it out slowly. And then some were like we told you to stop being so complacent and we needed to get going sooner. More disturbingly it seemd like some think MP and SNR matter and they have no comprehension or feeling that they need to seriousl address DR. Myself I'd rather they fix up DR more than add more MP if it really had to be one of the other, especially since more DR won't threaten stuff like fps)

(does anyone always notice how so many rumors are like well we see no real need yet for the 7D2 because the D400 hasn't been announced yet or well the 5D3 has been an option for quite a while but we saw no need to rush when we could just sit and wait to see when the D800 arrives. I mean come on man, Canon didn't used to act like that. If you have something bring it and stop waiting until it seems like old hat. Be the old Canon. The leader in all.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Former Nikonian said:


> read but never totally trust any reviews online, especially no-no with reviews just give words or graphs without illustrating samples. Anybody, including you guys and me, can put those words and graphs online without a camera in hand.
> Does it make sense when DxO puts D800 over D4 and Markii over Markiii? It's the business (not charity), stupid.
> Pls use your commom sense to think. The oddity is very clear, but why they purposefully do that? It's a big question.
> I guess DxO is playing a huge Black Humor game to extract those stupid guys, who believe on their nonsense conclusion, out of commom photographers. And they are laughing and enjoying reading what is going on here. Have fun, DxO, you are a true comedy writers.
> ...



I think you missed post #79 on the previous page and http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

If you want something more cheerful though, how about comparing video  instead (now the exposure don't seem to be so well balanced here so it's not quite properly carried out and the canon is so soft it needs to be sharpend in post to make it closer to D800 which would increase 5D3 noise more than shown, but anyway it sort of gives an impression):

Canon 5D Mark II vs. Mark III vs. Nikon D800 - Candlelight: High-ISO


And for kicks a short film done with the 5D3:
Canon 5D Mark III - Copelandia

Don't watch on vimeo though since it compresses both videos too much, you need to log in to vimeo and then download and watch the original uploads.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

I'm glad Fred got the stuff posted, saves me some time. ;D

NOW will some of you have a little more confidence in some of the numbers published and those silly-looking tests shots with the lens caps on and pushed in post or other methods we may use?.. 

These simple tests can demonstrate a lot of what goes on at the dark end of the DR range so very easily.

It's been interested to watch the progression of this thread.

Congrats to LTRLI for hitting the DR nail on the head so early and not losing patience in defending his position.

Congrats to those of you who now see and understand what some of us have been going on about for so long. Canon's engineering is not keeping up with its marketing when a $600 consumer grade Nikon can even kick the low ISO pants off a midrange Canon costing nearly 6x as much.

5D3's a much improved, low-light kind of machine.
But it don't do stink for what I need.

The next scrap's gonna be that 24MP, 12-bit little nugget they just announced yesterday. D3200.
I'm REALLY looking forward to how it will perform as it's likely foreshadowing (ooh, good pun) the abilities of a D7100 or D400.

BTW; I now have about 10 Nikon/Nikkor lenses.


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

jrista:


> I definitely see differences in the highlights as well...there are much nicer transitions into the bright highlights reflecting on the water in the Canon image than in the D800 image.



If you look at the original D800 & 5DIII images (follow the link here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=41012886), I don't think that's the case. I think the non-linear processing when lifting shadows makes comparisons of the highlights in the images where shadows been lifted meaningless. In the original images, the highlights on the D800 look just fine... actually, they look less intense.

Any comments, btw, on the link between sensorgen & DXO? Basically, what I'm saying is that you guys are saying that the *higher read noise* of the 5DIII at low ISO is the reason for the *low DR*, and I'm saying that the higher read noise calculated by sensorgen is *due to DXO's numbers themselves.*.. so it's all a bit of _circular logic_, no? In order to trust sensorgen, you must first trust DXO...?


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yes but what about all the times there turns out to have been a super model lurking in the shadows and you didn't realize it until you got back home and went to process!
> That's 90% of my shots!



You mean to tell me there are super models lurking in the shadows in 90% of your shots? I need to change my specialty to whatever it is that you shoot ;D


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 21, 2012)

In response to 'former nikonian' and many others here who seem to assume that DxoO consists of a couple of guys playing the fool in their living room and then publishing 'results' to make fun of Canon owners, here's a little text I wrote in another thread on this site, explaining what this is about.
-------------------------
DxO are a software development company that uses extremely precise testing of cameras and lenses as a way to maximise the usefulness of their software (such as DxO Optics Pro) by creating the best possible profiles for each respective model.

It just so happens that they have an interesting by-product of their testing: the test results are a very powerful marketing tool as they attract attention to the DxO brand - and of course they make the most of that by publishing their findings on the web.

Being an independent French company, one can hardly say they are best pals/neighbors with Nikon or Canon or any other manufacturer.
They spend days and days testing each camera body and lens model, using very well-defined test methodology based on scientific principles. They take thousands (yes, THOUSANDS) of photos with each camera body and lens in all possible situations in a controlled lab environment and work only from RAW format so the effects of jpg 'cooking' and other artefacts are not included in their results.

Because their methodology demands precisely controlled and repeatable results, they can't base their findings on 'real world' photography - like going downtown and shooting on the street.

I can't imagine what they would gain by INTENTIONALLY pissing off Canon owners who then are angry at them and refuse to take them or their products seriously.
They can't 'fix' their Canon results to make them look better just to please people like you - they are forced to be objective, otherwise they would be accused of bias and their reputation (and their software) would be destroyed.

Has it occurred to you that Canon (and other manufacturers) themselves never complain or call DxO idiots? Why? Because they know they're not likely to win in the laboratory. They've probably already seen similar results in their own lab tests and know full well what DxO is likely to find.

Canon's decision to release the 5DMkIII with it's present sensor is in the end a marketing decision. And it may turn out to be a bad move.

If you don't like DxO findings, that's your business. If camera and lens manufacturers don't like their findings, that's their business. But all of it generates more traffic for DxO and more exposure for their software products.
--------------------------


----------



## smithy (Apr 21, 2012)

Now I'm not emotionally attached to this conversation at all, but to be honest, FishNose, with posts like this, you sound like you work for DxO... a full disclosure would be appreciated.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 21, 2012)

> I can't imagine what they would gain by INTENTIONALLY pissing off Canon owners who then are angry at them and refuse to take them or their products seriously.
> They can't 'fix' their Canon results to make them look better just to please people like you - they are forced to be objective, otherwise they would be accused of bias and their reputation (and their software) would be destroyed.



exactly. DXO has their parameters which they consider to be the most valuable way to evaluate image quality. Anybody that dissagrees and their work consists of selling in other mediums where their evaluation methos don't apply, then should feel free to disregard their conclusions. DXO tries to appeal to the broadest audience which is why they test the way they do including disregard for 100% pixel crops. If I sold 100% pixel crops for a living, I wouldn't pay much attention to them either. If Canon had pushed the bounds of resolution and DR in their 5D3 sensor then they would score better. It is as simple as that. It isn't DXO's fault one OEM is lagging and nor should they modify their test to help it. You don't see car magazines re-defining acceleration tests to help a slow car that happens to have been popular. That would defeat the entire purpose of the test period.


----------



## jpms (Apr 21, 2012)

Come on people....be honest to yourself...if the results came out with the 5d3 scoring higher than the D800 I'm sure this thread would be all about how great the 5d3 is and that DxOMark testing is very accurate. I shoot Canon but understand that Canon won't always have the best gear in the market. Stop being in denial and deal with it. This thread is all about cry babies having a difficult time dealing with reality.


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



sarangiman said:


> jrista:
> 
> 
> > I definitely see differences in the highlights as well...there are much nicer transitions into the bright highlights reflecting on the water in the Canon image than in the D800 image.
> ...



They look about the same to me. They are just smaller in scale since the full-size images are scaled down. The lighthouse highlight demonstrates it well...it looks like a smooth falloff, then it suddenly jumps to blown. The canon shot has a continuous falloff that eventually results in a blown highlight.



sarangiman said:


> Any comments, btw, on the link between sensorgen & DXO? Basically, what I'm saying is that you guys are saying that the *higher read noise* of the 5DIII at low ISO is the reason for the *low DR*, and I'm saying that the higher read noise calculated by sensorgen is *due to DXO's numbers themselves.*.. so it's all a bit of _circular logic_, no? In order to trust sensorgen, you must first trust DXO...?



I guess the Sensorgen.info page does claim they use DxO measurements for their curve fitting. I thought they also used information from Clarkvision.com, but perhaps that was only in the past and no longer. So, I dunno. I am not really sure that DxO takes the Canon bias offset into account correctly...and if they do not, that very well could account for the higher read noise/lower DR at ISO 100. A 33e- read noise is just friggin insane, in my opinion. I think the average is around 15e-, and newer cameras seem to have less than 10e-.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > jrista:
> ...



That can also just go down to a slightly different tone curve applied or a different camera color profile applied, it's hard to say. Anyway the D800 has so much more room at the bottom all you'd need to do is expose it 1/3 stop less or something than in that photo and there you go, highlights fixed.





> I am not really sure that DxO takes the Canon bias offset into account correctly...and if they do not, that very well could account for the higher read noise/lower DR at ISO 100. A 33e- read noise is just friggin insane, in my opinion. I think the average is around 15e-, and newer cameras seem to have less than 10e-.



I think they do since I, as well as others, have taken the 1024 to 2048 change into account for the 7D and 5D3 and gotten the same results DxO did. I didn't look at sensorgen at all so whether they converted things properly I don't know.


----------



## smithy (Apr 21, 2012)

jpms said:


> Come on people....be honest to yourself...if the results came out with the 5d3 scoring higher than the D800 I'm sure this thread would be all about how great the 5d3 is and that DxOMark testing is very accurate.


Probably.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 22, 2012)

I think the biggest gripe people have with DXO is how they translate the results to numerical scores. And the comparisons between the D800, 5D3 and even the MF cameras suggest that there is a certain flaw in that translation. Just looking at the graphs, the D800 and 5D3 seem neck in neck in most comparisons but the difference overall comes to 14 points? And anyone who has seen even a single image of the IQ180 can honestly say that the D800s sensor is better?


----------



## Kingw (Apr 22, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

A lot of people say canon 5d mark iii is selling very well. I'm wondering where are the sales data?


----------



## Bosman (Apr 22, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Aglet said:


> I'm glad Fred got the stuff posted, saves me some time. ;D
> 
> NOW will some of you have a little more confidence in some of the numbers published and those silly-looking tests shots with the lens caps on and pushed in post or other methods we may use?..
> 
> ...


Again the D800 is a great camera, the 5dm3 is a great camera. I don't lift shadows like this or do extreme edits to images. I suppose for those who don't get exposures right it will be a helping hand to be able to retrieve the data. the test and data havent affected my output that I am very pleased with and have no Nikon envy, just happy that the Nikon peeps are happy. Maybe those who got some of the findings would be more suited for Nikonians if all your comments seem to be about D800 stuff. Last i checked this was a Canon Forum but apparently it is now also a Nikon Forum.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 22, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> I think the biggest gripe people have with DXO is how they translate the results to numerical scores. And the comparisons between the D800, 5D3 and even the MF cameras suggest that there is a certain flaw in that translation. Just looking at the graphs, the D800 and 5D3 seem neck in neck in most comparisons but the difference overall comes to 14 points? And anyone who has seen even a single image of the IQ180 can honestly say that the D800s sensor is better?



http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html


----------



## Former Nikonian (Apr 22, 2012)

Hi Fishnose
You still dodge the point. Now skip the D800 v/s Mkiii as far as Mkii v/s Mkiii story; focus on Nikon only.
The question is: Does it make sense when DxO gives total score of D800 higher than that of D4? Yes or No?
Actually, this was pointed out to me by my brother, an IT engineer, who is not stranger with Lab Testing job. He gave it a big laugh.
He said either DxO is biasing so it's not reliable or playing a Black Humor game.
Have fun with the game.


----------



## seta666 (Apr 22, 2012)

Former Nikonian said:


> The question is: Does it make sense when DxO gives total score of D800 higher than that of D4? Yes or No?


The D4 scores higher at ISO performance, has higher frame rate and pro like body/features; Sports, actions, etc

The D800 higher DR, resolution and color depth thanks to high efficient smallpixels (amaizing actually, but not surprissing if you think of pentax K5 or nikon d7000). Studio photography perfect camera

The 5D mkIII would have been a great camera , 3 years ago; Canon technology is starting to look ancient. Regarding sensors Fuji and Sony are well ahead

As DXOmark explains a score difference of 5 represents a 1/3 stop difference; so D800 has a full stop better performance than the 5D mkIII (which is a lot) and 1/3 stop over D4 (which is not big deal)
The difference is the same as D7000 vs 60D, one full stop

DXOmark results show sensor performance; and the results they have published reagrding ISO are the ones I anticipated when saw Dpreview ISo samples, less than 1/2 stop improvement over 5D mkII. These Dpreview smaples had lots and lots of Noise reduction on them, still many people was thinking that those were amaizing results (is people blind or what?)

What really suprises me is the low dinamic range performance of this new sensor, in my opoinion this puts canon to same. If this is best canon can do regarding sensor technology they should start thinking partership with sony, fuji or anyone fit for the job; they clearly are not. 

If you do not need the new AF system or the weather sealing (always talking about photography, I do not know anything about video) I do not see any reason to update to this new camera over the 5D mkII 

As a macro photographer I do not need those new features, I may get a second 5D mkII as back up if it goes down to 1000€ like last 5D classic units did

If it does not I will get a NEX 5-n or Nex-7 as second body, as I would like to have a high DR body and now NEX cameras can use EF lenses thanks to this new 400$ adapter (MP-E 65 included)

Regards


----------



## davidpeter (Apr 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dswatson83 said:
> 
> 
> > My conspiracy theory:
> ...



Well said.

Please guys, if you would like to argue with the results of DxO, first post the Fourier series of a square wave, just to let know, you have a clue about the topic. I believe, that half of the Captain Obviouses here don't know, what is SNR, but they are seriously protesting about the ISO results. This is nonsense...


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 22, 2012)

I trust the dxomark sensor numbers: if all you care about is image quality, the 5D3 is a small step up from the 5D2, but the D800 is a huge step up from the 5D3

if you're going to accuse dxomark of lying or purposedly skewing their results, please back that up with some proof, not just speculation

otherwise I'll think you're a fanboy, or upset that you're heavily invested on a camera system that's fallen far from the leading edge, and looking for excuses to avoid feeling bad about it

*now, the score that's more troublesome for me is the DR score, and, if you're right, it should be extremely easy to provide proof of it*

just bring your shiny new camera outside, put it on a tripod, and take two pictures that are exactly the same except for shutter speed: one is at 1/4000, the other is at 2" (not 1/2, but 2"); if both pictures show discernible detail in a given area (the same for both pictures), then the camera has 13 stops of DR or more; if you can't get that detail on both (i.e. either the 1/4000 is clipped to black, or the 2" is clipped to white, no matter how hard you fight with the RAW files), it has less than 13 stops of DR

of course, it would be great if you could do the same with the 5D2 (to see if there's an actual DR improvement with the 5D3, or just minimal as dxomark says) and with a camera that uses a modern Sony sensor (D800, D7000, nex-5n, nex-7, etc) (to see if those actually have the DR that dxomark claims they have) (I should point out that I already asked some D800 owners to run these tests from me, and playing with the RAW files I can confirm that it has well over 13 stops of DR)

I'm genuinely interested in your results, but I won't be following this thread any longer, so please PM me if you actually go out and test your camera, instead of ranting and speculating

Also, I have a theory to explain the dxomark DR results: Canon's ADC converters are not good enough for what the rest of the sensor can do, that's why the high-ISO DR is great but from a certain point no DR gains are appearing as you lower the ISO

(and no, I don't work for dxomark, or know anybody that does)
(and just 3 months ago I was accused of being a canon fanboy by my nikonian friends; luckily, I know the important investment is lenses, and have built a great Leica-R collection that will work on basically anything, including Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax)


----------



## jrista (Apr 22, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Bosman said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad Fred got the stuff posted, saves me some time. ;D
> ...



Lifting shadows is not just for those who don't know how to expose right. There are plenty of situations where you CAN'T expose right. Landscapes are the most obvious scenarios where the DR of the scene can be much greater than the DR of the camera. With something like the D800, you can lift shadows to replicate what you can see with your eyes...which are capable of around 20 stops of DR. No, not everyone actually needs that, which is indeed an argument for the 5D III, which is definitely an excellent camera. 

That doesn't change the fact that it really does not appear that Canon did a whole lot to improve their sensor technology this round (despite the fact that its been 5 years since they created a new sensor design). They somewhat cheated their way to higher SNR, and took a step backwards with low-ISO read noise, which is not doing a proper service to their customers. (Especially when they are asking so much money for their new gear...$3500 with the only real sensor improvement being gapless microlenses? Seriously...)


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 22, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> if you're going to accuse dxomark of lying or purposedly skewing their results, please back that up with some proof, not just speculation



How about this review? http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review/page:5#articleContent

Seems very different than DXOs results while actually using their testing suite.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 22, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> NormanBates said:
> 
> 
> > if you're going to accuse dxomark of lying or purposedly skewing their results, please back that up with some proof, not just speculation
> ...



The comparisons between the RAW for the Canons coincide with my eyeball test, so it gains credance from me.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



> Lifting shadows is not just for those who don't know how to expose right. There are plenty of situations where you CAN'T expose right. Landscapes are the most obvious scenarios where the DR of the scene can be much greater than the DR of the camera. With something like the D800, you can lift shadows to replicate what you can see with your eyes...which are capable of around 20 stops of DR. No, not everyone actually needs that, which is indeed an argument for the 5D III, which is definitely an excellent camera.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it really does not appear that Canon did a whole lot to improve their sensor technology this round (despite the fact that its been 5 years since they created a new sensor design). They somewhat cheated their way to higher SNR, and took a step backwards with low-ISO read noise, which is not doing a proper service to their customers. (Especially when they are asking so much money for their new gear...$3500 with the only real sensor improvement being gapless microlenses? Seriously...)


So you say. I prefer to not bitch. Do you have a 5dm3?


----------



## smithy (Apr 23, 2012)

It's fascinating to watch these conversations. Generally, those who do not think the 5D is worth the money will NOT buy one.

I am undecided.

I do not have rental access to a Mark III, so my choice has to be based entirely on reviews, anecdotal information (forums, etc), price, and the 2 minutes I get to hold one in my local camera shop. So far the reviews have been okay, DxO results 'disappointing', price very high ($4200 where I live), opinion in this forum absolutely polarised, and my 2 minutes of holding one in the shop: pleasant.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 23, 2012)

smithy said:


> It's fascinating to watch these conversations. Generally, those who do not think the 5D is worth the money will NOT buy one.
> 
> I am undecided.
> 
> I do not have rental access to a Mark III, so my choice has to be based entirely on reviews, anecdotal information (forums, etc), price, and the 2 minutes I get to hold one in my local camera shop. So far the reviews have been okay, DxO results 'disappointing', price very high ($4200 where I live), opinion in this forum absolutely polarised, and my 2 minutes of holding one in the shop: pleasant.



You could rent one at a local camera rental shop and experience it first hand. If it's not for you then you'll know it, and if it is for you then you'll know it.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 23, 2012)

How come when people compare the 5d3 to the 5d2 the 1 stop improvement is not a big deal. 1 stop = 100% better. 

Then people compare the 5d3 to the D800 and maybe the d800 is 25% better than the 5d3 (not that it really is, just for arguments sake) people get all bent out of shape bashing the 5d3! 

100% is no big deal, but 25% is some huge thing??


----------



## jrista (Apr 23, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> How come when people compare the 5d3 to the 5d2 the 1 stop improvement is not a big deal. 1 stop = 100% better.
> 
> Then people compare the 5d3 to the D800 and maybe the d800 is 25% better than the 5d3 (not that it really is, just for arguments sake) people get all bent out of shape bashing the 5d3!
> 
> 100% is no big deal, but 25% is some huge thing??



Well, I don't think people are comparing "whole cameras". Its more the comparison of the D800 DR. Since I don't care much for the Print DR measurements (I think they are overly skewed and blow the differences in the cameras well out of proportion), I use the Screen DR measurements (which just measure the RAW data as-is, and represent a better indication of what the actual hardware is capable of without any software scaling or other algorithmic enhancement skewing the results. Given that, the 5D III gets 10.95 stops of DR, while the D800 gets 13.23. That is a difference of 2.28 stops, or 100% then 100% again then another 28% on top of that. That is an unbelievable difference that has considerable significance.

It really does have to be taken in context, though. That difference ONLY exists AT ISO 100. At ISO 200 the difference drops to 1.69 stops, and at ISO 400 it drops to 1.05 stops. After that the differences are fairly negligible if they exist at all, and beyond ISO 1600 the 5D III does a bit better than the D800. The 5D III is a hell of a lot more than just a sensor as well, and a significant part of benefiting from the IQ the sensor has to offer is being able to get the shots you want. In that respect, the 5D III has more to offer than the D800 in a lot of respects, particularly for photographers who are already familiar with Canon's button layout and menu system. 

Despite the DR difference (which really is something impressive on the D800, for sure), that is really only a factor for a few niche applications where the use of ISO 100 in high DR situations is necessary and possible. I'd say Landscape photographers who don't care what brand they use and are willing to switch and learn new firmware, button layouts, and ergonomics would benefit tremendously from the D800. Outside of that, I think most Canon photographers should be more than satisfied with the 5D III, it should feel great in their hands (if its anything like the 7D ergonomics...which are fantastic), especially if they shoot at ISO's other than 100 most of the time. Even Landscape photographers should feel comfortable getting a 5D III, as bit of ETTR should improve DR a bit and make shadow recovery more viable.


----------



## smithy (Apr 23, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> smithy said:
> 
> 
> > It's fascinating to watch these conversations. Generally, those who do not think the 5D is worth the money will NOT buy one.
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> NormanBates said:
> 
> 
> > if you're going to accuse dxomark of lying or purposedly skewing their results, please back that up with some proof, not just speculation
> ...



techradar doesnt know what they are doing

the results they get match only their own


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 23, 2012)

> if you're going to accuse dxomark of lying or purposedly skewing their results, please back that up with some proof, not just speculation



+100.

I just performed Stouffer Transmission Wedge tests with my 5D Mark III & a D7000. My numbers for DR match DXO's 'screen' numbers within a very small margin of error (~0.3EV).

I will try & post these results, with images & quantitation, soon on a blog.

But it would appear to me that DXO is legit. That doesn't change the fact that they should really explicitly enumerate their testing methodologies...

>2 stops DR between the 5D Mark III & D7000... no joke. 

jrista & LTRLI-- I must say: thanks for getting me interested enough in all this to actually ascertain on my own, empirically, if DXO numbers make sense. I would conclude that they absolutely do. 

But don't take my word for it-- I'd be happy to provide the RAW files from the 5DIII & D7000 of the wedge tests for you to evaluate for yourself.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Also for those who claim all the DxO charts and graphs are nonsense as all technical charts are since charts and numbers never have anything to do with reality  see here, some rather clear demonstrations of reality by an excellent professional photographer (brace yourself though since Canon really has be totally dusted for low ISO image quality, and this guy is not a troll, he an established pro and a long time Canon shooter):
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
> 
> (to be fair if you shoot something where you don't need lots of MP and the scene doesn't have a wide difference between the bright and dark, then the difference won't matter at all)



Good grief! Fred's comparison is a total shocker for Canon. D800 is a generation ahead here.
Canon has a lot of work to do!!!! I hope they're working overtime in a big way.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 23, 2012)

smithy said:


> Now I'm not emotionally attached to this conversation at all, but to be honest, FishNose, with posts like this, you sound like you work for DxO... a full disclosure would be appreciated.


LOL
I found out about what they do and how they do it by reading up on their site and watching the cnet video about their methodology (the link in in a couple of places around here in these DxO threads, not sure where I saw it).

Precisely because I started wondering how on earth they arrive at the numbers they publish.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> (on that other board some guys who have a certain degree of in with Canon got the impression Canon got caught with their pants down, they though Nikon and SOny would dribble sensor stuff out much more slowly and thought they could just sit around on the sensor tech and not bother as much and more just focus on fixing body performance and then they saw the D800 and were like.... oh. Guess they they brought what they had right away instead of dribbling it out slowly.



Really surprises me that Canon missed this. You need to be 100% wide-awake to succeed in a busines like this. It's BIG money. Didn't Canon have any idea? 

After all, the high-res sensor in question had been out and in field testing for some time, I believe - and the release was seriously delayed by first the tsunami and then the Thai floods. So in fact it's nothing new at all, it's not like Nikon got something brand new from the sensor factory, stuck it in a body and pushed it out on the market. The camera has been in the hands of some big names since last spring. Maybe even longer.

Would you believe, there are plenty of Nikonians that complain that the D800 is already old technology since it took so long from development/initial testing to release. Many of them shut up after the DxO figures for the D800 were released, but still, it's ridiculous.

Didn't Canon care, or were they fast alseep, or complacent and arrogant, did they make a marketing blunder, do they have trouble developing sufficiently good new sensors themselves - or is it all of the above? 
Wakey wakey...


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Fishnose said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > (on that other board some guys who have a certain degree of in with Canon got the impression Canon got caught with their pants down, they though Nikon and SOny would dribble sensor stuff out much more slowly and thought they could just sit around on the sensor tech and not bother as much and more just focus on fixing body performance and then they saw the D800 and were like.... oh. Guess they they brought what they had right away instead of dribbling it out slowly.
> ...



@Fishnose - I see you like to comment others' posts just to write that 5d3 is crap and Canon is crap. So here you have mine - 5d3 is great. Go on!


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Fishnose said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Also for those who claim all the DxO charts and graphs are nonsense as all technical charts are since charts and numbers never have anything to do with reality  see here, some rather clear demonstrations of reality by an excellent professional photographer (brace yourself though since Canon really has be totally dusted for low ISO image quality, and this guy is not a troll, he an established pro and a long time Canon shooter):
> ...



While that is totally true, for the vast majority of people it is irrelevant since they don't push shadows to the level that the d800 will allow you. And when I say "vast majority" remember that only a few thousand people visit sites like these. Most will never even find out that it's a "problem". He also notes that there is an issue with the live view on the d800 out of interest...

You could say that, if people have it, they will use it and that may well be true. I know I push shadows 2 stops at times - but never more than that. Would I push shadows further than that if I could? Well, I might underexpose by a stop to give less CA against pure white skies. Other than that, no.

So, the question for Canon is ... do we spend money and time on something people *might* need or do we spend money and time on something people *do* need? It's a really hard question to answer. That's what marketing departments are supposed to answer.

Personally I think people would be much happier if Canon had pushed the low ISO shadow quality even 1 stop. That would put it in line with the D4. I think people are upset that it's literally not moved compared with the 5d2. Everything else in the specs has improved except that one figure.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



marekjoz said:


> @Fishnose - I see you like to comment others' posts just to write that 5d3 is crap and Canon is crap. So here you have mine - 5d3 is great. Go on!



Oh, really? Where in this post did I say 5D3 is crap? Anyway my point is, Canon needs to WAKE UP. 
I use both, by the way - I have no brand preference, only features & usability preference. I couldn't care less about the name on the product.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



PhilDrinkwater said:


> While that is totally true, for the vast majority of people it is irrelevant since they don't push shadows to the level that the d800 will allow you. And when I say "vast majority" remember that only a few thousand people visit sites like these. Most will never even find out that it's a "problem". He also notes that there is an issue with the live view on the d800 out of interest...
> 
> You could say that, if people have it, they will use it and that may well be true. I know I push shadows 2 stops at times - but never more than that. Would I push shadows further than that if I could? Well, I might underexpose by a stop to give less CA against pure white skies. Other than that, no.
> 
> ...



Pushing shadows was only one aspect of his tests. He also looks at moiré and resolution.
Interesting that he upsized the 5D3 images to 36MP to compare, rather than the usual method of downsizing D800 to 22MP to compare. Both have disadvantages one way or another, maybe the best is to meet halfway? 8)

You said: "So, the question for Canon is ... do we spend money and time on something people *might* need or do we spend money and time on something people *do* need? It's a really hard question to answer"

Not really. Since the 5D3 is supposed to be a pro camera and apparently replaces all high-end models for everything other than pure sports/action (1Dx), it has to do everything exactly right other than high fps and extreme ISO. 
If not, what Canon model do the pros go to?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Fishnose said:


> Not really. Since the 5D3 is supposed to be a pro camera and apparently replaces all high-end models for everything other than pure sports/action (1Dx), it has to do everything exactly right other than high fps and extreme ISO.
> If not, what Canon model do the pros go to?



The 5DIII replaces the 5DII

The 1DX replaces the 1D4 and the 1DS3. The 1D4 is the top sports camera. The 1Ds3 is the top studio camera. This is the way that it will be until the 1DX is released.

The 5DIII does not replace the high end models.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



briansquibb said:


> The 5DIII replaces the 5DII
> 
> The 1DX replaces the 1D4 and the 1DS3. The 1D4 is the top sports camera. The 1Ds3 is the top studio camera. This is the way that it will be until the 1DX is released.
> 
> The 5DIII does not replace the high end models.



The 1Dx is a reality already, they're just having some last minute problems. Announced 6 months ago. So your lineup is relevant for a couple more months. And then what? Is the 18MP 1Dx supposed to replace the 21MP 1D4 in the studio?

The 1Ds3 is nearly 5 years old. 
Even if they do release a replacement for the 1Ds3 (highly unlikely from what I understand), the 5D3 is still a pro camera and must stand up to pro demands, no? That's what this particular discussion was about.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Fishnose said:


> You said: "So, the question for Canon is ... do we spend money and time on something people *might* need or do we spend money and time on something people *do* need? It's a really hard question to answer"
> 
> Not really. Since the 5D3 is supposed to be a pro camera and apparently replaces all high-end models for everything other than pure sports/action (1Dx), it has to do everything exactly right other than high fps and extreme ISO.
> If not, what Canon model do the pros go to?



Until this latest generation photographers haven't even been able to push shadows that much. It's a relatively new feature. So pros can't have been doing this until the d800 / d4 came along.

No camera does everything. As a wedding photographer pro, which Nikon do you go with? D800 - too big files with no small RAW option. D4 - too expensive. D700 - too old. D3S - too low res. Don't believe that Nikon has everything perfect...

If the 5d3 has one serious Achilles Heel - low ISO DR - then it's probably the best overall camera out there.

Are you familiar with bell curves? Here's how I personally see the situation. More people are in the middle than at either end. This shows what people NEED rather than what they WANT btw. Nikon services the left side (d3s) and right side (d800) much better than Canon, but IMO Canon services the middle better:






(this doesn't show anything about low ISO DR, but the same situation applies).

I also think you'll find that many, many pros will be quite happy with what the 5d3 gives. In fact loads of still using 1ds2's in studio and 5dc's for weddings. A lot of what people seem to think pros need is not reality. (I don't know about your needs or your status).

BTW I'm not taking away what Nikon have achieved. I'm just saying that the 5d3 feature set was decided upon and, if it had better low ISO DR, something else would almost certainly have to be missing. Manufacturers make their decisions... sometimes they get it right... sometimes wrong... time will tell on the 5d3.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



Fishnose said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DIII replaces the 5DII
> ...



If you discuss something then getting the facts correct is important - I was mearly correcting your statement. Yes the 1Ds3 is 5 years old and the 5DIII is only its peer in IQ at low ISO. Canon have stated that the 1Ds3 replacement is the 1DX.

I would put the 5DIII as semi pro due to the lack of weatherproofing and lack of battery without grips - as you say it has to stand up to pro demands and that includes shooting in the rain or shooting for some time


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



PhilDrinkwater said:


> Until this latest generation photographers haven't even been able to push shadows that much. It's a relatively new feature. So pros can't have been doing this until the d800 / d4 came along.



No, this was the realm of MF. Advanced functions and demands migrate down the range with every generation.



PhilDrinkwater said:


> No camera does everything. As a wedding photographer pro, which Nikon do you go with? D800 - too big files with no small RAW option. D4 - too expensive. D700 - too old. D3S - too low res. Don't believe that Nikon has everything perfect...



Absoutely. As was discussed in another thread, the 5D3 silent shutter is a VERY useful option for weddings. 
The D800 'silent shutter' consists of.... keeping your finger pressed down on the shutter button (when in so-called quiet-shutter release mode) after the shot is taken, so the mirror stays up until you can drop your camera and quietly 'let go'! Clonk.
Uh, no. Not good enough.

And the possiblity to choose smaller (in MP) RAWS like you can with the jpgs would have been a cool function. Maybe next generation?



PhilDrinkwater said:


> If the 5d3 has one serious Achilles Heel - low ISO DR - then it's probably the best overall camera out there.
> 
> Are you familiar with bell curves? Here's how I personally see the situation. More people are in the middle than at either end. This shows what people NEED rather than what they WANT btw. Nikon services the left side (d3s) and right side (d800) much better than Canon, but IMO Canon services the middle better:
> 
> ...


I'm absolutely NOT saying and never will that the 5D3 is not good enough, or any such thing. Of course it's a bloody marvellous camera. My criticisms concerning Canon are almost entirely concerning marketing strategy, or lack of it. They dropped the ball.



PhilDrinkwater said:


> A lot of what people seem to think pros need is not reality


Of course. But when a new model is released after about 4 years, one does expect a big bump up. And pros look at the list of functions and improvements when considering a new camera just as much as anyone else.


----------



## jrista (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



PhilDrinkwater said:


> Until this latest generation photographers haven't even been able to push shadows that much. It's a relatively new feature. So pros can't have been doing this until the d800 / d4 came along.



I would dispute the fundamental accuracy of that statement. Sony sensors, which have been used in Nikon cameras for several years now, have been allowing a LOT of shadow pushing ever since they were introduced. The D800 is not the first camera to allow this degree of shadow manipulation...the first was the D7000 which is already a couple years old, and just as good (from a hardware capabilities level...and at that, possibly even a touch better still than the D800.) There are several other cameras from Nikon that allow well over an additional stop of DR beyond what Canon is capable of.

So no, considerable shadow lifting is not a brand spankin new feature, its at least a few years old, if not nearly as old as the 5D II itself. Canon is not just a generation behind here. We are entering SoNikon's second generation of cameras that offer much better DR than the vast majority of other cameras...and Canon is just falling farther behind now. Not that that is a life-ending deal for Canon, it certainly isn't, and the 5D III is still an excellent camera. But Canon cannot continue to ignore the problem. They can't just sit on their rear ends for another four years. They really have to start competing, and really need to produce a sensor capable of more than around 11 stops of DR.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> the first was the D7000 which is already a couple years old, and just as good (from a hardware capabilities level...and at that, possibly even a touch better still than the D800.) There are several other cameras from Nikon that allow well over an additional stop of DR beyond what Canon is capable of.



I forget about crop cameras. Yes - the D7000 was the first to allow particularly large amounts of shadow pushing. 

I don't believe before that there was much though.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> Not that that is a life-ending deal for Canon, it certainly isn't, and the 5D III is still an excellent camera. But Canon cannot continue to ignore the problem. They can't just sit on their rear ends for another four years. They really have to start competing, and really need to produce a sensor capable of more than around 11 stops of DR.


I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. If Canon don't "answer" the DR issue what will happen? A few thousand people who visit forums will take a slightly dimmer view on the camera. Some will switch brands.

Now don't get me wrong - I want them to give better shadow quality. However, if they don't I doubt they'll notice much more than a tiny dent.

Put it another way - I spoke to my pro retailer today. It was relatively new info for them that the d800 has fantastic shadow detail and the 5d3 has much less. I think people who visit forums a lot have a very different view of products. They pour over stats and forget there is a much MUCH wider world of photography that just doesn't care. They use a camera to take relatively simple photos. Many use JPEG too.


----------



## jrista (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



PhilDrinkwater said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Not that that is a life-ending deal for Canon, it certainly isn't, and the 5D III is still an excellent camera. But Canon cannot continue to ignore the problem. They can't just sit on their rear ends for another four years. They really have to start competing, and really need to produce a sensor capable of more than around 11 stops of DR.
> ...



I think the idea that *only* people who visit forums like this care about DR and need more DR is a fallacy. I think the people who visit these types of forums and complain about it are only a representative sample of such, and the actual numbers are far greater. Dynamic range is not just some obscure concept that only tech heads know about...its a meaningful aspect of IQ that many people who are serious about their photography, including professionals, need. Assuming Nikon can improve their supply, I think they will gain quite a few customers from Canon over such a relatively small issue, and I think the dent could be pretty large. I think many people will also simply hold off on upgrading, and wait. The longer Canon lets the problem go on, the greater the likelyhood that they will lose customers, either simply by people not upgrading, or losing them to other brands (and not necessarily just Nikon...Sony of course will have high DR counterparts, Pentax also uses Sony sensors, etc.) The competition, at large, now that were into the second generation of the era of Exmor, will only continue to accelerate their lead beyond Canon. Canon is falling behind on more fronts than just DR and overall IQ as well, there are quite a few areas of very heated competition, such as mirrorless, which Canon is simply not addressing. 

No, the issues are not nearly as large as people make it out to be, and in reality are not really that big of a deal, but that is the issue with perception...and bad perceptions can kill. If Canon doesn't have something truly competitive in another generation, its not just going to be a few nuts in a few forums blabbing about the D800's amazing DR. It'll be Canonites all over complaining about the general superiority of Nikon, Sony, Pentax, and potentially other brands on not just the DR front, but just about every front.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> I think the idea that *only* people who visit forums like this care about DR and need more DR is a fallacy. I think the people who visit these types of forums and complain about it are only a representative sample of such, and the actual numbers are far greater. Dynamic range is not just some obscure concept that only tech heads know about...its a meaningful aspect of IQ that many people who are serious about their photography, including professionals, need. Assuming Nikon can improve their supply, I think they will gain quite a few customers from Canon over such a relatively small issue, and I think the dent could be pretty large. I think many people will also simply hold off on upgrading, and wait. The longer Canon lets the problem go on, the greater the likelyhood that they will lose customers, either simply by people not upgrading, or losing them to other brands (and not necessarily just Nikon...Sony of course will have high DR counterparts, Pentax also uses Sony sensors, etc.) The competition, at large, now that were into the second generation of the era of Exmor, will only continue to accelerate their lead beyond Canon. Canon is falling behind on more fronts than just DR and overall IQ as well, there are quite a few areas of very heated competition, such as mirrorless, which Canon is simply not addressing.
> 
> No, the issues are not nearly as large as people make it out to be, and in reality are not really that big of a deal, but that is the issue with perception...and bad perceptions can kill. If Canon doesn't have something truly competitive in another generation, its not just going to be a few nuts in a few forums blabbing about the D800's amazing DR. It'll be Canonites all over complaining about the general superiority of Nikon, Sony, Pentax, and potentially other brands on not just the DR front, but just about every front.



I don't completely agree.. and I don't completely disagree either. There's sectors of the market that care, and sectors that don't. And some inbetween. I think the people who care most are the gearheads on here and dpreview etc... I think a lot of working pros just don't care - not one bit. There's people inbetween too I'm sure.

If Canon continue to fall behind, what will happen is the question? I'm sure Canon themselves are asking this question. However, I personally think you believe it's something a lot of people notice or care about. I disagree. I've heard very VERY few of my photographer friends (and I have a lot) talk about poor quality shadows. 

I agree and understand that bad press is bad press. I also agree that slowly bad press will make it's way around the industry. The thing I disagree with fundamentally is that Canon have do something NOW. I think they could do another 1-2 generations of cameras and it wouldn't matter that much to them.

You have to remember why a lot of people stay with a system:
* It's comfortable
* It's costly to move
* It takes time to move so I lose money
* They like certain things about a system (my 50mm 1.2 for example)
* What I have is good enough

It takes A LOT to make someone move system IMO unless they're not particularly invested. I toyed with it due to the issues with the viewfinder on the 5d3 in bright light. 

It gave me sweats just thinking about it and it's not something I would want to do.

Anyway - we could chat about this all day


----------



## jrista (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



PhilDrinkwater said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think the idea that *only* people who visit forums like this care about DR and need more DR is a fallacy. I think the people who visit these types of forums and complain about it are only a representative sample of such, and the actual numbers are far greater. Dynamic range is not just some obscure concept that only tech heads know about...its a meaningful aspect of IQ that many people who are serious about their photography, including professionals, need. Assuming Nikon can improve their supply, I think they will gain quite a few customers from Canon over such a relatively small issue, and I think the dent could be pretty large. I think many people will also simply hold off on upgrading, and wait. The longer Canon lets the problem go on, the greater the likelyhood that they will lose customers, either simply by people not upgrading, or losing them to other brands (and not necessarily just Nikon...Sony of course will have high DR counterparts, Pentax also uses Sony sensors, etc.) The competition, at large, now that were into the second generation of the era of Exmor, will only continue to accelerate their lead beyond Canon. Canon is falling behind on more fronts than just DR and overall IQ as well, there are quite a few areas of very heated competition, such as mirrorless, which Canon is simply not addressing.
> ...



Totally agree about your points why people stay in the system. In that respect, and to your first point about there probably being three major groups: Those who care a lot, those who care some, and those who don't care, probably do mean that Canon could survive another couple generations without really doing anything significant with their IQ.

I know quite a few photographers, more online than in real life, but perhaps I just run with a more technical group who does seem to care in general about their IQ and how well the hardware caters to IQ. And, all things being equal, it really *was not* that much of an issue until the advent of the D800.


----------



## zim (Apr 23, 2012)

So I guess he must have done those low ISO tests after his visit to Yosemite otherwise he would have taken all those lovely pictures on a D800? oh wait there is that lens I suppose and that’s the point it’s a system, both are, with strengths and weaknesses. His conclusion is a balanced one.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_final.html

I do agree however about falling behind in sensor tech. If that continues to happen over time then that would be an issue. What’s easier for a company to do, improve a lens or improve a sensor?
Was also wondering is Sony and Nikon mated for life or is it a fixed term requiring negotiation?


----------



## well_dunno (Apr 23, 2012)

zim said:


> Was also wondering is Sony and Nikon mated for life or is it a fixed term requiring negotiation?



I recall reading Nikon was planning or trying to produce their own sensors. The details of the agreement between Sony and Nikon are not known to many but out of what I have read, Sony gets the priority on using the APS-C sensors and Nikon gets priority on the FF sensors (priority of 6 months to a year are mentioned at sonyalpharumors)... If I am not mistaken, most of it is speculation though... I don't think it is a life long agreement but it is kept in place as it benefits both companies... 

Cheers!


----------



## psolberg (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



PhilDrinkwater said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > You said: "So, the question for Canon is ... do we spend money and time on something people *might* need or do we spend money and time on something people *do* need? It's a really hard question to answer"
> ...



interesting but the problem is that 4 fps is sufficient for MOST people just as with the 5DmkII so that would put the D800 in the middle. Also the ISO levels of hte mk2 and D800 are sufficient for MOST people so that would also put the D800 in the middle. The same applies to the 5DmkII. So the real competition for the mk3 is the prior one more than anything AND the D800. Second your graph doesn't have price which would place the mk2 and D800 closer to the center than the mk3.

This is the fundamental problem with the 5D3. Price makes it go to the edges of the graph, high ISO and fast FPS make it more specialized pushing it further away from the center of the bell curve. The D800 is more of a traditional middle of the road camera with the exception of the high MP. This would push it towards the edge but given it isn't any more expensive, the resolution is essentially a non issue. The lower price helps it a lot bringing it towards the center.

In conclusion, you simply can't make a graph like that and infer anything because your basis is that the 5Dmk3 is more to the center when in fact the only center aspect of it is resolution. In every other aspect the D800 is closer to the center. 

Then again your graph is too much of a generalization so we better stick to a much simpler answer: Shoot studio and landscape or portraits stick to the mk2 or D800. If you shoot action on a budget stick to the 8fps D700 or 6fps 5DIII. If you shoot action for a living go D4 or 1DX. It is a simple as using the right tool for the job. Neither is truly "general purpose" although most people will gravitate towards the cheaper camera which make the D700 and 5DmkII equal winners.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



PhilDrinkwater said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > the first was the D7000 which is already a couple years old, and just as good (from a hardware capabilities level...and at that, possibly even a touch better still than the D800.) There are several other cameras from Nikon that allow well over an additional stop of DR beyond what Canon is capable of.
> ...



I think the D90 or D70 or something did too, I forget.
The D3x did.
Some of the others using Sony exmor sensors.

The others were not as dramatically better but some of the others had less banding so you could play with the shadows somewhat more than canons such as the 50D/5D2.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*

People forget that the D800 also does 5fps at 25MP, still a touch slow, but, with grip and extra expense, it can match the 6fps of the 5D3. If it didn't have that option then I'd say you could easily call the 5D3 more all around, but since the D800 does have the 6fps option (even if with 16MP DX restriction) it's a tougher call. A bit worse for action since it is more restricted and yet it also have better general low iso image quality by all criteria and more reach for wildlife and some sports. 

The unfortunate thing is that any high MP coming from Canon soon most likely WON'T have any 5 and 6fps options since for whatever reason Canon refuses to do crop modes for speed so it will sadly likely be far more specialized than the D800, plus it likely won't match D800 so other than perhaps a few extra MP it won't even do it's specialty better.




psolberg said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > Fishnose said:
> ...


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 24, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



PhilDrinkwater said:


> I think the people who care most are the gearheads on here and dpreview etc... I think a lot of working pros just don't care - not one bit. I've heard very VERY few of my photographer friends (and I have a lot) talk about poor quality shadows.



+1 million  There's nothing wrong with being a gearhead, but most working pros I know have never even heard of DxO, or are aware of the current state of sensor technology between Canon and Nikon. They are busy shooting, editing, and shooting some more, and grinding clients to pay their delinquent invoices  Their gear works well for them, they're happy with it, and so they have no reason to see if the grass is greener on the other side. 

When I mention to them how much Nikon has caught up with, and in some respects surpassed Canon in sensor tech, they look at me like I'm crazy. Nikon's incredibly inept product line at the dawn of the digital revolution is still fresh in their minds. I suppose ignorance is bliss to a certain degree, but if you're happy with your gear, and it pays the bills, why look elsewhere?


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 24, 2012)

*Re: DxO results out for 5D3*



jrista said:


> I know quite a few photographers, more online than in real life, but perhaps I just run with a more technical group who does seem to care in general about their IQ and how well the hardware caters to IQ.



That's explains it right there. The internet has a way of grossly distorting niche and micro niche markets. For every pro photog I "know" on the internet, I know 10 real life pro photog colleagues and competitors I rub shoulders with on a daily basis. Sites like Canon Rumors naturally attracts a far more tech savvy demographic. It doesn't mean they're better photographers, but they are far more tech savvy. The only reason I'm aware of these of DxO testing and some of the more technical aspects of camera design is because I stumbled upon Canon Rumors, and the only reason I stumbled upon Canon Rumors is because I was researching the latest 5DIII rumors online, since I was beyond frustrated with my 5D's AF system. 

As artsy-fartsy types, many, many photographers that are highly talented and produce incredible work aren't remotely tech savvy. I don't say that as a criticism or a compliment, but that's just how they're wired. A buddy of mine, who produces some incredible work, has been using his 1DsII professionally for 7 years, and the grips are worn smooth at this point. I mentioned what a workhorse it's been for him, and as he said, "yeah, I like the IQ and handling a lot. I think it has 11 megapixels." Now, this is an extreme example, and I was shocked that he didn't even know how many megapixels his camera has, but it does put into perspective how tech specs aren't nearly as important to some photographers than to others. It's not too different from an art director that swears that he can't do his job on anything other than a Mac, even though Macs and PCs often share the same processors, video cards, and software these days. 

Don't get me wrong. I don't see any advantage of being this clueless, and it can hurt you if there are better tools for the job that you are simply unaware of. That said, this does reinforce how good all pro and semi-pro DSLRs are these days, and underscores how performance metrics that are HUGE issues online aren't nearly as big of an issue amongst most working pros. 

I blame this on how the internet can grossly distorts niche markets. For instance, only a very small percentage of the general public modify and drag race their cars, and a miniscule percentage of that demographic builds 2,500 horsepower drag cars. However, if I hop on the right online forum, it makes it seem as if freaks like us are a dime a dozen


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 24, 2012)

ok, so some people think "good enough" will be good enough...

I think it won't: it's not a matter of "I can't live with this IQ" but instead "the D800 is much better, and cheaper too, the 5D3 should be $500 cheaper, not $500 more expensive!!"

and I expect to see something like the following:
* July 2008: Nikon launches D700 at $3000
* Sep 2008: Canon launches much better 5D2 at $2700
* Dec 2008: D700 has fallen to $2320, 5D2 still $2700
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Nikon-12-1MP-FX-Format-Digital-3-0-Inch/product/B001BTCSI6
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Canon-21-1MP-Frame-Digital-Camera/product/B001G5ZTLS


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Apr 24, 2012)

I'm loyal to neither brand, whatever gets the job done is the best camera at the moment. That being said I'm here on CanonRumors because I own a lot of Canon gear, but If at any point I felt like Nikon offered me severe advantages over Canon, I would sell everything I own and switch over. The fact of the matter is these two companies will always leapfrog each other. Wannabe photogs sit around worrying about test scores, while real photogs are out creating beautiful images with whatever they can get their hands on. One of my mentors still shoots with a Canon 30D and Sigma lenses. He has shot some of the most iconic pictures in the world e.g. Miles Davis actually smiling, Stevie Wonder with his glasses off, James Brown just before he died and on and on. 
My point being, the 5D Mark III is an excellent camera regardless of those silly tests and probably more than most wannabe photogs need, but they seem to want more and more from the camera to compensate for lack of visual imagination. Personally I was out shooting with my 5D Mark III while most people were still sitting around in forums reading about it. I had to because I make my living from shooting. If I don't shoot, I don't eat. I have found nothing that made me think "darn it I wish I had switched to Nikon".
Bottom line, test be damned, my 5D Mark III does exactly what it supposed to do and when the 1DX is released I'll get two of those too. I'll let other people worry about test scores, my rent is due.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 24, 2012)

_What DarkKnightNine said..._


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 24, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> ok, so some people think "good enough" will be good enough... I think it won't ...



Wow - I sense your deep pain.

Must be really tough to live in your world of constant disappointment.


No possibility of marriage (always a better girl/boy around the next corner);
No house purchase, so live on a park bench hoping for the ideal house to become affordable;
No car, because there is always a better one...

Life is really hard that way.

My life, it's about compromise. I get the best I can, I enjoy it. It's working out pretty well so far.

Go get an EOS3 - you can have great autofocus and metering, upgradable high megapixel sensors (film) and all for $150... Seriously - I love mine.


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 24, 2012)

why would you write about my personal life? I know you were trying to be funny - I didn't find it funny

anyway, 6 months from now we'll know if "good enough" was good enough for most people or just for some



edit (let me try and fail to be funny now): you don't mess up with someone that calls himself NormanBates...


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 24, 2012)

BillyBean said:


> Wow - I sense your deep pain.
> 
> Must be really tough to live in your world of constant disappointment.
> 
> ...



Damn, you're such a jerk.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> BillyBean said:
> 
> 
> > Wow - I sense your deep pain.
> ...



Name calling is not an appropriate response


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 24, 2012)

I'm happy with
6 months from now we'll know if "good enough" was good enough for most people or just for some
please forget about his comment and leave it there


----------



## K-amps (Apr 24, 2012)

I think Norman is referring to the apparent value proposition of the 2 cams. Canon seems to be an inferior Value, looking at it's higher price. The same feature set at $2700 would have been a lot more palatable... and then they could have released the 40mp 3D at $3800 and people would have gone for it, this would have outflanked the D800 on both ends.

Right now, they are just skimming the pond, Milking it for what they can. This is not 2005, when you have a great value in a FF body when all other FF's are selling at more than 2x the price nor is it an update that adds video and opens up a whole new world. This is fixing firmware, adding the 1dx AF and slapping another $1000 to the price of the predecessor... all this while the competition has moved ahead.

I own the 5diii and think it is a great Cam, just not a great value when you look at the competition. I wonder if Nikkor or Sony lenses dip in price... what effect that would have on Canon Body sales. The shadow noise I saw in Fed Miranda's test shots of the 5d3 vs D800 was a shocker for me... it was like a DSLR was pitted against a cheap PS. The color blotches were horrible. Good thing there's a lot more to shoot than shadows only.

There is inertia in Public opinion and Nikon suffered on that end in the mid 2000's, now it is gaining momentum, the tides are shifting and canon is sitting on their Backs researching $20k Cinema cams... Good for them, bad for us stills guys.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 24, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Canon seems to be an inferior Value, looking at it's higher price. The same feature set at $2700 would have been a lot more palatable... and then they could have released the 40mp 3D at $3800 and people would have gone for it, this would have outflanked the D800 on both ends.



Fair enough - value for money is a relevant issue. 
But consider this: Canon has a massive customer base already. People who've invested in lots of glass etc etc. They know that photographers at this level (as opposed to entry-level DSLRs) simply go and buy the next generation of Canon when they feel they need to. They're not likely to swap allegiances because of a few hundred dollars.

Nikon OTOH has to aim for increasing their market share, being a little way behind. They fumbled the ball a couple of times early on in the DSLR race and have suffered ever since. 

So - how do they convince newcomers to the higher end to buy Nikon? 
By having something really AMAZING (36MP) and, amazingly, cheaper than the equivalent Canon! Now that is some smart marketing.
It costs them, as their margins will be a little leaner than Canon's, but they're going for touhdown, there's no other way to play this game.

So in fact the two big guns have made totally logical decisions in terms of both technology and pricing. Based on their present market situations.

And quite simply, these are both (5D3 and D800) absolutely amazing cameras.


----------



## Razor2012 (Apr 24, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Canon seems to be an inferior Value, looking at it's higher price. The same feature set at $2700 would have been a lot more palatable... and then they could have released the 40mp 3D at $3800 and people would have gone for it, this would have outflanked the D800 on both ends.
> ...



Exactly, and it will just go back and forth. IMO there are basically two camps, and they are fairly loyal followers. So you probably won't see too many 'jump the boat' because of one camera, because the next release will be that much better again. There certainly will be the ones that are on the fence deciding which way to go, but the majority have chosen.


----------



## tron (Apr 25, 2012)

K-amps said:


> The shadow noise I saw in Fed Miranda's test shots of the 5d3 vs D800 was a shocker for me... it was like a DSLR was pitted against a cheap PS. The color blotches were horrible. Good thing there's a lot more to shoot than shadows only.



This is the only comparison that shocked me too


----------



## ippikiokami (Apr 25, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> why would you write about my personal life? I know you were trying to be funny - I didn't find it funny
> 
> anyway, 6 months from now we'll know if "good enough" was good enough for most people or just for some
> 
> ...



Are you kidding? it's been long enough in the field a lot of people are using them professionally already. Personally, I've shot 3 weddings, 2 big events for pure testing purposes before the weddings and shooting a photoshoot this weekend for a fashion client. Being able to shoot at the ISO's I shot were a God send in both what and how I could capture. I also sipped through batteries as some situations I just didn't need my flash where I did before and others I used much less flash.

Was I nervous on relying on high iso? Yeah.. but I tested it enough at music / film fest and coffee shop to know it's limits and stuck with it. Constantly during the wedding's I was just blown away at how high of ISO I could shoot. If I can get through all those situations I don't know that many people that would have more extreme ones that it wouldn't be "Good Enough"

Again as I've said in other post this is coming from a guy that was just an availability of the d800 away from switching over.


----------



## babarasghar (Apr 25, 2012)

the day earth stood still
the apocalypse
the day 5d3 was launched 
I remember earth didn't stand still when 5d2 came out ... I dnt think so earth stood still when world Digital replaced Film 
but I'm lucky to witness how a 500$ higher priced Canon has left its mark on history ... it seems I'm witnessing the great waterloo battle ... or Normandy landing or fall of Berlin n Berlin wall ... 
even Hitler couldn't impress any spamer that much ... 
I wonder why some one never asked on forum ... my eyes r closing should I sleep ... I'm having pain in stomach should I eat ... I'm smelling like a dog should I take bath ... I want to spend rest of my life with that girl ... am I in love ? cause most normal n emotionally balanced people know how to act in certain situations ... n if they ask then either they are not normal or they dnt have such needs ... so if still someone is splitting hairs between d800 n 5d3 he needs none of them ... 
i wonder how people survived till 36mp d800 was not released ... how world functioned with 5d2 crappy AF system ... 
 
n I'm sure Maya predicted end of. world in 2012 cause NIKON will make a cheaper d800 n Canon 5d3 would cost 500$ more ... duh!!!


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 25, 2012)

babarasghar, I think you need to lower the dose of those apparently very strong tablets you're taking 8)


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 25, 2012)

No more replies here? Come on, guys. 
Did you know that DxOMark scores 5dmk3 total score 81 and 5d2 had 79?
lol


----------



## newjerseykita (Apr 25, 2012)

Where does it say that it's still preview i see TESTED in bold? Someone enlighten me?


----------



## rafaelsynths (Apr 25, 2012)

It is about the photographer not the camera.

I'd rather get the canon that fills all of my needs


----------



## K-amps (Apr 25, 2012)

rafaelsynths said:
 

> It is about the photographer not the camera.
> 
> I'd rather get the canon that fills all of my needs



As opposed to...


----------



## Serious_Paul (Apr 25, 2012)

Who cares what the DxO says, or if the camera you own can interpet the "matrix" code better than another? This is stupid. If your camera can perform well enough to please the human eye, without worrying about numbers and patterns that don't mean anything, why complain? Just go out and take pictures. If you can shoot in manual mode properly, you shouldn't be worrying about DxO stats.


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 25, 2012)

rafaelsynths said:


> I'd rather get the canon that fills all of my needs



Just to clarify, you ARE talking photographic needs, right?


----------



## tron (Apr 25, 2012)

81>79 No worries... ;D


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 26, 2012)

tron said:


> 81>79 No worries... ;D



With d900, when they reach their up scale limit, they will have to reevaluate all the numbers so it will fall down, most probably


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 26, 2012)

rafaelsynths said:


> It is about the photographer not the camera.
> 
> I'd rather get the canon that fills all of my needs



Wait if it is all about the photographer then why do you need the new Canon that fills all your needs? You are still you. Just stick with what you have.


----------



## tron (Apr 26, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > 81>79 No worries... ;D
> ...


Now you ruined my calculations 
I was thinking: 3.5 years 2 point increase => 31.5 more years: 18 points increase which means 99!

So by the year 2044 Canon would have an excellent camera and we would stop complaining... ;D


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 26, 2012)

tron said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I'm afraid that year after year it's more difficult to increase by a single point. But don't worry - no matter what silicon d900 will have it certainly would go beyond 100, so no chance for Canon. Sorry.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 26, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > marekjoz said:
> ...



Wait till they really get good at growing diamond in labs. Diamond will replace silicon, and when that happens 100k iso will look like 100 iso. Diamond is the most conductive material known to man!


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 26, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > 81>79 No worries... ;D
> ...



No, the DxO scale is not percentage based. It has no upper end so a camera can actually get a score of 103, etc.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 26, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Good news then. Great marketing gizmo - "the first sensor over 100"


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 26, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I thought they are semiconductors or insulators? Especially those clean.


----------

