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

[Fishnose]

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.

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]

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.

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

[kozakm]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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...

source?

[hungp]

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]

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.

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

[psolberg]

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.

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]

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...

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.