Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?

[Aglet]

Consistent uniform 'noise' patterns point to data. 

noise patterns = BAD ELECTRONICS, poor design, noisy power supply circuits casting their noise into the sensor signal.  Pretty much every Canon DSLR suffers from this to varying degrees.
Horizontal banding especially seems to be a result of a dirty power supply design.
Vertical banding is an inherent sensor readout strategy flaw, one that Sony Exmor design has vastly improved upon.

As for when this all happened.. not with the D800, but back with the D90 .. Nikon started to really lose pattern noise and gain DR.

[dilbert]

anyway back on topic 5D2 vs 5D3 sensor

they are a little bit different:
...
5d3 is more color blind and can distinguish less colors than 5d2 (real world implications are very, very complex and i don't know anyone who has looked into the real world differences, all we know is the 5d3 measures the most color blind of any dslr made)

More information please?

[TTMartin]

Consistent uniform 'noise' patterns point to data. 

noise patterns = BAD ELECTRONICS, poor design, noisy power supply circuits casting their noise into the sensor signal.  Pretty much every Canon DSLR suffers from this to varying degrees.
Horizontal banding especially seems to be a result of a dirty power supply design.
Vertical banding is an inherent sensor readout strategy flaw, one that Sony Exmor design has vastly improved upon.

As for when this all happened.. not with the D800, but back with the D90 .. Nikon started to really lose pattern noise and gain DR.

If it were poor electronics design that would show up in SNR tests, but, it doesn't. The 5D Mk III outscores the D800 in that and almost every area except DxOMark tested DR.

As for the D90 two things occured, the D90 just happened to be one of the first Nikon cameras introduced after the opening of the 'unbiased' <chuckle> third party testing website from DxOMark and it happened to exceeded the 11 EV (screen) DR in DxOMark testing. So while a Canon 40D which was introduced before it actually has as good of dynamic range as the D90, that doesn't show up in the DxOMark scores because of DxOMarks inability to fully decode the CR2 file format.

[caruser]

Meh, is Mark III's sensor is anywhere near as good as D800's (DR, noise) I would have got one in a heart beat.

~At the same time someone is posting at Nikon Rumors..."Damn, if the D800 had the AF and high ISO or even was close to the 5D MKIII, I would have jumped at it."~

It's not really surprising; let's ignore the image quality for a moment. People buying the D700 over a 5D2 were those who wanted a more well-rounded product, those like me who chose a 5D2 were prepared to sacrifice AF and speed for IQ (or at least pixels...).

Suddenly the roles are reversed, the 5D3 is a very well balanced camera more fit to replace the D700, while the D800 is a more specialised one that I see more in line with the 5D2 (high IQ but slow, even though the AF is much better on the D800 than on the 5D2).

So while threads like these tend to be much longer than makes sense, I can fully understand a bit of confusion due to this role reversal (and then there's the "other" role reversal that some people like to tout, the one that Nikon generally has overtaken Canon in the sensor department; which adds even more confusion when every thread about one of these aspects is immediately hijacked into a big mush of all possible comparison points-of-view).

Phew.

[Cgdillan]

Meh, is Mark III's sensor is anywhere near as good as D800's (DR, noise) I would have got one in a heart beat.

~At the same time someone is posting at Nikon Rumors..."Damn, if the D800 had the AF and high ISO or even was close to the 5D MKIII, I would have jumped at it."~

It's not really surprising; let's ignore the image quality for a moment. People buying the D700 over a 5D2 were those who wanted a more well-rounded product, those like me who chose a 5D2 were prepared to sacrifice AF and speed for IQ (or at least pixels...).

Suddenly the roles are reversed, the 5D3 is a very well balanced camera more fit to replace the D700, while the D800 is a more specialised one that I see more in line with the 5D2 (high IQ but slow, even though the AF is much better on the D800 than on the 5D2).

So while threads like these tend to be much longer than makes sense, I can fully understand a bit of confusion due to this role reversal (and then there's the "other" role reversal that some people like to tout, the one that Nikon generally has overtaken Canon in the sensor department; which adds even more confusion when every thread about one of these aspects is immediately hijacked into a big mush of all possible comparison points-of-view).

Phew.

The 5D mkiii sensor was the best sensor EVER made... obviously ;-)

[LetTheRightLensIn]

anyway back on topic 5D2 vs 5D3 sensor

they are a little bit different:
...
5d3 is more color blind and can distinguish less colors than 5d2 (real world implications are very, very complex and i don't know anyone who has looked into the real world differences, all we know is the 5d3 measures the most color blind of any dslr made)

More information please?

go to DxO select the camera and then look at the detailed charts for the camera and look at metamerism index

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Consistent uniform 'noise' patterns point to data. 

noise patterns = BAD ELECTRONICS, poor design, noisy power supply circuits casting their noise into the sensor signal.  Pretty much every Canon DSLR suffers from this to varying degrees.
Horizontal banding especially seems to be a result of a dirty power supply design.
Vertical banding is an inherent sensor readout strategy flaw, one that Sony Exmor design has vastly improved upon.

As for when this all happened.. not with the D800, but back with the D90 .. Nikon started to really lose pattern noise and gain DR.

If it were poor electronics design that would show up in SNR tests, but, it doesn't. The 5D Mk III outscores the D800 in that and almost every area except DxOMark tested DR.

No it would not. SNR test is carried out at middle gray where the signal is not affected so much by read noise.

As for the D90 two things occured, the D90 just happened to be one of the first Nikon cameras introduced after the opening of the 'unbiased' <chuckle> third party testing website from DxOMark and it happened to exceeded the 11 EV (screen) DR in DxOMark testing. So while a Canon 40D which was introduced before it actually has as good of dynamic range as the D90, that doesn't show up in the DxOMark scores because of DxOMarks inability to fully decode the CR2 file format.

Or maybe it just happened to be the first sensor using Exmor patents and column ADC architecture.... 

Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. 

[Aglet]

If it were poor electronics design that would show up in SNR tests, but, it doesn't. The 5D Mk III outscores the D800 in that and almost every area except DxOMark tested DR.

No it would not. SNR test is carried out at middle gray where the signal is not affected so much by read noise.

LTRLI is correct
SNR can be measured at various levels and they're not using the dark end of the range or you'd REALLY see the results on a graph!

SNR of Canon's output is notoriously poor at the dark end where read-noise is a significant fraction of the signal level and that's where and why it only shows up in shadow areas.

That's also why total dynamic range results come out as they are.
Canon typically does a little better with highlight headroom but they lose considerable EV range at the dark end where SNR is the limiting factor to what constitutes allowable measurement range.
Because the Exmor sensor has a much lower read noise it can produce acceptable SNR at darker levels than the Canon system by a couple EV or more which adds to the total DR result.

You're free to believe other raw converters can't properly interpret the CR2 file but I believe you're quite wrong about that.

And if that doesn't convince you, just look at real world results of images shot with the latest Nikon sensors vs. Canons.

I have plenty of images from my 5D2 where noise is visible in shadow areas with only +1 EV of push applied, even using DPP.  Add +2 EV push and you need to start using noise reduction to get rid of the mess.
You just do not have this low ISO shadow noise issue with the recent Nikons!

After buying and testing my first Nikon body, and comparing it to about 15 Canon DSLRs I've been using over the past 5 years, while using DPP, ACR(LR & PS) and DxO to process my raw files, I DID NOT discover that Canon's performed any better than Nikon in this one critical area.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  A sub-$600 Nikon body totally blows away every Canon I've ever used in dark shadow detail retention and lack of noise.  And that includes the otherwise well-regarded 5D2, 7D, 60D, 40D, etc.  And I'll put it up against the new 5D3 at low ISO as well.

The D5100 performed so well I ordered a D800, a D800e and another D5100.
Now I'm sure you don't know my technical background but do you really think I'd spend $10k on new Nikon gear to get better DR performance by mistake?

For another angle on this, Canon's G11 and G12 use, AFAIK, SONY sensors in them.  They also produce CR2 raw files.
Wanna have a look at their low ISO raw dark noise compared to Canon's EOS DSLRs using Canon's CMOS sensors?...

www.a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm

Try explain that one. 

[TTMartin]

... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. 

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

[Razor2012]

... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. 

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

 

[Aglet]

... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. 

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

I'm looking at the graph and seeing 5D3 ISO 100 screen DR as 11.86 and 10.78 for the 300D

And when I compare my 5D2 to my EOS 350D, there's a similarly small difference in performance.

I HAVE had DxO's site serve up bad data on occasion, reason's unknown.
but it's otherwise pretty consistent, Canon's low ISO performance is handicapped compared to the competition. 

Have a look at Pentax K5 also, THE top spec APS-C performer according to DxOmark.

[wickidwombat]

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

this is the most accurate summary IMO and why i give DXO a bit fat care factor of 0

[TTMartin]

... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. 

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

I'm looking at the graph and seeing 5D3 ISO 100 screen DR as 11.86 and 10.78 for the 300D

And when I compare my 5D2 to my EOS 350D, there's a similarly small difference in performance.

I HAVE had DxO's site serve up bad data on occasion, reason's unknown.
but it's otherwise pretty consistent, Canon's low ISO performance is handicapped compared to the competition. 

Have a look at Pentax K5 also, THE top spec APS-C performer according to DxOmark.

That's because you are looking at the (print) DR figure, which is where DxOMark really cooks it up.

Press the screen button in the upper left below the ISO Sensitivity. That gives you a pixel for pixel score. Dynamic range doesn't change with megapixels, unless you're DxOMark, then you come up with some formula that does that.

[Aglet]

... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. 

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

I'm looking at the graph and seeing 5D3 ISO 100 screen DR as 11.86 and 10.78 for the 300D

And when I compare my 5D2 to my EOS 350D, there's a similarly small difference in performance.

I HAVE had DxO's site serve up bad data on occasion, reason's unknown.
but it's otherwise pretty consistent, Canon's low ISO performance is handicapped compared to the competition. 

Have a look at Pentax K5 also, THE top spec APS-C performer according to DxOmark.

That's because you are looking at the (print) DR figure, which is where DxOMark really cooks it up.

Press the screen button in the upper left below the ISO Sensitivity. That gives you a pixel for pixel score. Dynamic range doesn't change with megapixels, unless you're DxOMark, then you come up with some formula that does that.

HAHA!  That's hilarious, and exactly what I mean about bad data at times!

I reloaded the DR screen data numerous times earlier today to ensure I was getting the correct data because I don't like their print number nonsense either, even tho I profess to understand it. 

I also didn't think they'd be so close to identical numbers so I wanted to double-triple-quad-check your posting.  A few times I got a "no data available" message so I'd have to reselect just 2 cameras and reload their test data for screen. 
Sounds like I have some possible Flash misbehavior on that machine I have at work because now I select the cameras again from my home computer and I get the same numbers you quoted originally.

Turns out it was giving me the print DR data for 5D2 and 300D instead of the screen DR for 5D3 and 300D even tho the camera bodies I was expecting were displayed in the graph I got as screen data.  I was looking at a bunch of different Canon bodies again before comparing 5D3 and 300D DR.

Hmmm - a cautionary there for anyone running an ancient G4 Mac with a very outdated version of Flash.
You might not be getting what you think you're getting.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. 

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

What is silly is comparing them at screen level when one camera has 22.3MP and the other has 6MP. Look at the print comparison and it puts it 1 stop better than the 300D. (It also puts it only 1/2 stop better than 40D, which also has a lot less banding, so they are perhaps about the same usably, which seems to match what I see)

(granted it's IS also silly and a bit shokcing that Canon made the 5D3 barely better per photosite for maximum DR than even some of their older DSLRs and a tiny worse than any recent one, but it's true)

Canon had world beating SNR and low ISO and high ISO DR once upon a time and then they sat doing nothing, bragging about how they were infinitely far ahead and could just sit around. Now they are still up there for SNR and high ISO DR but have fallen miles behind for maximum DR and yeah they are basically where they were over half a decade ago (and even more if you go by per photosite).

5D3 is pretty awesome in most ways, no doubt, generally a great cam but the DR has disappointed me and I have to say I was quite shocked it wasn't a big step up from the 5D2 in that regard and even more shocked that it was actually worse, even if to a meaningless degree (and it would've be super awesome it if it had 28-30MP and still had 6fps and if it had video focus peaking (Canon simply NEEDS to add the latter in firmware)). If it had that I bet the price would be easily maintaining $3500 (at worst). I just hope they are able and care to fix up DR for the 5D4.