You know what is a big yawn? The abundant Canon fan boys on this forum....and yes I am a Canon user. The results rather clearly show that the newest model Nikons have major and measurable improvemts in many important aspects of camera performance.
Sure, there are improvements. I don't think anyone is denying that. I'd say DxO measures ONLY IQ performance, though. IQ is an aspect of camera performance overall, but most definitely not the only factor. DxO numbers do not take other aspects into account, and depending on what you shoot, many of those other factors may be more important than raw IQ numbers. Ergonomics, frame rate, AF performance, etc. are all still very important factors.
Just acknowledge this and move along.
I think some people dispute the accuracy of DxO's results when they claim that the D800 is capable of more dynamic range than the hardware is rated for. I believe most of us here clearly acknowledge that the D800 is an amazing camera, and it does offer better DR and higher resolution. But there are things that many of us just can't accept. To claim a normalized image has 14.4 EV's, when the ADC's are 14 bit (which would limit the maximum physical DR the camera is capable of achieving to 14.0 EV's absolute) brings up questions about the validity and applicability of DxO's results. I am NOT denying they have a better sensor...Sony Exmor sensors are amazing pieces of technology and have certainly pushed full-frame DSLR's into new territory with a high DR 36.3mp sensor.
That said, DxO's screen DR numbers still show that the D800 wins on the low-ISO DR front. It still gets 13.2 EV of native hardware DR. I have no interest in disputing that. Sony and Nikon made some brilliant moves with better technology, and
they deserve to take the win! I still have a problem with DxO claiming that the D800 achieves "14.4 EV" in their Landscape category, and I always will. Its bogus. Its misleading trickery, and it doesn't do anyone any benefit to let a potential D800 customer think they can actually shoot a scene with 14.4 EV of dynamic range in a single shot with the D800 and actually be able to use all of the data. Its simply not true. I have a real problem with people, particularly people like LTRLI, trying to shove
what seems to be a *bogus* detail down my throat on a regular basis. I'm sorry, but downscaling is not a mystical tool that will magically fabricate additional DR. If you blow the highlights in-camera, no amount of downscaling or upscaling or scaling in any other form is going to RECOVER pixels that reached maximum saturation and then-some. I think such facts need to be disputed, not really for the good of Canon shooters (where generally all sticking with Canon gear)...but more for the good of potential camera buyers. I don't think it is physically possible for the D800 to capture more than 13.2 stops of DR when you account for physical hardware nuances, implementation details and overhead, however since DxO has claimed it is capable of 14.4 stops, they are misleading many potential Nikon users. Thats not a positive outcome, despite the fact that it has no effect on me whatsoever.
The real problem though, is if DxO is wrong about that, even if their method of deriving that number is consistent...what else could they be wrong about? If DxO can interpret "normalized DR" numbers such that they indicate a camera is supposedly capable of more than the hardware would allow, what else might they be wrong about? They certainly seemed to miss the ball on the 5D III low ISO performance...between DxO's own SNR and high ISO DR scores for the 5D III, I'd have figured it would win that category. What about their scores for medium format cameras, which are all pretty much LIMITED to lower ISO settings...some top out at ISO 800. I doubt anyone who has actually seen photographs, on screen or in print, from a medium format camera, would dispute that they are far superior to anything that comes out of a DSLR, yet many Nikon and even some Canon cameras beat digital MF camera scores from DxO. That indicates a problem with the model, even if the statistics are consistent relative to one another.
Just evaluate and acknowledge the results without the fanboyism.
Certainly! I am
evaluating them, however my evaluation results in discrepancies with DxO's final conclusions, and as such, I can't plain and simply "acknowledge" their results. I'm not a fanboy, I'm just a vested customer. Personally, I don't really care much about DxO numbers...they are a factor, but not the primary or most important factor, in the decisions I make. The fact that other people put so much weight on them, though, and seem to
acknowledge them at face value WITHOUT any
critical evaluation, is curious to me, and I simply can't help but harass when I see just as much fanboyism regarding DxO as you claim Canon photographers here exhibit regarding their gear (the latter of which is more understandable, since it IS the physical piece of gear that actually empowers ones photographic creativity...not a set of numbers from DxO.)
