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

[t.linn]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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. 

[traveller]

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. 

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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. 

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/

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.