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

[dtaylor]

I'll be the first one to say that too much is made of FF vs. APS-C. And that the most vehement defenders of FF generally can't tell the difference between the formats in 24" prints at low to mid ISO.

That said...DxO is a joke. While I don't think there's a huge gap in IQ between the 5D mkIII and the better APS-C bodies, I don't think for one second that the APS-C sensors are absolutely better. At low ISO APS-C sensors take a bit more post work to match FF sensors. And at high ISO the FF sensor admittedly walks away. (Though the bar is so high that APS-C is still very good here.)

For the vast majority of applications there is no practical IQ difference between FF and APS-C. But where there is a difference, the difference goes to FF. And DxO looks stupid yet again for claiming the opposite. (I wonder if they also claim the D3200 is better than MF digital backs? Wouldn't surprise me. DxO is clueless when it comes to photographic testing.)

[elflord]

That said...DxO is a joke. While I don't think there's a huge gap in IQ between the 5D mkIII and the better APS-C bodies, I don't think for one second that the APS-C sensors are absolutely better. At low ISO APS-C sensors take a bit more post work to match FF sensors. And at high ISO the FF sensor admittedly walks away. (Though the bar is so high that APS-C is still very good here.)

For the vast majority of applications there is no practical IQ difference between FF and APS-C. But where there is a difference, the difference goes to FF. And DxO looks stupid yet again for claiming the opposite. (I wonder if they also claim the D3200 is better than MF digital backs? Wouldn't surprise me. DxO is clueless when it comes to photographic testing.)

DXO claim no such thing. They post their measurements, which make it pretty clear that the 5DIII has substantially better performance at mid to high ISO. Low ISO performance (DR in articular)  is a different matter. The Canon bodies tend to do not as well, which is why their scores are lower. This does not appear to be the result in some flaw in DxO's methodology, as it's been replicated elsewhere.

The scores are just a few (of many) ways to aggregate the data. No such method is perfect, to truly understand their tests you need to look at their plots of the measurements. The scoring system they use gives newer Canon bodies low scores, because Canon seems to have some difficulty with dynamic range at low ISO. That's not DxO's fault though -- what should they do, change their scoring system because Canon fans don't like the numbers that it gives to Canon bodies ? Perhaps it would be better for consumers if Canon addressed its lagging dynamic range at low ISO.

The plots of the measurements are very informative, and don't appear to indicate any flaws in the testing. If anything, the flaw is in the relatively short attention of the fans who can't or won't read the measurements.

[ecka]

I'll be the first one to say that too much is made of FF vs. APS-C. And that the most vehement defenders of FF generally can't tell the difference between the formats in 24" prints at low to mid ISO.

That said...DxO is a joke. While I don't think there's a huge gap in IQ between the 5D mkIII and the better APS-C bodies, I don't think for one second that the APS-C sensors are absolutely better. At low ISO APS-C sensors take a bit more post work to match FF sensors. And at high ISO the FF sensor admittedly walks away. (Though the bar is so high that APS-C is still very good here.)

For the vast majority of applications there is no practical IQ difference between FF and APS-C. But where there is a difference, the difference goes to FF. And DxO looks stupid yet again for claiming the opposite. (I wonder if they also claim the D3200 is better than MF digital backs? Wouldn't surprise me. DxO is clueless when it comes to photographic testing.)

You must be joking, right? FF makes a big difference and I don't care what numbers are presented in DxOMark tests. Crop sensor needs f/1.8 prime lens to match the FF with f/2.8 zoom at f/2.8. In comparison (at such wide apertures) APS-C image is not even close ... softer/hazier details, worse color/contrast and all that is even more ugly when using high ISO. Finally, APS-C simply cannot compete with a FF + fast prime combo. This may be less obvious when using small apertures, but then you don't need a DSLR for some small snapshots where everything is in focus.

P.S. FF has better crop'ability , while APS-C ... well, it's already cropped.

[dtaylor]

LOL! How typical. I get one reply claiming that DxO is right, and another claiming that DxO is wrong and I'm wrong and there's a huge difference between FF and APS-C.

Sorry. You're both wrong.

DXO claim no such thing.

Yes they do, and it irritates me to no end that their defenders claim the opposite of what is staring everyone right in the face. Are you Baghdad Bob? Are you going to tell me U.S. Marines never set foot in Iraq? They assign an overall score to indicate which camera has overall better IQ. And there is something fundamentally wrong with their methodology when an APS-C sensor can out score a MFDB.

They post their measurements, which make it pretty clear that the 5DIII has substantially better performance at mid to high ISO. Low ISO performance (DR in articular)  is a different matter.

DxO has never been able to measure DR. Sorry. They just don't have a clue how to do it properly.

The plots of the measurements are very informative, and don't appear to indicate any flaws in the testing.

Spoken by someone who has never once tried to replicate their results.

You must be joking, right? FF makes a big difference and I don't care what numbers are presented in DxOMark tests.

I don't care what numbers are presented in DxO tests either, which should have been clear from my post. What I do care about is whether or not human beings can reliably tell unlabeled, processed prints apart. They can't at low to mid ISO when the only difference is APS-C vs. FF. And I'm talking about 24" and 30" prints. None of the huge differences you claim actually exist. If we were speaking in person instead of over the Internet I would put you to the test fully confident you would fail just like everyone else.

Out of camera with no processing? FF shows some advantage. But it's not huge, which is why it can be post processed away.

Now at high ISO...yes, FF sensors show a distinct advantage that can be seen and identified in large unlabeled prints. No question about that, and no post processing it away.

[ecka]

You must be joking, right? FF makes a big difference and I don't care what numbers are presented in DxOMark tests.

I don't care what numbers are presented in DxO tests either, which should have been clear from my post. What I do care about is whether or not human beings can reliably tell unlabeled, processed prints apart. They can't at low to mid ISO when the only difference is APS-C vs. FF. And I'm talking about 24" and 30" prints. None of the huge differences you claim actually exist. If we were speaking in person instead of over the Internet I would put you to the test fully confident you would fail just like everyone else.

Out of camera with no processing? FF shows some advantage. But it's not huge, which is why it can be post processed away.

Now at high ISO...yes, FF sensors show a distinct advantage that can be seen and identified in large unlabeled prints. No question about that, and no post processing it away.

I post process all my photos and FF ones are much nicer to work with. Sometimes just cropping a 100% 1500x1000 pixel piece of it makes a high quality image on its own (on screen, not billboard print) and I doubt that it is possible with D800 or any APS-C specimen.
Perhaps you are missing the point, it is more about the optics than the sensor. Even the most perfect sensor with 100% color accuracy at whatever ISO won't take flawless images (not in artistic aspect), if the lens is distorting reality. The smaller the pixels, the more the distortion of reality is amplified. It's not just SNR...
May I ask what camera and lenses are you using?

[elflord]

DXO claim no such thing.

Yes they do, and it irritates me to no end that their defenders claim the opposite of what is staring everyone right in the face. Are you Baghdad Bob? Are you going to tell me U.S. Marines never set foot in Iraq? They assign an overall score to indicate which camera has overall better IQ.

The poster I was responding to stated that DxO are claiming that there "is no difference" between full frame and APS-C. So, where do they claim this ?

Where do you find evidence to support that claim ? Their measurements, and even their use case scores indicate unambiguously that there is in fact a difference.

The fact that there exists an APS-C body that has as high an aggregate score as some full frame body does not imply that there "is no difference" between full frame and APS-C.

And there is something fundamentally wrong with their methodology when an APS-C sensor can out score a MFDB.

That's not a flaw in their "methodology", it is a flaw in the way they aggregate their test results. Or, I would argue, a limitation in how they aggregate their test results. I think you'd find that any attempt to reduce sensor performance to a single number is going to result in some "scores" that don't match our intuition.

Spoken by someone who has never once tried to replicate their results.

I haven't , but again, there are a number of posts on fredmiranda.com where users have been able to demonstrate (for example) that the D800 really does have better dynamic range than the 5DIII.

[simonxu11]

Spoken by someone who has never once tried to replicate their results.

I haven't , but again, there are a number of posts on fredmiranda.com where users have been able to demonstrate (for example) that the D800 really does have better dynamic range than the 5DIII.

Too many examples all over the net demonstrate D800 has better DR than 5D3 in low ISO range. This thread reveals some fanboies, but they will deny this.

[ssrdd]

 Nikon 3200 is much better than 5Dmk 3.

[Rienzphotoz]

Nikon 3200 is much better than 5Dmk 3.

Good luck with your thinking ... now go buy the D3200 and make photos and post them on Nikonrumors instead of bragging about a nikon camera on a canon forum

[Rienzphotoz]

Too many examples all over the net demonstrate D800 has better DR than 5D3 in low ISO range. This thread reveals some fanboies, but they will deny this.

Maybe you have not read the title of this website .... it is called Canonroumors i.e. it is all about those who use, like and are interested in Canon gear, NOT about Nikon ... if you want to  find nikon fanboys singing great tunes about nikon cameras, you should head on over to nikonrumors.  ... One should know better that participating in canonrumors forum  will mean having to read lots of loyal Canon users singing great songs about their first hand experience with their Canon gear ... trying to argue about your Nikon camera being greater than a Canon camera in a canon rumors forum is like going to a Republic convention (full of loyal republicans) and asking them to support a Democratic candidate's view. Having said, Canon cameras or Nikon cameras, they are just boxes that let in light ... one can make very compelling pictures with either of the cameras. All this talk about Nikon vs Canon is like boys who just reached puberty, braggin about how long their "tool" is with their newly acquired pub!c hair ... people should know that the size of the "tool" has NOTHING to do with the performance of the "tool" ... Happy snapping!

[simonxu11]

Too many examples all over the net demonstrate D800 has better DR than 5D3 in low ISO range. This thread reveals some fanboies, but they will deny this.

Maybe you have not read the title of this website .... it is called Canonroumors i.e. it is all about those who use, like and are interested in Canon gear, NOT about Nikon ... if you want to  find nikon fanboys singing great tunes about nikon cameras, you should head on over to nikonrumors.  ... One should know better that participating in canonrumors forum  will mean having to read lots of loyal Canon users singing great songs about their first hand experience with their Canon gear ... trying to argue about your Nikon camera being greater than a Canon camera in a canon rumors forum is like going to a Republic convention (full of loyal republicans) and asking them to support a Democratic candidate's view. Having said, Canon cameras or Nikon cameras, they are just boxes that let in light ... one can make very compelling pictures with either of the cameras. All this talk about Nikon vs Canon is like boys who just reached puberty, braggin about how long is their "tool" is with their newly acquired pub!c hair ... people should know that the size of the "tool" has NOTHING to do with the performance of the "tool" ... Happy snapping!

Maybe I just catch one.
I was saying DR from D800 is better than 5D3's in low ISO range! That's it!

[Zlatko]

DxO scores don't reflect my personal experience with the Nikon D7000 and the Canon 5D Mark II, so I don't trust any of their scores.  They gave the D7000 an overall score of 80 and the 5D II an overall score of 79, and yet the 5D II was clearly better in my experience. 

[elflord]

DxO scores don't reflect my personal experience with the Nikon D7000 and the Canon 5D Mark II, so I don't trust any of their scores.  They gave the D7000 an overall score of 80 and the 5D II an overall score of 79, and yet the 5D II was clearly better in my experience.

That's just illogical. The overall score is a weighted average and might not reflect your overall experience (in this case, if you shoot above ISO400 a lot of the time, you will probably find the 5DII to be a much better performance).

It does not follow that all their scores or measurements are wrong.

[DarkKnightNine]

81 82 whatever . i thought it said 82. dxo also stated the d3200 had a digic 3 processor. then corrected the review. love the replys they made my day. http://youtu.be/paJqHPHLExo

This video says it all. People nowadays are lusting after camera technology they probably don't need just for silly bragging rights. It's not even about the images anymore. I've said it time and again, a lot of my favorite photogs still shoot with older Canons and produce outstanding pictures, Laretta Houston (Canon 30D), Zack Arias (Canon 5D Mark II) My mentor Toshiya Suzuki (Canon 5D Mark II) and so on. Most people getting into photography these days tend to develop GAS early in their careers (Gear Acquisition Syndrome).

[DarkKnightNine]

score an 82 and beats 5d mkiii out of the top ten. May the fun begin.

Where are the Nikon shooters in hollywood?

too busy reading dxo charts maybe?   

Maybe they're out looking for interesting new things to shoot, not painted old witches from the 60's.

Anyway - Canon's smartest move EVER, all categories, regardless of camera quality, sensors, whatever, was to make their most expensive lenses white. More important than any test score or review anywhere, ever.

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.

Actually I hate the way Canon "white" lenses stand out. Terrible for when you're trying to shoot on the streets inconspicuously. But as far as the quality and selection, (your sarcastic marketing theory aside), yep far better than Nikon's. That's why most cameras in the media section of any large event anywhere in the world are Canons. I shot one of the largest fashion events in Japan earlier this year "Tokyo Girl's Collection", I was halfway expecting to see a slew of Nikon shooters with all the hype around their new bodies, but nope, 90% of the shooters were using Canon. It's also why I shoot Canon. Sensors and bodies will come and go, but great glass could last you a career.