DxO: 24MP Nikon D3200 equals 22MP 5D Mark III

[Kernuak]

So many people assume those lenses must be better than Nikon's just because they look the way they do. And the people holding them feel cool.
Brilliant marketing? Yep. Your photo says it all, doesn't it.

I doubt the people holding them could give two hoots about whether they look cool . Besides, most wildlife shooters (no not Hollywood wildlife) would much prefer them to be black, white is far too obtrusive without covers.

[Astro]

We mustn't be flippant about this. For the numerous Nikon fanboys that come onto this forum anything that shows Nikon in a favourable light attracts them like moths to a flame and from a reputable site such as DxO that is like adding a bowl of caviar for them.

as if it would be different the other way around.... 

our problem as canon shooter is that we see no light in the DXO mark....

[V8Beast]

Got to wonder if Canon will be able to deliver a crop sensor that comes anywhere near that.

Probably not. According to DxO, the 7D sensor is only marginally improved over an ancient 20D.

20D
Color Depth: 21.9 bits
DR: 11 Evs
ISO: 721

7D:
Color Depth: 22 bits
DR: 11.7 Evs
ISO: 854


Nikon takes this sensor business very seriously, while Canon improves its sensors just enough while adding a buttload of bells and whistles. That's bad news for tech heads, but a good business strategy since most of the entry-level market is full of soccer moms. I just don't see Canon suddenly improving its sensors for a market segment that will appreciate it the least.

[dilbert]

Got to wonder if Canon will be able to deliver a crop sensor that comes anywhere near that.

Probably not. According to DxO, the 7D sensor is only marginally improved over an ancient 20D.

20D
Color Depth: 21.9 bits
DR: 11 Evs
ISO: 721

7D:
Color Depth: 22 bits
DR: 11.7 Evs
ISO: 854

Nikon takes this sensor business very seriously, while Canon improves its sensors just enough while adding a buttload of bells and whistles. That's bad news for tech heads, but a good business strategy since most of the entry-level market is full of soccer moms. I just don't see Canon suddenly improving its sensors for a market segment that will appreciate it the least.

So the only real improvement Canon have managed over the many years has been to squeeze more megapixels onto the same surface area.

[V8Beast]

So the only real improvement Canon have managed over the many years has been to squeeze more megapixels onto the same surface area.

Pretty much, yet it's gaining market share. I think Canon's got this marketing $h!t figured out

[wickidwombat]

cant we all just accept the fact that canon cant make a camera to save their life and its impossible to take a good picture with anything not made by nikon?
that would eliminate the need for all these threads telling us thus 
I dont know how canon users can continue to live with themselves using such substandard equipment

[psolberg]

For portrait and landscape, the D3200 scores 24.1 and 13.2 respectively whlist the 5D Mark III scored 24.1 and 11.7. Of course the 5D Mark III whips the D3200 in low-light ISO (sports) but otherwise the scores are the same (81) for both cameras.

So it just goes to show that APS-C sensors aren't necessarily as useless, even with higher MP counts. Unless you need that low-light/higher ISO.

As DxO points out, 5 of the top 10 cameras on their website are now made by Nikon.

Got to wonder if Canon will be able to deliver a crop sensor that comes anywhere near that.

the APS-C sensor on the D7000 signaled that same conclusion. Full frame still has advantages but at this point they are more aestetic than anything else. Yes FF cameras can shoot in the closet with the lights off. But for the majority of people we have reached a point where higher ISO sensitivity is maningless. Dynamic range and low ISO quality seems to be where the new race is headed and I'm happy about that. Why don't we have ISO 6. It would be more useful and practical than ISO 1 million. For one thing you could use really fast glass outdoors mid day without the need of ND filters or shoot slow shutter speed photography without a  10 stopper.

[K-amps]

The color depth number is pretty irrelevant beyond 18 if you ask me.... why even make it part of the weighting. Who cares if my sensor is at 21.9 vs 24bits ?

[Halocastle]

For the pixel pushing, screen junkies my clients want PRINTS.  For that, auto-focus AND accuracy reign supreme. 

Two things you can't fix are stupid and out-of-focus.  For others issues, that's called "post-processing."

All of the DxO, color depth, shadow detail mumbo-jumbo mean precisely d--k in a framed 4x6 (or even 8x10) print on somebody's table.

[DZY]

if DXO wants to do a FAIR test on any sensor, they should use the SAME optics, SAME shutter, SAME aperture assembly, SAME wave length of light, and SAME all other things to rule out any other factors. From cnet review I see they use canon lens to test canon body, I'd like to think they use nikon lens to test nikon body, etc. That makes the result less legitimate.
The other way I see is the Full Sensor Apparent Image Quality (FSAIQ) is not the actual image quality, sharpness and contrast plays important roll here, which related to both sensor and lens. So again DXO does not tell the sensor itself, it does tell the appearance in a specific case (8MP).
Somewhere at clarkvision website says the optimal size of a pixel is 5um and the density of a FF is around 34MP , similar to D800. I can see all camera are going to that size, from ~20MP to ~40MP.

[K-amps]

Here is how worthless DxO sensor numbers are: Please note the D3200 (bottom right) compared to the 5d3 (top left) sensors that get identical DxO ratings.

These are RAW comps @ISO 3200... if one does a visual lookover, it begs the question how relevant the ratings are to IQ.

[K-amps]

and lest someone says that the above comparison was done at a very high ISO; here's one done at ISO 800 weel with what DxO rate sthe D3200 sensor capable of:

[DB]

Got to wonder if Canon will be able to deliver a crop sensor that comes anywhere near that.

Probably not. According to DxO, the 7D sensor is only marginally improved over an ancient 20D.

20D
Color Depth: 21.9 bits
DR: 11 Evs
ISO: 721

7D:
Color Depth: 22 bits
DR: 11.7 Evs
ISO: 854


Nikon takes this sensor business very seriously, while Canon improves its sensors just enough while adding a buttload of bells and whistles. That's bad news for tech heads, but a good business strategy since most of the entry-level market is full of soccer moms. I just don't see Canon suddenly improving its sensors for a market segment that will appreciate it the least.

+100  For weeks on this forum I've been using the empirical evidence of the Canon vs Nikon published accounts to show that Canon R&D spend on DSLR is diminishing rapidly (total R&D down 2% of Sales in last 2 years + R&D on Consumer Division down versus their other two divisions: Office & Industrial)....yet ye all still rabbit on about how much Canon is spending on new tech....THEY'RE NOT....Their annual reports & accounts do not lie.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not their own facts"  - Pat Moynihan (former speaker of the US House of Representatives)

FACT: Canon is falling behind Nikon on sensor technology and is marketing "new" features, just look at same sensor in T4i as T2i/T3i/7D and same AF in 5d3 as 1DX, and they'll probably cannibalize the 1D4 for the 7D2 (or perhaps the 2.0 firmware for the current 7D is the equivalent of the 7D2 for 2012).

Canon Inc.'s explicitly stated growth strategy is to increase market share in Asia + EM (not USA or Europe). What does Canon care more about CR opinions or what the stock market or their shareholders think?

Canon is one of the largest DSLR manufacturers with about 35-40% market share, but there are only 70 million DSLR cameras in existence on planet Earth (that's < 1% of the population owns a DSLR). If Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax et al can double that 1% to 2% in the next 20-years (generation) then Canon will double their total DSLR sales to nearly 50 million + sell more than double that in lenses. Just a few years ago, in 2009, Canon sold their 50 millionth lens and 24 millionth DSLR body, it was celebrated on the front-cover of a magazine.

Now, say YOU are on the Board of Canon Inc., what do YOU do? Spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new tech so that maybe thirty to forty thousand 'long-in-the-tooth' enthusiastic photographers spend an extra few grand each, every other year, OR do you shoot for selling +1 million new DSLR bodies & +2 million existing lenses each and every year, earning billions in additional revenue?

All this Nikon-Fanboy, Canon-Fanboy stuff, y'all can't see the wood for the trees.

[helpful]

The D3200 has served me very well for a while as my "personal" camera, and it is awesome in every way. I even shot some sports with it and my 300mm lens when there was nothing important to cover for a few minutes at one of the largest track meets in the nation, and it performed well. Really the only thing that messed it up was I was too close to track the athletes very well, because of the crop factor.

For fun, I recommend everyone here get the Nikon D3200 if you can afford it. I am visiting relatives for the weekend and the only cameras I have with me are the Canon 300 HS and the Nikon D3200 with the AF-S 50mm f/1.8. I sometimes get so sick of my professional equipment that it's a joy to leave behind.

It is certainly possible to get some images from the D3200 that equal the best image quality that the 5D Mark III is capable of.

[lola]

I love DxO... When they announce a score, it makes all the Canon fanboys reveal themselves...

It's not your camera on top of the list? Well, then the people preparing the list are all liars & scoundrels!
At the end of the day, these are just a bunch of numbers, right?

I mean, do you think a doctor, or an engineer cares about numbers when treating a patient or building a bridge? Nah...