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

[jrista]

jrista:

I definitely see differences in the highlights as well...there are much nicer transitions into the bright highlights reflecting on the water in the Canon image than in the D800 image.

If you look at the original D800 & 5DIII images (follow the link here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=41012886), I don't think that's the case. I think the non-linear processing when lifting shadows makes comparisons of the highlights in the images where shadows been lifted meaningless. In the original images, the highlights on the D800 look just fine... actually, they look less intense.

They look about the same to me. They are just smaller in scale since the full-size images are scaled down. The lighthouse highlight demonstrates it well...it looks like a smooth falloff, then it suddenly jumps to blown. The canon shot has a continuous falloff that eventually results in a blown highlight.

Any comments, btw, on the link between sensorgen & DXO? Basically, what I'm saying is that you guys are saying that the higher read noise of the 5DIII at low ISO is the reason for the low DR, and I'm saying that the higher read noise calculated by sensorgen is due to DXO's numbers themselves... so it's all a bit of circular logic, no? In order to trust sensorgen, you must first trust DXO...?

I guess the Sensorgen.info page does claim they use DxO measurements for their curve fitting. I thought they also used information from Clarkvision.com, but perhaps that was only in the past and no longer. So, I dunno. I am not really sure that DxO takes the Canon bias offset into account correctly...and if they do not, that very well could account for the higher read noise/lower DR at ISO 100. A 33e- read noise is just friggin insane, in my opinion. I think the average is around 15e-, and newer cameras seem to have less than 10e-.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

jrista:

I definitely see differences in the highlights as well...there are much nicer transitions into the bright highlights reflecting on the water in the Canon image than in the D800 image.

If you look at the original D800 & 5DIII images (follow the link here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=41012886), I don't think that's the case. I think the non-linear processing when lifting shadows makes comparisons of the highlights in the images where shadows been lifted meaningless. In the original images, the highlights on the D800 look just fine... actually, they look less intense.

They look about the same to me. They are just smaller in scale since the full-size images are scaled down. The lighthouse highlight demonstrates it well...it looks like a smooth falloff, then it suddenly jumps to blown. The canon shot has a continuous falloff that eventually results in a blown highlight.

That can also just go down to a slightly different tone curve applied or a different camera color profile applied, it's hard to say. Anyway the D800 has so much more room at the bottom all you'd need to do is expose it 1/3 stop less or something than in that photo and there you go, highlights fixed.

I am not really sure that DxO takes the Canon bias offset into account correctly...and if they do not, that very well could account for the higher read noise/lower DR at ISO 100. A 33e- read noise is just friggin insane, in my opinion. I think the average is around 15e-, and newer cameras seem to have less than 10e-.

I think they do since I, as well as others, have taken the 1024 to 2048 change into account for the 7D and 5D3 and gotten the same results DxO did. I didn't look at sensorgen at all so whether they converted things properly I don't know.

[smithy]

Come on people....be honest to yourself...if the results came out with the 5d3 scoring higher than the D800 I'm sure this thread would be all about how great the 5d3 is and that DxOMark testing is very accurate.

Probably.

[DavidRiesenberg]

I think the biggest gripe people have with DXO is how they translate the results to numerical scores. And the comparisons between the D800, 5D3 and even the MF cameras suggest that there is a certain flaw in that translation. Just looking at the graphs, the D800 and 5D3 seem neck in neck in most comparisons but the difference overall comes to 14 points? And anyone who has seen even a single image of the IQ180 can honestly say that the D800s sensor is better?

[Kingw]

A lot of people say canon 5d mark iii is selling very well. I'm wondering where are the sales data?

[Bosman]

I'm glad Fred got the stuff posted, saves me some time. 

NOW will some of you have a little more confidence in some of the numbers published and those silly-looking tests shots with the lens caps on and pushed in post or other methods we may use?.. 

These simple tests can demonstrate a lot of what goes on at the dark end of the DR range so very easily.

It's been interested to watch the progression of this thread.

Congrats to LTRLI for hitting the DR nail on the head so early and not losing patience in defending his position.

Congrats to those of you who now see and understand what some of us have been going on about for so long.  Canon's engineering is not keeping up with its marketing when a $600 consumer grade Nikon can even kick the low ISO pants off a midrange Canon costing nearly 6x as much.

5D3's a much improved, low-light kind of machine.
But it don't do stink for what I need.

The next scrap's gonna be that 24MP, 12-bit little nugget they just announced yesterday. D3200.
I'm REALLY looking forward to how it will perform as it's likely foreshadowing (ooh, good pun) the abilities of a D7100 or D400.

BTW; I now have about 10 Nikon/Nikkor lenses. 

Again the D800 is a great camera, the 5dm3 is a great camera. I don't lift shadows like this or do extreme edits to images. I suppose for those who don't get exposures right it will be a helping hand to be able to retrieve the data. the test and data havent affected my output that I am very pleased with and have no Nikon envy, just happy that the Nikon peeps are happy. Maybe those who got some of the findings would be more suited for Nikonians if all your comments seem to be about D800 stuff. Last i checked this was a Canon Forum but apparently it is now also a Nikon Forum.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I think the biggest gripe people have with DXO is how they translate the results to numerical scores. And the comparisons between the D800, 5D3 and even the MF cameras suggest that there is a certain flaw in that translation. Just looking at the graphs, the D800 and 5D3 seem neck in neck in most comparisons but the difference overall comes to 14 points? And anyone who has seen even a single image of the IQ180 can honestly say that the D800s sensor is better?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

[Former Nikonian]

Hi Fishnose
You still dodge the point. Now skip the D800 v/s Mkiii as far as Mkii v/s Mkiii story; focus on Nikon only.
The question is: Does it make sense when DxO gives total score of D800 higher than that of D4? Yes or No?
Actually, this was pointed out to me by my brother, an IT engineer, who is not stranger with Lab Testing job. He gave it a big laugh.
He said either DxO is biasing so it's not reliable or playing a Black Humor game.
Have fun with the game.

[seta666]

The question is: Does it make sense when DxO gives total score of D800 higher than that of D4? Yes or No?

The D4 scores higher at ISO performance, has higher frame rate and pro like body/features; Sports, actions, etc

The D800 higher DR, resolution and color depth thanks to high efficient smallpixels (amaizing actually, but not surprissing if you think of pentax K5 or nikon d7000). Studio photography perfect camera

The 5D mkIII would have been a great camera , 3 years ago; Canon technology is starting to look ancient. Regarding sensors Fuji and Sony are well ahead

As DXOmark explains a score difference of 5 represents a 1/3 stop difference; so D800 has a full stop better performance than the 5D mkIII (which is  a lot) and 1/3 stop over D4 (which is not big deal)
The difference is the same as D7000 vs 60D, one full stop

DXOmark results show sensor performance; and the results they have published reagrding ISO are the ones I anticipated when saw Dpreview ISo samples, less than 1/2 stop improvement over 5D mkII. These Dpreview smaples had lots and lots of Noise reduction on them, still many people was thinking that those were amaizing results (is people blind or what?)

 What really suprises me is the low dinamic range performance of this new sensor, in my opoinion this puts canon to same. If this is best canon can do regarding sensor technology they should start thinking partership with sony, fuji or anyone fit for the job; they clearly are not.

If you do not need the new AF system or the weather sealing (always talking about photography, I do not know anything about video) I do not see any reason to update to this new camera over the 5D mkII

 As a macro photographer I do not need those new features, I may get a second 5D mkII as back up if it goes down to 1000€ like last 5D classic units did

 If it does not I will get a NEX 5-n or Nex-7 as second body, as I would like to have a high DR body and now NEX cameras can use EF lenses thanks to this new 400$ adapter (MP-E 65 included)

Regards

[davidpeter]

My conspiracy theory:
I wonder if DxO is purposely picking the 8MP downsize option to boost Nikon scores. ... Notice the random Pentax K5 extremely awesome DR rating also contains a 16MP sensor. I also find it interesting that the $800 16MP Nikon D5100 has an equal DR to the Phase One...hmmmmmm. The Sony NEX-7 with its 24MP sensor (multiple of and the 24MP D3x and 24MP Sony A580 also have top spots to both $40,000 medium format cameras known their dynamic range and all Canon bodies.

Remarkably, that 'all Canon bodies' includes the 16 MP 1D IV.  Another conspiracy theory shattered against the cold, hard rocks of reality.

Well said.

Please guys, if you would like to argue with the results of DxO, first post the Fourier series of a square wave, just to let know, you have a clue about the topic. I believe, that half of the Captain Obviouses here don't know, what is SNR, but they are seriously protesting about the ISO results. This is nonsense...

[NormanBates]

I trust the dxomark sensor numbers: if all you care about is image quality, the 5D3 is a small step up from the 5D2, but the D800 is a huge step up from the 5D3

if you're going to accuse dxomark of lying or purposedly skewing their results, please back that up with some proof, not just speculation

otherwise I'll think you're a fanboy, or upset that you're heavily invested on a camera system that's fallen far from the leading edge, and looking for excuses to avoid feeling bad about it

now, the score that's more troublesome for me is the DR score, and, if you're right, it should be extremely easy to provide proof of it

just bring your shiny new camera outside, put it on a tripod, and take two pictures that are exactly the same except for shutter speed: one is at 1/4000, the other is at 2" (not 1/2, but 2"); if both pictures show discernible detail in a given area (the same for both pictures), then the camera has 13 stops of DR or more; if you can't get that detail on both (i.e. either the 1/4000 is clipped to black, or the 2" is clipped to white, no matter how hard you fight with the RAW files), it has less than 13 stops of DR

of course, it would be great if you could do the same with the 5D2 (to see if there's an actual DR improvement with the 5D3, or just minimal as dxomark says) and with a camera that uses a modern Sony sensor (D800, D7000, nex-5n, nex-7, etc) (to see if those actually have the DR that dxomark claims they have) (I should point out that I already asked some D800 owners to run these tests from me, and playing with the RAW files I can confirm that it has well over 13 stops of DR)

I'm genuinely interested in your results, but I won't be following this thread any longer, so please PM me if you actually go out and test your camera, instead of ranting and speculating

Also, I have a theory to explain the dxomark DR results: Canon's ADC converters are not good enough for what the rest of the sensor can do, that's why the high-ISO DR is great but from a certain point no DR gains are appearing as you lower the ISO

(and no, I don't work for dxomark, or know anybody that does)
(and just 3 months ago I was accused of being a canon fanboy by my nikonian friends; luckily, I know the important investment is lenses, and have built a great Leica-R collection that will work on basically anything, including Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax)

[jrista]

I'm glad Fred got the stuff posted, saves me some time. 

NOW will some of you have a little more confidence in some of the numbers published and those silly-looking tests shots with the lens caps on and pushed in post or other methods we may use?.. 

These simple tests can demonstrate a lot of what goes on at the dark end of the DR range so very easily.

It's been interested to watch the progression of this thread.

Congrats to LTRLI for hitting the DR nail on the head so early and not losing patience in defending his position.

Congrats to those of you who now see and understand what some of us have been going on about for so long.  Canon's engineering is not keeping up with its marketing when a $600 consumer grade Nikon can even kick the low ISO pants off a midrange Canon costing nearly 6x as much.

5D3's a much improved, low-light kind of machine.
But it don't do stink for what I need.

The next scrap's gonna be that 24MP, 12-bit little nugget they just announced yesterday. D3200.
I'm REALLY looking forward to how it will perform as it's likely foreshadowing (ooh, good pun) the abilities of a D7100 or D400.

BTW; I now have about 10 Nikon/Nikkor lenses. 

Again the D800 is a great camera, the 5dm3 is a great camera. I don't lift shadows like this or do extreme edits to images. I suppose for those who don't get exposures right it will be a helping hand to be able to retrieve the data. the test and data havent affected my output that I am very pleased with and have no Nikon envy, just happy that the Nikon peeps are happy. Maybe those who got some of the findings would be more suited for Nikonians if all your comments seem to be about D800 stuff. Last i checked this was a Canon Forum but apparently it is now also a Nikon Forum.

Lifting shadows is not just for those who don't know how to expose right. There are plenty of situations where you CAN'T expose right. Landscapes are the most obvious scenarios where the DR of the scene can be much greater than the DR of the camera. With something like the D800, you can lift shadows to replicate what you can see with your eyes...which are capable of around 20 stops of DR. No, not everyone actually needs that, which is indeed an argument for the 5D III, which is definitely an excellent camera.

That doesn't change the fact that it really does not appear that Canon did a whole lot to improve their sensor technology this round (despite the fact that its been 5 years since they created a new sensor design). They somewhat cheated their way to higher SNR, and took a step backwards with low-ISO read noise, which is not doing a proper service to their customers. (Especially when they are asking so much money for their new gear...$3500 with the only real sensor improvement being gapless microlenses? Seriously...)

[DavidRiesenberg]

if you're going to accuse dxomark of lying or purposedly skewing their results, please back that up with some proof, not just speculation

How about this review? http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review/page:5#articleContent

Seems very different than DXOs results while actually using their testing suite.

[briansquibb]

if you're going to accuse dxomark of lying or purposedly skewing their results, please back that up with some proof, not just speculation

How about this review? http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review/page:5#articleContent

Seems very different than DXOs results while actually using their testing suite.

The comparisons between the RAW for the Canons coincide with my eyeball test, so it gains credance from me.

[Bosman]

Lifting shadows is not just for those who don't know how to expose right. There are plenty of situations where you CAN'T expose right. Landscapes are the most obvious scenarios where the DR of the scene can be much greater than the DR of the camera. With something like the D800, you can lift shadows to replicate what you can see with your eyes...which are capable of around 20 stops of DR. No, not everyone actually needs that, which is indeed an argument for the 5D III, which is definitely an excellent camera.

That doesn't change the fact that it really does not appear that Canon did a whole lot to improve their sensor technology this round (despite the fact that its been 5 years since they created a new sensor design). They somewhat cheated their way to higher SNR, and took a step backwards with low-ISO read noise, which is not doing a proper service to their customers. (Especially when they are asking so much money for their new gear...$3500 with the only real sensor improvement being gapless microlenses? Seriously...)

So you say. I prefer to not bitch. Do you have a 5dm3?