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

[altenae]

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]

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...

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 

[ippikiokami]

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

[rpschnerp]

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]

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]

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

Sounds like hard science to me! 

[dichiaras]

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. 

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".

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]

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 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]

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

Sounds like hard science to me! 

ROFL! Just what I thought.

[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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.   

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]

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.   

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]

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.