# Canon is getting owned in sensor technology



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

Okay, we can cry bias and be in complete denial, but Canon has inferior sensor from the early 2000! Their tech is a decade behind than Nikon. When will they start accepting the fact and invest a little more? It used to be Canon could at least claim "we have high megapixels", but now they can only claim "DXO is biased".

We need competition, otherwise Nikon will become stagnant, just like Canon has become. Sorry for the rant, not trying to rub salt on our collective Canon wounds.


----------



## tasteofjace (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> Okay, we can cry bias and be in complete denial, but Canon has inferior sensor from the early 2000! Their tech is a decade behind than Nikon. When will they start accepting the fact and invest a little more? It used to be Canon could at least claim "we have high megapixels", but now they can only claim "DXO is biased".
> 
> We need competition, otherwise Nikon will become stagnant, just like Canon has become. Sorry for the rant, not trying to rub salt on our collective Canon wounds.



So you're saying that decade old technology is still competing with Nikon's current technology? There's more to a camera system than the sensor believe it or not, and Canon is doing a better job at building a well rounded, system that works very well in many situations.


----------



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

tasteofjace said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, we can cry bias and be in complete denial, but Canon has inferior sensor from the early 2000! Their tech is a decade behind than Nikon. When will they start accepting the fact and invest a little more? It used to be Canon could at least claim "we have high megapixels", but now they can only claim "DXO is biased".
> ...



You do have a point. There are other things beside a sensor, and Canon is certainly no slouch in FPS, AF, processing, video, and a lot of other qualities. And lenses! In fact, they are better in most of those areas, that is why they are competing. The fact still remains that their sensor is s##t and will only cause their cameras to produce not to their potential.

Imagine a D800-like sensor on the 5Diii body! *drools*


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> You do have a point. There are other things beside a sensor, and Canon is certainly no slouch in FPS, AF, processing, video, and a lot of other qualities. And lenses! In fact, they are better in most of those areas, that is why they are competing. The fact still remains that their sensor is s##t and will only cause their cameras to produce not to their potential.
> 
> Imagine a D800-like sensor on the 5Diii body! *drools*



Yep... and i imagine crappy ISO performance, I imagine the extra work and WB issues that is popping up with the D800 just to get the image in the same realm of the 5d3 in terms of overall color, pop and effect, and imagine all the extra HD's and card needed to support the files.... Uhhh no thanks... I can see where some styles and some forms of photography would benefit, but it is not the all to be all... Canon is to old slide film as nikon is the negative film... The slides just had better pop, better and vibrant colors, more "wow" factor... Negatives COULD have more latitude but in the end, a lot more work/care was needed to get negatives in print to get remotely close to the slide image. The same is being proven true with D800 files and the 5d3 files...


----------



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > You do have a point. There are other things beside a sensor, and Canon is certainly no slouch in FPS, AF, processing, video, and a lot of other qualities. And lenses! In fact, they are better in most of those areas, that is why they are competing. The fact still remains that their sensor is s##t and will only cause their cameras to produce not to their potential.
> ...



That is just sour grapes talking. The "pop" you talk about with 5Diii is its lack of DR. High DR images have flatter look and you can post-process (the horror!) to make it fit your levels. D800 has better detail, better DR, and better color, all critical to a technical image quality. 

Lets face it, 5Diii's sensor is no better than 5Dii's. 5Diii has improved on AF and processing, though. But the heart of the image is its sensor, which is sorely lacking. 

May be Canon needs to stop listening to "everything is fine" crowd and innovate, perhaps?


----------



## moreorless (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> That is just sour grapes talking. The "pop" you talk about with 5Diii is its lack of DR. High DR images have flatter look and you can post-process (the horror!) to make it fit your levels. D800 has better detail, better DR, and better color, all critical to a technical image quality.
> 
> Lets face it, 5Diii's sensor is no better than 5Dii's. 5Diii has improved on AF and processing, though. But the heart of the image is its sensor, which is sorely lacking.
> 
> May be Canon needs to stop listening to "everything is fine" crowd and innovate, perhaps?



You look at the Nikon D4 though compaired to the D3s and what do you see? much the same kind of situation as the 5D mk3 compaired to the 5D mk2, some improvement in ISO range but nothing massive. The Nikon sensor cannot equal the extreme DR of the Sony's at ISO 100 either.

The impression I'm getting is that greater advances were seeing in sensor design are not improving ISO performance at a certain pixel density but rather offering similar ISO performance at higher densities.

The 1DX, the D4 and the 5D mk3 were all I'd guess limated in their MP count in order to achieve a certain FPS rate so really we havent seen anyone but Sony looking to push megapixels on FF/Crop bodies for the last few years. The big test is going to be when/if Canon release a new sensor that looks to push MP's further, either on FF or a new 650D/70D/7D one.


----------



## Astro (Apr 19, 2012)

jimmylazers said:


> I wonder how many retards will pay $500 or so for the Mk III when it's just been destroyed by the D800.
> 
> Embarrassing really. I'd say Canon always have printers to fall back on, but the ones in my office seem to be broken most of the time.



any you nikon troll have registered here just for that?


----------



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

Astro said:


> i wonder how many retards will buy a D800 for sports based on the DXO test.



They will have to be damn rich retards to buy a $3000 high mpx camera solely for sports. 




> DXOmark is not for common people.. it´s for engineers who know what DXO is testing.
> the stupid naming of the categorys (SPORTS) don´t help either.
> 
> 90% of all visitors of DXOmark have NO clue how DXO is measuring sensor performance.
> and from the 10% who know, only half understand why they measure that way.



General public may not know about DxO techniques, but they don't have to. The DxO engineers certainly do and they have made it easier for the public by categorizing performances along the categories. Be in complete denial and attack the messenger (DxO).

Numbers don't lie:






Neither should you.


----------



## Astro (Apr 19, 2012)

i don´t think they have made it easyer for average joe.

to fully understand the score you have to know what they are testing.

because DXO is based on resized images and noise threshold.
it´s a normalized test.

but then why buy a 36 MP camera if you normalize to a lower resolution?
because you can resample an image? 
well yes you can resample to 8MP.... but that is not why i would buy a 36MP camera.

the DXO score is only a true representation if you resample/normalize the RAW image. 

don´t get me wrong i think the DXO test IS usefull in some way.. just not in the way most interpret it.




> Numbers don't lie



lol.. you are not that naive are you?
statistics lie all day.. it´s a matter how you test.

do you really think the D4 is only marginal better in low light? than i feel truly sorry for you.
but trust me not one experienced photographer, nikon or not, will be fooled by the numbers. 


beside that... it´s a SONY sensor.
so if you want to praise a company.. praise the right one.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 19, 2012)

Hang on a sec... if you look at the SNR and DR graphs together, it's clear that the Canon is the better high ISO camera... so how come the D800 gets a better sports / low light score?


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> That is just sour grapes talking. The "pop" you talk about with 5Diii is its lack of DR. High DR images have flatter look and you can post-process (the horror!) to make it fit your levels. D800 has better detail, better DR, and better color, all critical to a technical image quality.
> 
> Lets face it, 5Diii's sensor is no better than 5Dii's. 5Diii has improved on AF and processing, though. But the heart of the image is its sensor, which is sorely lacking.
> 
> May be Canon needs to stop listening to "everything is fine" crowd and innovate, perhaps?



Sour grapes? Really? I have no quams on post production and have been doing photoshop work before photoshop really became mainstream, BUT, to say that you have to do photoshop work JUST to get an image with pop, meh... and once you do get that pop, most the DR cancels out anyways. Both cameras have it's place... Then again to to go black and white with no shades of gray, with your conclusion of the sensor, high ISO, canon owns nikon, in FPS, canon owns nikon, in AF points (total and cross) canon owns nikon, in movie mode quality, canon owns nikon. Both cameras have their place in the market place.. It's not as black and white as you think my friend. 



Astro said:


> > Numbers don't lie
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly


----------



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

Astro said:


> i don´t think they have made it easyer for average joe.
> 
> to fully understand the score you have to know what they are testing.
> 
> ...



Resize to 8mpx, upsize to 36mpx, D800 has clearly better sensor. I guess they resize to 8mpx for normalization, as you mentioned.




> the DXO score is only a true representation if you resample/normalize the RAW image.
> 
> don´t get me wrong i think the DXO test IS usefull in some way.. just not in the way most interpret it.



True, DxO score is useful only if you shoot RAW. For exclusive JPG shooters and snapshot shooters, it is pretty much useless. The idea here is the sensor capability, i.e. RAW. Understood that many do not shoot RAW for various reasons.


----------



## max (Apr 19, 2012)

Canon used to always say its because they have higher MP that the test giveout those numbers... Now Nikon has the bigger MP and Canon still loses...



Astro said:


> i don´t think they have made it easyer for average joe.
> 
> to fully understand the score you have to know what they are testing.
> 
> ...


----------



## RuneL (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> Okay, we can cry bias and be in complete denial, but Canon has inferior sensor from the early 2000! Their tech is a decade behind than Nikon. When will they start accepting the fact and invest a little more? It used to be Canon could at least claim "we have high megapixels", but now they can only claim "DXO is biased".
> 
> We need competition, otherwise Nikon will become stagnant, just like Canon has become. Sorry for the rant, not trying to rub salt on our collective Canon wounds.



YEs, you were around to see the horrible images nikons produced in 2000 and you were around to see why almost everyone chose Canon back then.


----------



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Sour grapes? Really? I have no quams on post production and have been doing photoshop work before photoshop really became mainstream, BUT, to say that you have to do photoshop work JUST to get an image with pop, meh... and once you do get that pop, most the DR cancels out anyways. Both cameras have it's place... Then again to to go black and white with no shades of gray, with your conclusion of the sensor, high ISO, canon owns nikon, in FPS, canon owns nikon, in AF points (total and cross) canon owns nikon, in movie mode quality, canon owns nikon. Both cameras have their place in the market place.. It's not as black and white as you think my friend.




Lets just say that with D800 and its clearly SUPERIOR DR, you can process to get the pop, or whatever you like. With 5Diii, you are screwed if your exposure is not perfect. D800 gives you much more latitude. No doubt, based on empirical evidence.



> statistics lie all day.. it´s a matter how you test.



So, are you saying that DxO is wrong? : You must know better than professional testers.


----------



## typho (Apr 19, 2012)

Regardless of megapixels. What I actually found more interesting is the difference in IQ of 5d2 and 5d3 is rather small, and you can't really argue with megapixels here. 

The dynamic range has practically stayed identical. Actually it went down by ~0.12 EV in the lower ISO range and improved only slightly in the high ISO range. The highest acceptable ISO performance how DxO defines it went from 1815 to 2293. That's certainly not 2 stops as canon has been touting. The 18% SNR is up by something like 1.5dB. Not a whole lot. Color depth has got something like a 1.3% improvement...


----------



## preppyak (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> General public may not know about DxO techniques, but they don't have to. The DxO engineers certainly do and they have made it easier for the public by categorizing performances along the categories. Be in complete denial and attack the messenger (DxO).


So, you are saying a camera with a lesser AF system and that shoots at 4fps is better for sports than one that shoots at 6fps, because DxO's score and label says so? Even though they admit the difference (25%) is equivalent to about 1/3EV, which in most cases won't even change your shutter speed?

I won't doubt that the sensor is better, but, if the camera isn't in focus, or its too slow to get the picture, the sensor means nothing.


----------



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

RuneL said:


> YEs, you were around to see the horrible images nikons produced in 2000 and you were around to see why almost everyone chose Canon back then.



Now, that may be reversing. Canon's engineering is getting a beating. May be they have some awesome secret technology ready to be unveiled. But their publicly available sensors are pretty much rehash of 2005.


----------



## typho (Apr 19, 2012)

preppyak: DxO only measures image quality of the sensor. If they say sports they still mean in terms of image quality. They clearly say that they don't score the camera, they only score the sensor.


----------



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

typho said:


> Regardless of megapixels. What I actually found more interesting is the difference in IQ of 5d2 and 5d3 is rather small, and you can't really argue with megapixels here.
> 
> The dynamic range has practically stayed identical. Actually it went down by ~0.12 EV in the lower ISO range and improved only slightly in the high ISO range. The highest acceptable ISO performance how DxO defines it went from 1815 to 2293. That's certainly not 2 stops as canon has been touting. The 18% SNR is up by something like 1.5dB. Not a whole lot. Color depth has got something like a 1.3% improvement...



Ah, those statistics! You might upset some people around here with those facts.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> > statistics lie all day.. it´s a matter how you test.
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying that DxO is wrong? : You must know better than professional testers.



Hmmm... give me funding so I can run my tests and I will give you whatever scores you would like... just saying.


----------



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > > statistics lie all day.. it´s a matter how you test.
> ...



5 stages of grief. The first stage is denial.


----------



## Astro (Apr 19, 2012)

preppyak said:


> So, you are saying a camera with a lesser AF system and that shoots at 4fps is better for sports than one that shoots at 6fps, because DxO's score and label says so? Even though they admit the difference (25%) is equivalent to about 1/3EV, which in most cases won't even change your shutter speed?



that is on point DXO does not adress.. that their labels make no sense.
some DSLR noob who looks at DXO mark, sees the sports category and thinks that is a score for a "SPORTS" camera. :

it´s nonsense and misleading.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



And you are doing well with your stages of grief knowing and realization that the 5d3 is a better camera system. =) As for DR, no ones arguing the fact but also really no one cares either...


----------



## sandymandy (Apr 19, 2012)

Same procedure as every year. I wonder how its possible that people take good photos since the invention of photography. Reading here always seems like last years cameras are producing bad images.

Im going so far to say that if u see some award winning photo on the internet somewhere u cant even tell if it was taken with a nikon or canon or probably something else unless u read the exif information...


----------



## moreorless (Apr 19, 2012)

typho said:


> Regardless of megapixels. What I actually found more interesting is the difference in IQ of 5d2 and 5d3 is rather small, and you can't really argue with megapixels here.
> 
> The dynamic range has practically stayed identical. Actually it went down by ~0.12 EV in the lower ISO range and improved only slightly in the high ISO range. The highest acceptable ISO performance how DxO defines it went from 1815 to 2293. That's certainly not 2 stops as canon has been touting. The 18% SNR is up by something like 1.5dB. Not a whole lot. Color depth has got something like a 1.3% improvement...



Equally though look at the D4 sensor which has actually regressed with the D3s slightly while only adding 4 MP. seems to hint to me that its not Canon specifically thats unable to get more out of the same pixel density.


----------



## traveller (Apr 19, 2012)

It's not just Canon that are (in your words) "getting owned" by the Sony sensors, evey other manufaturer out there is too. Even Nikon seems to have admitted defeat and put a Sony sensor in the D3200. To be fair, in most categories that DXO Mark test, there isn't that much difference in the various sensors' metrics with the exception of low(er) ISO dynamic range. The Sony sensors are miles ahead of the competition in DR terms, probably because of the superiority of their "Exmor" on-chip noise reduction system that helps reduce read noise.


----------



## typho (Apr 19, 2012)

sandymandy: While I agree that guys should probably go out and take stunning pictures rather than arguing here, I don't agree that you can't tell them apart if you had to. 

If you look at the bokeh you can tell Nikon and Canon apart. Nikon usually has an odd number of blades, which gives quite a different look than Canon with even number of blades in the diaphragm. Yes that's not the sensor. However, it's pretty easy to tell a 5d and 5d2 apart. I bet you can't as easily tell an Mk2 and an Mk3 apart. The difference may be in handling and AF, but not necessarily as much in the IQ.

Regarding d800 and 5d3. They have different resolutions. If you look at a picture you can tell if one has been downsampled or has a bigger resolution. You may also be able to tell by the color cast. If you heavily edit the picture, you may be unable to tell the difference though.

With either camera, I'm sure you can tell exceptional photos. But I must say the d800 score really shocked me since they even beat some of the medium format cameras. Nikon made a big improvement. Perhaps Canon has been working more on their cinema products.


----------



## ctmike (Apr 19, 2012)

Astro said:


> 90% of all visitors of DXOmark have NO clue how DXO is measuring sensor performance.
> and from the 10% who know, only half understand why they measure that way.


This is EXACTLY why Canon has an enormous marketing problem on their hands.


----------



## CowGummy (Apr 19, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> Same procedure as every year. I wonder how its possible that people take good photos since the invention of photography. Reading here always seems like last years cameras are producing bad images.
> 
> Im going so far to say that if u see some award winning photo on the internet somewhere u cant even tell if it was taken with a nikon or canon or probably something else unless u read the exif information...



+1. I agree, this is all way too geeky for me by now. Portfolio is everything to me - I prefer seeing photography awards rather than test scores and shots of brick walls. Each to their own mind you... I knew someone who owned a Jaguar, but couldn't actually drive himself.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 19, 2012)

This thread went downhill fast.


----------



## RuneL (Apr 19, 2012)

I've also given up on the whole technical aspect. I know how to use my camera, but knowing all kinds of weird shit about it just doesn't interest me, I'm hard pressed to remember how many megapixels it has if someone asks, I know what my leses do, I know which to use and when and I know how to setup my camera and frame my shot, all of which not a score of 50.000 DxO-mark points can help anyone achieve. I've take some awesome pictures with a D30, 10D, some of my nicest ones are take with the 10D, I didn't magically get better because the 1D IV has better specs.

It is tiring, so tiring this shit, like the whole Apple / PC thing.


----------



## typho (Apr 19, 2012)

I must say, I was already disappointed by Canon's sample pictures and I was stunned by Nikon's sample pictures. 

I know Canon posted pics that were converted raw-to-jpeg in-camera, while Nikon did a raw-to-jpeg conversion probably on a computer. And some people suggested Nikon simply hired a better photographer than Canon. But please, why on earth would Canon post bad samples leading to somewhat incomprehensible justifications? 

Also, Canon used some really expensive $10000, and not-yet-released 24-70 II lens for some photos, while Nikon exclusively used regular 14-24, 24-70 or 70-200 lenses that everyone's got. 

Why do I feel more comfortable with Nikon when it comes to those two cameras? 

By the way, I own neither of the cameras. I have simply been doing my research to figure out which one of them are better for me. The 4 fps and the fact Nikon has no RAW-M or so is a real pity. Otherwise I would've already made a clear decision.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm


----------



## Alker (Apr 19, 2012)

typho said:


> I must say, I was already disappointed by Canon's sample pictures and I was stunned by Nikon's sample pictures.
> 
> I know Canon posted pics that were converted raw-to-jpeg in-camera, while Nikon did a raw-to-jpeg conversion probably on a computer. And some people suggested Nikon simply hired a better photographer than Canon. But please, why on earth would Canon post bad samples leading to somewhat incomprehensible justifications?
> 
> ...



Remember the 5D Mark II samples where also not very good either.


----------



## Alker (Apr 19, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> sandymandy said:
> 
> 
> > Same procedure as every year. I wonder how its possible that people take good photos since the invention of photography. Reading here always seems like last years cameras are producing bad images.
> ...



+1


----------



## typho (Apr 19, 2012)

Alker said:


> Remember the 5D Mark II samples where also not very good either.


I know. But it makes me sigh a lot. Why can Nikon do it... 

You know, I only got the information on the internet to make my decision. But based on what's available to me, I went from "5d3 or nothing" to "probably d800".


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 19, 2012)

typho said:


> You know, I only got the information on the internet to make my decision.



I wouldn't trust 90% of information you see on any one site on the internet... Then again, there are plenty of formal and informal reviews, lots of conclusive info, and even digivalrev, predominately nikon fans had to side slightly towards the 5d3... While the sample pics on canon's website wasn't earth-shattering, photos people are posting with the actual camera from real photographers are.


----------



## jimmylazers (Apr 19, 2012)

Alker said:


> nitsujwalker said:
> 
> 
> > This thread went downhill fast.
> ...



There's no need for the abuse, chief. There's too much anger on this board without folk losing their temper and faking posts.

Just calm down and be nicer to your brothers.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 19, 2012)

I can honestly say I don't understand what DxO does except from what users here report. Numbers are numbers and if you don't feel like Canon provides sensor technology that is sufficient for your needs then you can switch. Personally, I've been down the Nikon road and came back to canon despite the D7000s DxO scores and am extremely happy that I did. I love my Canon cameras and LOVE shooting. Period. The scores and 'better' sensor technology produces by Sony and integrated into Nikon's don't even make me want to go back to Nikon a little. When shooting, I love the images produced by my 50d, 7d, and 5d mkii. It's about taking images, printing (maybe) and enjoying what we do... Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ippikiokami (Apr 19, 2012)

Alker said:


> typho said:
> 
> 
> > I must say, I was already disappointed by Canon's sample pictures and I was stunned by Nikon's sample pictures.
> ...



Did you look at any of the high iso samples of the d800? They start to fall apart really quick. I was actually convinced I would buy a D800 (before using the new AF and high iso of the 5d III). Cost to change would have been extremely minimal to none and I even went as far post on forums to get nikon lenses.

But then I saw the samples from some pretty well known photographers in even controlled studio situations....

I mean don't take my word for it. Look for them yourself.

This is just one of the ones I was looking at http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/7002918731/#in/photostream/
I can find more if you can't find them. It's Shinji Watanabe's Flickr

At 6400 what happened to the detail???


----------



## typho (Apr 19, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> I wouldn't trust 90% of information you see on any one site on the internet... Then again, there are plenty of formal and informal reviews, lots of conclusive info, and even digivalrev, predominately nikon fans had to side slightly towards the 5d3... While the sample pics on canon's website wasn't earth-shattering, photos people are posting with the actual camera from real photographers are.


I agree. Well, I did talk to a Canon representative and he stated that he now feels comfortable taking pics at 800 ISO, which made me raise an eye-brow. It seemed like everyone else was talking about bigger numbers on the net. 
Since all the talks on the net are so biased I have to rely on "probably scientific" measurements like DxO and take into account factors they don't measure such as FPS (canon!), grip/handling (canon!), raw-m (canon!) and better downsampling in videos to avoid moire (canon!). I also feel a bit more comfortable with canon lenses, although I don't really know why. 
Everyone is telling that there's no need to switch camps but if you have to choose because you own no gear of either company, it's a real tough decision. 



ippikiokami said:


> At 6400 what happened to the detail???


I did see some of that stuff. But I have to admit I don't intend to take pictures at 6400 ISO. I might need it in video, not sure. Again, not an easy decision in any case.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 19, 2012)

nitsujwalker said:


> This thread went downhill fast.



No. It started in the gutter and went downstream from there.

Honestly, I'm thrilled that Nikon is aggressively competing with Canon. It will only make for better cameras in the future.

But, let's be honest. The cheapest DSLR is way more than adequate for 90% of situations, regardless of brand. The 5D II and the D700 were more than adequate for probably 98% of situations. Now, the 5DIII and D800 are going to be more than adequate for 98.4% of situations. The margins continue to shrink as the technology matures and advances. That's just the way the world works. 

People need to keep a little perspective here.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 19, 2012)

unfocused said:


> nitsujwalker said:
> 
> 
> > This thread went downhill fast.
> ...



Couldn't have said it better myself +1000


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 19, 2012)

unfocused said:


> nitsujwalker said:
> 
> 
> > This thread went downhill fast.
> ...



Well said.


----------



## birdman (Apr 19, 2012)

I like the quote of OP "Canon is a decade behind in sensor technology"

Hahaha. Really? 10 years ago there were not even full frame DSLRs were there? I know my Powershot S30 (3.0 MP) dates from that time. CMOS were not even predominate, were they? Get a clue, dude. I have a 5d2, a D800 on order, and both Canon and Nikon glass. I have owned both cameras. Started with Nikon D80, then Canon 40d, then Nikon D700, then Canon 5d2. Each generation has leap frogged the other, and frankly if Nikon is indeed in the lead, it will one day be surpassed. 

What some people don't realize is that Nikon has Sony sensors. Nikon builds the processors, shutters, and body. Canon builds the whole camera. Anyway, Dxo reduces all tests to 8MP doesn't it? How does that measure real world examples. Go to dpreview.com and look at Full-size D800 RAWs vs. 5d2 vs. 5d3 vs. D4 all at same ISO. This will give you an inkling. Frankly, I am disappointed at how little ALL CAMERAS appear to have improved. The "otherwordly" detail of the D800 is lost on me. I just don't see it. 

What's more important to me is Nikon's better UWA lens options. Canon has better glass on medium to long telephotos. Choose your liking.


----------



## typho (Apr 19, 2012)

The guys on the other side of the fence are a little more down-to-earth  Some of the posts here smell a lot like jealousy. 

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/19/dxomark-verdict-nikon-d800-95-canon-5d-mark-iii-81.aspx/#more-38344

Sorry for the link though


----------



## Weldon (Apr 19, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > jimmylazers said:
> ...



I shoot with the G10. Tough little body. Great camera... great sensor!


----------



## ippikiokami (Apr 19, 2012)

typho said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't trust 90% of information you see on any one site on the internet... Then again, there are plenty of formal and informal reviews, lots of conclusive info, and even digivalrev, predominately nikon fans had to side slightly towards the 5d3... While the sample pics on canon's website wasn't earth-shattering, photos people are posting with the actual camera from real photographers are.
> ...



Don't get me wrong typho. If you get the D800 you'll be extremely happy. But for anyone to say to get the 5d III and they wouldn't be equally as happy unless they have a specific reason to need 36 mp then that would be ridiculous. 

For me the high iso made a _huge _difference. It's what stopped me from switching. While my main deal is fashion. I earn quite a bit from weddings and already that ISO handling has been killer for me. Also there are different ideas I can incorporate in low light situations even with my fashion shoots that i would not been able to before. Another benefit I didn't really consider in the past.... Flash battery! Being able to safely bump it to a much higher iso means I use much less flash battery for the same picture.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Apr 19, 2012)

You know, for 40+MP and two DIGIC 5+ chips to keep framerate up I would spend a little more cash than for the 5d Mark III... especially with 4x4 binning on video and an option to crop... come on Canon it'd be so easy to release such a camera right now.


----------



## helpful (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> That is just sour grapes talking. The "pop" you talk about with 5Diii is its lack of DR. High DR images have flatter look and you can post-process (the horror!) to make it fit your levels.



Let me get the record straight. High DR does not a better photograph make. The DR should fit the artwork being created. Needing to post-process removes detail that would have been present if the scene was shot at a lower DR to begin with.

The DR needed in a picture varies with the picture. A lower DR means higher contrast and detail in the picture at a cost of restricting the range of bright to dark.

A painter knows that whatever the light range in stops, it needs to be represented graphically by a range from dark to bright.

For years photographers have extolled the virtues of taking photos on cloudy days or at the sweet light near sunrise or sunset. What does that result in... surprise, surpise... lowering the dynamic range.

A lower DR is not a technical problem with a picture anymore than slide film (lower DR) versus negative film (higher DR). For many photography needs, lower DR is needed. For many other photography needs, higher DR is needed.

Conclusion: one cannot say that a camera is "better" because of a difference in dynamic range. One can only say that the camera with a higher dynamic range is better for photos with a larger range of bright to dark, but not as good for photos in cloudy lighting. On the other hand, the camera with lower dynamic range is better for photos with a smaller range of bright to dark (like slide film). Both cameras still record 14 bits of information, so mathematically *neither one of them is inferior* as far as the total amount of information recorded in the RAW image.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 19, 2012)

what we need to discuss is the impact that the higher DR RAW capture has upon creating the desired results in post. what are those differences and how important are they to the finished product in real situations.


----------



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

For some people here, the facts make them uncomfortable. Sensor performance is what it is. Nikon has taken over Canon long time ago. Now, the gap is even widening. Canon has to innovate, especially in their sensor technology.

Canon's JPG technology might allow them to squeeze every bit of potential from their archaic technology, but that will leave them behind. The intent of my post was to reflect that fact. Some people get emotionally insecure when introduced with the fact. Denial and red herring are not going to solve Canon's inability to innovate their technology. Canon customers should demand more.


----------



## altenae (Apr 19, 2012)

> For some people here, the facts make them uncomfortable



Make gearheads uncomfortable. 
Not me. 
My eyes tell me enough. 
No need for numbers. 

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


----------



## poias (Apr 19, 2012)

altenae said:


> > For some people here, the facts make them uncomfortable
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If not for "gearheads" (people looking for better technology), you would be painting the scenaries/portraits with a brush, rather than click a button and instantaneously imprint it onto a sensor/film. :


----------



## altenae (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> > > For some people here, the facts make them uncomfortable
> ...



Sure


----------



## Abraxx (Apr 19, 2012)

While reading this thread I felt like mentioning my 2 cents too.

I was on vacation with my wife and had the chance to try out the D800 and the 5D3 (again, this time production models),
and beside all the specs on paper and the new released DxO sensor test results I saw today, I (we) significantly prefered the 5D3.
It was just a better Allrounder, custom settings C1..., far better grip, faster setting changes, dial + touch dial, used high ISO very often, better placed ISO button, nicer-punchy color, better WB in artificial dim light conditions, better AF, far(!)better Displays, faster menu response, faster overall, very silent, quicker buffer cleaning, better pics on 27''screen (non scientific comparison  ) etc 
I could use the Canon for all our purposes (even Street, BIF or Church and similar.....), the Nikon only for Landscape and Wild but not moving.
So yes on paper the Nikon looked great, but when using...aaargh
for us taking fotos must be fun, 
using(!) the Nikon was arkward while taking fotos and even more so in PP!

By the way, El Corte Ingles Palma de Mallorca had several Body D800, 5D3s and 5D3 Kits on stock, yet at very high prices (over list prices...).


----------



## moreorless (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> For some people here, the facts make them uncomfortable. Sensor performance is what it is. Nikon has taken over Canon long time ago. Now, the gap is even widening. Canon has to innovate, especially in their sensor technology.
> 
> Canon's JPG technology might allow them to squeeze every bit of potential from their archaic technology, but that will leave them behind. The intent of my post was to reflect that fact. Some people get emotionally insecure when introduced with the fact. Denial and red herring are not going to solve Canon's inability to innovate their technology. Canon customers should demand more.



The DR at low ISO does seem to be an area where nobody can match Sony but as I said expecting drastically improved high ISO performace from Canon seems unrealistic to me considering Nikon havent been able to achieve it with the D4 either.

We've not really seen much evidense either way about Canon lagging behind technically when it comes to keeping decent ISO performace while increasing resolution in the same fashion Sony have. Both the 1DX and the 5D mk3 seem to be limated in resolution by processing speed being able to achieve the required FPS rather than Canon's ability to make a higher MP sensor.


----------



## dunkers (Apr 19, 2012)

Pick a camera. 
Love it.
Use it.


And also, it is Sony that is beating Canon in sensor tech. Not Nikon.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

poias said:


> For some people here, the facts make them uncomfortable. Sensor performance is what it is. Nikon has taken over Canon long time ago. Now, the gap is even widening. Canon has to innovate, especially in their sensor technology.



http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/8/24/canon120mpsensor

Announced almost 2 years ago no less...


----------



## Ivar (Apr 19, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Both the 1DX and the 5D mk3 seem to be limated in resolution by processing speed being able to achieve the required FPS rather than Canon's ability to make a higher MP sensor.



btw processing speed is SLOWER in the 5D3, compared to the Nikon D800: 6 * 22 vs 4 * 36


----------



## Abraxx (Apr 19, 2012)

Ivar said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Both the 1DX and the 5D mk3 seem to be limated in resolution by processing speed being able to achieve the required FPS rather than Canon's ability to make a higher MP sensor.
> ...



Well NO, even when I reduced the D800 resolution, the overall speed and responsiveness of the Canon was FASTER.
And I'm not even talking about the buffer....


----------



## altenae (Apr 19, 2012)

Abraxx said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



Correct. 
Also the buffer write to the card is also SLOW on the D800.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 19, 2012)

Is it really a stretch to believe that DXO is being payed off by nikon? its nothing unusual to me and It IS be possible. It would have enough impact to make people switch systems right? Look at all this controversy on this forum. Why wouldn't nikon pay them a million bucks to say their camera is better.

Really now, are we so naive? Just go out and shoot. Its snake oil afterall, its the best thing since sliced bread! ;D


----------



## dlleno (Apr 19, 2012)

I suspect thats a little out there, ,and that DXO's reputation would preclude this from happening. It might not be trivial to accomplish, but some independant test or even a careful real-world evaluation could show evidence of error and DXO would be toast.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Is it really a stretch to believe that DXO is being payed off by nikon? its nothing unusual to me and It IS be possible.



I suppose it is possible, but I'd rule it out since they have D800 gapping D4 by 6.

Their formula just doesn't reward high ISO as much as other things is all. And that is their right.

My formula does reward high ISO more. And the bottom line question for the prospective buyer is "does YOUR formula reward high ISO more"? If so buy a 5D3 or a D4. These are three fantastic cameras and each is a *little* better at certain things.


----------



## esi32 (Apr 19, 2012)

I'm not convinced that Canon's DR is a result of worse sensor technology and not the result of a deliberate design objective to limit it. There's nothing, AFAIK, in CMOS or CCD sensors fundamentally that would produce the characteristic sloping curve you see from Canon's cameras. Moreover, virtually no other camera manufacturer shares the same kind of curve or the pervasiveness Canon has when you look at DXO's DR charts. In fact the only Nikon cameras that share that pattern that I'm aware of are the D3, and it's derivatives the D3s and D700. 

So Far as I know, DXO, contrary to their claims, doesn't measure just the sensor, their measurements cover the whole signal processing chain from sensor though amps to ADCs, to whatever the processor does to the values before outputting it as a RAW file. While this is certainly is more for useful for the images you'll see but doesn't really provide a means to say anything about the sensor tech.

So why is Canon doing this? That's a darn good question.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 19, 2012)

afaik nikon has not much more to do with the D800 sensor then creating the read out.
so what are you talking about "nikon" sensor design?


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 19, 2012)

dlleno said:


> I suspect thats a little out there, ,and that DXO's reputation would preclude this from happening. It might not be trivial to accomplish, but some independant test or even a careful real-world evaluation could show evidence of error and DXO would be toast.



D800 vs Medium Format with Roth and Ramberg

According to DXO, the Nikon should have won in dynamic range big time (14EV) but the hasselblad won. (12.5EV)

Stuff that in DXO's lens mount and smoke it.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Apr 19, 2012)

typho said:


> With either camera, I'm sure you can tell exceptional photos. But I must say the d800 score really shocked me since they even beat some of the medium format cameras. Nikon made a big improvement. Perhaps Canon has been working more on their cinema products.



Actually, Canon is getting OWNED in the cinema world by Sony because of their outrageous prices and under-spec'd video cameras. Canon is getting bashed to death on the video forums.

The upcoming Sony FS700 is going to destroy Canon video. I've have not seen this much excitement over a video camera since the 5D2. Video geeks are going nuts over this truly amazing camera for the price. 

Meanwhile, Canon is charging 4x as much as Sony, for something that is remotely similar. I had $8K for a Canon video camera, but now that money is going to Sony.

I also find it strange that Canon has very few people testing their pre-production models. It's like, even for very high profile pros, they only use Canon video cameras after they come out. There are many Sony FS700s in the field and it's getting tested to death by many people before it's release in 2 months. 

Canon should follow suit, and not hide all their footage until the release of the camera. It shows no confidence. 

I also find it strange that the D800 has clean HDMI and a much sharper video image than the 5D3. Depressing.


----------



## birdman (Apr 19, 2012)

How is anyone over the age of 6 jealous, envious, or mad about a camera company (Nikon) that any consumer or professional could rightly switch over to? I just don't get it...

Do any of you guys know what pros spend on camera gear? And you're telling me that a professional photographer could not and would not sell their gear to go to another system if it was a justified decision? 

BTW, I am ordering the D800 to see what it does for me. I have the 50/1.8 AF-D, 85/1.8 AF-D, and the Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 to determine how good they are mated with the D800. I will also rent the 16-35 VR and an adapter and shoot side by side with both my 5d2 and D800. I am not expecting much of a determinable difference in my hands. A professional landscape photographer may come to a different conclusion. But my skills probably won't.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 20, 2012)

Laughing at how ridiculous all this banter is. I'm sorry, I know its probably arrogant to make little of what others think is so important...I just can't imagine we were able to create art 10 yrs ago, even 5 yrs ago with these findings! Does this mean our images will finally make us more money???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Laughing at how ridiculous all this banter is. I'm sorry, I know its probably arrogant to make little of what others think is so important...I just can't imagine we were able to create art 10 yrs ago, even 5 yrs ago with these findings! Does this mean our images will finally make us more money???



gee i thought it was about the art and not just money....


----------



## Bosman (Apr 20, 2012)

gee i thought it was about the art and not just money....
[/quote]
Great art brings in the paycheck. We love to create but if what we create isn't being paid for how do we pay the mortgage?


----------



## Mike Ca (Apr 20, 2012)

esi32 said:


> I'm not convinced that Canon's DR is a result of worse sensor technology and not the result of a deliberate design objective to limit it. There's nothing, AFAIK, in CMOS or CCD sensors fundamentally that would produce the characteristic sloping curve you see from Canon's cameras. Moreover, virtually no other camera manufacturer shares the same kind of curve or the pervasiveness Canon has when you look at DXO's DR charts. In fact the only Nikon cameras that share that pattern that I'm aware of are the D3, and it's derivatives the D3s and D700.
> 
> So Far as I know, DXO, contrary to their claims, doesn't measure just the sensor, their measurements cover the whole signal processing chain from sensor though amps to ADCs, to whatever the processor does to the values before outputting it as a RAW file. While this is certainly is more for useful for the images you'll see but doesn't really provide a means to say anything about the sensor tech.
> 
> So why is Canon doing this? That's a darn good question.



I think 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 DSLR-like 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.

All FF DSLR video cameras face the problem that they cannot read all the sensor pixels 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 sampling to HD video resolution, so they only need to put these down sampled HD video pixels through their off chip ADC at 30 fps. 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. 

I think Canon thinks that the DR they have now is good enough, and it is for most (but not all) photographic applications. They don't want to trade off the video performance, especially the high ISO video to get better DR.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

poias said:


> You do have a point. There are other things beside a sensor, and Canon is certainly no slouch in FPS, AF, processing, video, and a lot of other qualities. And lenses! In fact, they are better in most of those areas, that is why they are competing. The fact still remains that their sensor is s##t and will only cause their cameras to produce not to their potential.
> 
> Imagine a D800-like sensor on the 5Diii body! *drools*



I would love to see a 1D4 vs D4 comparison and a 7D vs D7000

The rant against Canon sensors is beginning to sound like the rant against the 5DII AF. Technology has nothing to do about the IQ of the image - if a sensor delivers that is good enough for me - the technology is irrelevant

I have no use for 36mp or only 6 fps or the limited function of the 5DIII - so a D800 sensor in a 5DII body has no appeal to me.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

poias said:


> > statistics lie all day.. it´s a matter how you test.
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying that DxO is wrong? : You must know better than professional testers.



For one, statistics in general are correct for the model within which they apply, the mechanism by which samples and numbers are evaluated. Same goes for DxO. The question is, is the model correct? When it comes to DxO, you also have to wonder about interpretation bias. Their ISO (low light) numbers for both cameras (D800 and 5D III) seem rather bogus to me...when you evaluate the SNR and high ISO DR graphs in correlation, the 5D III is the superior camera, not the D800...but somehow, DxO has given the D800 the win. Seems awfully fishy given their own data, and even more fishy given that Nikon is a financial supporter, while Canon is not.

So, within the given model, perhaps DxO numbers are entirely "correct", but is their model valid? Visually, examining a zillion photographs, the 5D III definitely seems to produce better, cleaner High ISO images with no pattern noise at all (which would be expected given the higher SNR), where as the D800 starts injecting some kind of horizontal FPN around ISO 6400 or 12800, and seems to have a tendency to overexpose highlights at most ISO's. That in and of itself is a factor of those two cameras that is not explored by DxO...the tonal range weighting. Canon sensors favor preserving highlights, obviously at the cost of shadows. Nikon cameras seem to favor shadows, quite often at the cost of blown (and therefor irrecoverable) highlights (many head-to-head comparisons between Canon and Nikon DR demonstrate this fact when extremely high DR scenes are used as sample photographs...highlights on Nikon cameras are usually more exposed, often slightly blown.) 

I also wonder about whether DxO properly takes into account Canon's bias offset, which in their more recent cameras is 2048. The bias offset is intended to allow NEGATIVE pixel readings since it is subtracted from a given pixel value during processing. The calculation for DR at DxO involves applying the bias offset from the pixel before applying the rest of the formula...however that does not take into account the fact that the total valid numeric range is -2048 to maxSaturation, not 0 to maxSaturation. That would only matter at ISO settings where the bias offset mattered (lower ISO's), so is the fact that Canon DR levels out below ISO 400 a consequence of a slight misinterpretation of Canon's bias offset? Are Canon's DxO results missing a potential 2000 additional luminance levels that would positively affect its DR score? I can't say myself, I'm not entirely sure how a bias offset should be factored into a DR calculation, if it should be factored in at all, but not factoring it in properly seems like it could be leading to unreliable results.

The DxO model doesn't seem to take these factors into account (along with many others, that would positively and negatively affect many camera brands, not just Canon and Nikon...just look at their Medium Format numbers and final scores if you need any confirmation that DxO's model is clearly missing by a mile somewhere)...*so I question the entire model, and therefor the statistical results as well.*


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > Laughing at how ridiculous all this banter is. I'm sorry, I know its probably arrogant to make little of what others think is so important...I just can't imagine we were able to create art 10 yrs ago, even 5 yrs ago with these findings! Does this mean our images will finally make us more money???
> ...



If you do what you love AND get paid for it isn't it the best of both worlds?? It's about only art until you start getting paid. Then it's about art and money  I'm ok with that.


----------



## Arun (Apr 20, 2012)

typho said:


> But I must say the d800 score really shocked me since they even beat some of the medium format cameras.



Well, the Sony Alpha 900 has scores that beat the Leica M9, and Hasselblad H3DII 50 and so on.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 20, 2012)

poias said:


> Okay, we can cry bias and be in complete denial, but Canon has inferior sensor from the early 2000! Their tech is a decade behind than Nikon. When will they start accepting the fact and invest a little more? It used to be Canon could at least claim "we have high megapixels", but now they can only claim "DXO is biased".
> 
> We need competition, otherwise Nikon will become stagnant, just like Canon has become. Sorry for the rant, not trying to rub salt on our collective Canon wounds.



If I’m not mistaken, Sony makes the sensor for the D800.

Canon keeps its sensor research and development in-house, which I think has its advantages.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 20, 2012)

Dxo is being paid off, plus it not the first organization to be corrupted. Simple enough, and the video I showed in a previous post proves that the dynamic range of the d800 is being exaggerated beyound what it really is.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Canon is to old slide film as nikon is the negative film... The slides just had better pop, better and vibrant colors, more "wow" factor... Negatives COULD have more latitude but in the end, a lot more work/care was needed to get negatives in print to get remotely close to the slide image. The same is being proven true with D800 files and the 5d3 files...



That's the best damn analogy I've read in a while. It almost makes me want to pop some Kodak E100vs slide film and go shooting. Oh wait, I can just shoot with my 5DIII - with damn near the same IQ and pop of color slides - and get instant gratification without paying for film and processing


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

ctmike said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > 90% of all visitors of DXOmark have NO clue how DXO is measuring sensor performance.
> ...



I seriously doubt DxO has that much clout. Outside of forums like this, most consumers have never even heard of DxO. For the sake of argument, let's say DxO's test results influenced purchasing habits as much as people suggest. Canon could easily create a puppet company to rival DxO with test standards biased to favor Canon sensors. Hell, it would probably be cheaper than investing in the R&D necessary to actually improve the sensors. Tech savvy consumers would see right through it, but the "dumb rich people" that people in this thread are referring to wouldn't have a clue.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

unfocused said:


> But, let's be honest. The cheapest DSLR is way more than adequate for 90% of situations, regardless of brand. The 5D II and the D700 were more than adequate for probably 98% of situations. Now, the 5DIII and D800 are going to be more than adequate for 98.4% of situations.
> People need to keep a little perspective here.



Well said. I'll take it one step further and say that a $500 Rebel is more camera than 95% of buyers can handle. IMHO, some people enjoy marveling at tech specs more than actually using their gear. Nothing is more pathetic than having a high-dollar camera, and getting smoked by someone with far lesser gear, yet it happens all the time.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect thats a little out there, ,and that DXO's reputation would preclude this from happening. It might not be trivial to accomplish, but some independant test or even a careful real-world evaluation could show evidence of error and DXO would be toast.
> ...



I have to give credit where credit is due. The D800 performed extremely well going up against a medium format body in this vid. The shadow recovery is very impressive. I still don't like it's colors, though


----------



## Bosman (Apr 20, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > But, let's be honest. The cheapest DSLR is way more than adequate for 90% of situations, regardless of brand. The 5D II and the D700 were more than adequate for probably 98% of situations. Now, the 5DIII and D800 are going to be more than adequate for 98.4% of situations.
> ...


Lets take it a step farther, numbers and "Facts" are being spouted and regurgitated yet most of those doing the science vomit don't actually have either camera. Nor have they looked at the capture and marveled at how well it captured the scene and how pretty much no post work need be done to the 5d3 images. Oh, never mind that silliness, the numbers prove i am talking out my A**. Only numbers say whats true about my experience with the camera. What was i thinking???


----------



## Viggo (Apr 20, 2012)

Bosman said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I'll jump on this as well. I use the color checker passport to calibrate my colors, and whilst the 5d2 showed a MASSIVE improvement, the 5d3 adjusts a little, but waaaaay less. So for those how doesn't bother with the ColorChecker, the colors from the 5d3 vs the 5d2 is crazy better.

And I saw something about slides and negative compared Nikon vs Canon. Could not agree more. I took home with me some D800 and D4 files, and as soon as I touched them in Lightroom they started to fall apart, I was actually very surprised. Guess I'm spolied with the rubberband/wet clay files from Canon.


----------



## hoghavemercy (Apr 20, 2012)

poias said:


> Okay, we can cry bias and be in complete denial, but Canon has inferior sensor from the early 2000! Their tech is a decade behind than Nikon. When will they start accepting the fact and invest a little more? It used to be Canon could at least claim "we have high megapixels", but now they can only claim "DXO is biased".
> 
> We need competition, otherwise Nikon will become stagnant, just like Canon has become. Sorry for the rant, not trying to rub salt on our collective Canon wounds.



at the end of the day it all comes down to my 5DIII ;D, really surprising a lot of these hatred for Canon came out after DXO reviews, you could've complained weeks earlier. you could always return yours and cross over to Kenro and be his bitch, get off the pc and shoot, relax it's a long way for the perfect sensor.


----------



## RuneL (Apr 20, 2012)

http://nofilmschool.com/2012/04/markii-vs-markiii-vs-d800-candlelight/ check out this, it's video, but Canon is miles ahead.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2012)

RuneL said:


> http://nofilmschool.com/2012/04/markii-vs-markiii-vs-d800-candlelight/ check out this, it's video, but Canon is miles ahead.



Yeah the 5D3 has much better SNR for video because it uses the whole sensor while the D800 only uses 1 out of every three lines of the sensor. 5D3 is a bit soft, perhaps because the 3x3 mapping means they need to apply lots of extra AA because the built-in filter is too small scale. Adding a 1.6x cropped video might make for a sharper option with more reach, quite a shock it didn't ship with such a mode. One can they will still add it (alogn with zebra stripes and, if possible, focus peaking).


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 20, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



I think this just means lr has got better at producing correct profiles over the years. The d3 profile showed a lot of difference too whereas the d3s was much closer to reality. 

Ill check the 1dx but I might not use a profile if it's close enough.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 20, 2012)

Arun said:


> typho said:
> 
> 
> > But I must say the d800 score really shocked me since they even beat some of the medium format cameras.
> ...



And the Pentax K5 (with crop sensor) beats the 5D3.

I've no problem acknowledging that the Nikon might have a "better" sensor as tested with the DXO methodology. But it doesn't mean it produces better pictures. Canon have rarely been competitive with DXO rankings, but I still prefer the look of the photos taken with their cameras.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect thats a little out there, ,and that DXO's reputation would preclude this from happening. It might not be trivial to accomplish, but some independant test or even a careful real-world evaluation could show evidence of error and DXO would be toast.
> ...



Assuming the above is itself true and un-adulterated, it doesn't necessarily mean that Nikon Paid DXO off, but a series of results similar to the above would at least strengthen the case that DXO test methodology doesn't perfectly and alwasys correlate with real results for the purposes of comparing two sensors of different design heritage. Whats astonishing to me is to read comments like "numbers don't lie" when the real question is "what do the numbers mean and how do they correlate with things that are important?". DXO can measure whatever they want, their test methodology and scoring policy may tend to favor one sensor over another I dont' know; Their staff may be even filled with Nikon fanboys for all I know, but it doesn't mean Nikon paid them extra to deliberately falsify information or contrive a test that favors the company who paid them the most to do so.

what we really need, in order to interpret the DXO numbers, is to show if and to what extent the numbers (especially the differences between two sensors) correlate to the final result, how the photographer either benefits from the difference or not, or at least how the difference will affect what the photographer does.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



Having watched a few of that guys video reviews now (and a couple direct comparison videos that pit Nikon cameras against Canon cameras), it seems that Nikon cameras overexpose the scene a bit. That makes their shadow DR and the recoverability there make a lot of sense...Nikon cameras cater to the shadows, rather than to the highlights, where as medium format cameras and Canon cameras cater to the highlights, rather than the shadows...which would also indicate why there is a shadow DR noise floor problem on those types of cameras. I am not sure I could say that Canon cameras had quite as much highlight recovery as a Hassey, but they do seem to have more than the D800 (even something like the 7D has a LOT of highlight headroom.) I think you could improve shadow recovery with either a Hasselblad or a Canon camera by exposing to the right more. Not sure you'll reach the same DR performance as a Sony Exmor sensor, but you can probably improve things a bit over not exposing to the right.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 21, 2012)

> I think this just means lr has got better at producing correct profiles over the years. The d3 profile showed a lot of difference too whereas the d3s was much closer to reality.
> 
> Ill check the 1dx but I might not use a profile if it's close enough.



I haven't used lightroom but to try out the beta firmware. This has nothing to do with LR. My tests have mostly been jpeg too. I havent processed my images in LR. As Viggo stated after me, he used his color checker and finds the 5d3 to be a massive improvement also.


----------

