All these 35mm DSLR's have pretty similar IQ at reasonable ISO's.
Nikon D800 | ISO 100 | 1/100s @f/11:
Canon 5D Mk III | ISO 100 | 1/100s @f/11:
... and that's at 800px web size.
That kind of bullsh*t is what really ticks me off about this whole debate. The exposure there (f/11 @ ISO 100!!!!!) is OBVIOUSLY botched to intentionally create a scenario where you have to lift the entire shot out of the shadows. Expose the damnable thing properly, and you won't HAVE to lift any shadows! NO ONE does what those photos demonstrate in the real world. It is entirely unrealistic, a bogus scenario to create a comparison that purposely puts Canon sensors in the worst light possible. It is entirely possible to create a photograph with a Canon camera at a wider aperture that looks every bit as good as the D800 photo...and in real life, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DONE...at a WIDER aperture.
DON'T BUY INTO THIS LOAD OF BULL, PPL!
Why don't you quote the whole post? You left away the most important part.
I quoted a previous quote, so it didn't have the entire answer. It doesn't matter though. The other examples still have the exact same problem...underexposure. Neither the D800 nor 5D III in the examples below are properly exposed either. It's an unrealistically skewed sacenario, and BOTH cameras could have had at least a couple stops brighter exposure with some shadow pushing in post to improve contrast, and result in better detail overall:
Inevitably, someone's going to wonder why I severely underexposed the photo & then lifted the exposure; rather than getting into the logic of why I did that, I'll just post the following comparison, where each camera was exposed so as to not clip the red channel in the sky near the sun. Shadows were then lifted to reasonable levels for viewing:
First, the full-frame images:
Canon 5D Mark III:
Now, let's view them side-by-side at 100%, w/ the D800 downsized to 5DIII size for easy/fair comparison:
None of the scenes in the examples from sarangiman have enough DR to require such a low exposure (no way your going to clip that red channel for at least a stop or more...its barely exposed at all!) Show me a few photos with a proper exposure that doesn't purposely *require* exorbitant amounts of shadow lifting, and we can have a more realistic discussion. Sony Exmor sensors ARE amazing, no question about that, but when I see improperly exposed photos like this that are designed to bring out the worst in Canon cameras, it's just annoying.
I would love to see someone take a photo of a landscape scene with 14 real stops of DR, expose properly on both
a Canon and a Nikon w/ Exmor camera (i.e. expose to maximize the potential of both sensors), and compare. The Nikon will be the better camera from a DR standpoint, but ONLY from a shadow pulling standpoint. The Canon will look just as good in most areas, it will just lack the shadow pulling ability of the Nikon, so it'll probably end up a bit more contrasty. You won't see exorbitant amounts of read noise in middle shadows though...you might see it in the deep shadows, but not in the middle shadows.