DxOMark scores for 5DMkIII out - total score 81, 5DMkII had 79
- Thread starter Fishnose
- Start date
- Status
Renato said:
there is no such thing as "good" or bad. It is just different way of looking at things. The problem with that site is that it is a pixel to pixel crop comparison. you need to compare equal sizes to get a better idea of actual performance in real life since after all, your final output targets a print size, not a resolution. DXO's method is similar to the site below
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-review#iso_performance
(click next to see 5d3 vs d800).
conclusion from the review:
As you can see, the Nikon D800 sensor has no competition, even from its biggest rival, the Canon 5D Mark III. Although the Canon 5D Mark III shows impressive levels of noise at lower ISO levels, it still cannot quite match what the D800 can do. Don’t forget that there is also a big resolution difference between the two – the Nikon D800 is 36.3 MP, while the Canon 5D Mark III is 22.3 MP.
therefore pixel to pixel comparisons, while they do show the strengths of the 5DmkIII, aren't the only metric and whenever downsizing is involved, the D800 pulls ahead.
Upvote
0
I
ippikiokami
Guest
kozakm said:
Totally wrong here
Look at the last few Sony DSLR's + Sony sensor announcements and see how Nikon's come AFTER things are announced or released. If you think that's just a coincidence then you are really wearing blinders.
And even the first part of your analogy. foxconn puts it together. For example. The sensor in the Iphone 4s is well known to be a Sony 8mp.
Upvote
0
Go outside use the camera.
Nikon or Canon or whatever.
These BS numbers are not going to change the picture taken for 99,99 % of us.
Sorry for the word,but Come on GET REAL.
-----
www.wildlife-photos.net
www.scramble.nl
www.planepix.nl
Nikon or Canon or whatever.
These BS numbers are not going to change the picture taken for 99,99 % of us.
Sorry for the word,but Come on GET REAL.
-----
www.wildlife-photos.net
www.scramble.nl
www.planepix.nl
Upvote
0
kozakm said:
I believe the relationship between Nikon and Sony is more like Apple and LG (or whoever their screen supplier is now), not Apple and Foxconn
LG develops the technology in display, manufactures it according to some specification and Apple uses it in their products. No shame and not issue in that in my opinion.
What really annoys me is this DXOMark scoring thing...
They come up with a bunch of numbers, without any correlation to any pictures to illustrate any perceptible differences in image quality as a result to whatever score difference they claim between cameras.
They claim the D800 is so much better at high ISO than the 5D3 when all the sample pictures point at most to a draw. They claim the D800 has so much better DRange than the 5D3 when changing the modes of the camera brings about such a huge difference in DRange measurements. One only has to play around with dpreview's DRange comparison charts to realize that.
They claim that their measurement is purely on the sensors and does not take into consideration image processing, lens and other peripherals.
How would one take a picture without these mentioned peripherals, may I ask? And if one uses all these peripherals to take a picture in real life, what is the purpose of throwing out a bunch of numbers which may not even be relevant in real life?
I think all these arguments about DXOMark scores is embarrassing to say the least. It is like a bunch of kids arguing over whose father is taller. If there needs for an argument, photographers should go out and take photos and then argue about whose pay check is bigger ;D
Upvote
0
R
rpschnerp
Guest
I have a 5dM3 and was a little impatient waiting for the DXO results (should I return it and wait months for a D800, etc.). My main concern has been DR, where again Canon appears to come up short. Last night, before the DXO results were released, I did a little test, comparing the 5DM3 with a Nikon D7000, which actually scores just about the same as the D800 for DR (14EV at ISO50).
I chose a nice challenging, contrasty scene with a lot of bright sky and deep shadows. I used same focal length (obv. not the same lens) and same exposure (also corrected for white balance). I then processed in LR4 with the express intent of pulling as much detail from shadows and highlights. I could pull a lot more out of the highlights on the 5DM3 image and ended up with an image that was HDR-like, while the D7000 image still had a blown-out sky. The 5DM3 image also just flat-out looked better, color-wise and tonally (several family members agreed.) It feels like this DR business is not adequately describing what one might see in the real world. What am I missing??
I chose a nice challenging, contrasty scene with a lot of bright sky and deep shadows. I used same focal length (obv. not the same lens) and same exposure (also corrected for white balance). I then processed in LR4 with the express intent of pulling as much detail from shadows and highlights. I could pull a lot more out of the highlights on the 5DM3 image and ended up with an image that was HDR-like, while the D7000 image still had a blown-out sky. The 5DM3 image also just flat-out looked better, color-wise and tonally (several family members agreed.) It feels like this DR business is not adequately describing what one might see in the real world. What am I missing??
Upvote
0
S
skyscape
Guest
Killing the messenger, denial, and everything in between is not the way to solve a problem. When the dust settles, DXOmark score will remain standing.
I remember number of years ago when Nikon fanboys were in the same situation when DXOmark scores came out. Canon's rise in market share proved DXOmark right. The opposite is happening now. Nikon is gaining back its market share. The D3/D700 generation set the bench mark for ISO, and D800 has set the bench mark for IQ.
We can squint, cry, yell, throw our camera out of the window, and do other such things, but the DXO mark score will remain up there for the world to see, and you cannot change it.
Having said that, I've put up my 5DII for sale and pre-order D800. Sorry folks this time the grass on the other side is truly green. You can't beat or deny 95 score for D800 and my photog friends have confirmed that D800 is "a game changer".
I remember number of years ago when Nikon fanboys were in the same situation when DXOmark scores came out. Canon's rise in market share proved DXOmark right. The opposite is happening now. Nikon is gaining back its market share. The D3/D700 generation set the bench mark for ISO, and D800 has set the bench mark for IQ.
We can squint, cry, yell, throw our camera out of the window, and do other such things, but the DXO mark score will remain up there for the world to see, and you cannot change it.
Having said that, I've put up my 5DII for sale and pre-order D800. Sorry folks this time the grass on the other side is truly green. You can't beat or deny 95 score for D800 and my photog friends have confirmed that D800 is "a game changer".
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Fishnose said:
I have, and I suggest that you are misreading them. I was not discussing the "Sports (Low-Light ISO)" testing, but rather what they call ISO Sensitivity, which is one of their In-Depth Measurements that you can read about here, and is completely different from the Sports (Low-Light ISO) Score you're talking about, which is one of their Use-Case Scores and is described here instead. Please read a little more carefully, and post back if the difference is still unclear.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Fishnose said:
No worries. DxOMark's ISO Sensitivity ≠ Sports (Low-Light ISO), which is exactly the point I was making about the confusion stemming from naming it ISO Sensitivity - that name seems to correspond to what you're talking about, ISO noise performance, when in fact, it doesn't. It's confusing, and apparently you fell victim to that confusion.
Upvote
0
H
hungp
Guest
Right, 5D3's SNR chart is almost the same as D800, it is "ISO noise performance". In term of "Sports (Low-Light ISO)", 5D3 fails on CS chart. Canon did not met 18bits barrier at higher ISO.neuroanatomist said:Fishnose said:
No worries. DxOMark's ISO Sensitivity ≠ Sports (Low-Light ISO), which is exactly the point I was making about the confusion stemming from naming it ISO Sensitivity - that name seems to correspond to what you're talking about, ISO noise performance, when in fact, it doesn't. It's confusing, and apparently you fell victim to that confusion.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Fishnose said:
No worries. DxOMark's ISO Sensitivity ≠ Sports (Low-Light ISO), which is exactly the point I was making about the confusion stemming from naming it ISO Sensitivity - that name seems to correspond to what you're talking about, ISO noise performance, when in fact, it doesn't. It's confusing, and apparently you fell victim to that confusion.
No, I thought you were adressing the way they measure their ISO score, the one in the Sensor Scores table where 5DMkIII gets 2293 ISO.
The other thing you were discussing is a different issue, I just missed that you were talking about something else.
Upvote
0
Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review
Canon's inertia will only carry it so far. Half a decade ago it was Canon who had this kind of lead over Nikon and it cost Nikon dearly. The worm has turned and I believe Canon's complacency will cost them dearly if they don't focus on image quality. Canon's sensors are technically inferior. They haven't advanced their CMOS technology in a significant way in years.
Only folks with their heads buried in the sand should be surprised by these results. As many have pointed out since the first 5D3 RAW files started to appear, Canon has done nothing to improve their basic image quality coming off the sensor. This isn't to say that the 5D3 isn't a great DSLR; I own one and it is—but not because the sensor is significantly different from the one found in the 5D2.
The most disappointing measurement on this chart is the DR rating. The DR difference between the 5D3 and D800 is real, demonstrable, and discussed ad nauseum prior to the release of these results so I won't belabor that again except to say that the fact that this figure actually went down compared to the 5D2 is pathetic.
Of course, as the glass-half-fullers correctly point out, none of this is to say that the 5D3 isn't completely capable of producing breathtaking images. Yet the real issue in my mind is the fact that Sony/Nikon continue to advance the state-of-the-art in sensor tech while Canon seems focused on $30k cinema cameras. I wonder if anyone at Canon HQ has bothered to drop by their sensor R&D facility to make sure these guys are still showing up for work.
MattBicePhotography said:
Canon's inertia will only carry it so far. Half a decade ago it was Canon who had this kind of lead over Nikon and it cost Nikon dearly. The worm has turned and I believe Canon's complacency will cost them dearly if they don't focus on image quality. Canon's sensors are technically inferior. They haven't advanced their CMOS technology in a significant way in years.
Only folks with their heads buried in the sand should be surprised by these results. As many have pointed out since the first 5D3 RAW files started to appear, Canon has done nothing to improve their basic image quality coming off the sensor. This isn't to say that the 5D3 isn't a great DSLR; I own one and it is—but not because the sensor is significantly different from the one found in the 5D2.
The most disappointing measurement on this chart is the DR rating. The DR difference between the 5D3 and D800 is real, demonstrable, and discussed ad nauseum prior to the release of these results so I won't belabor that again except to say that the fact that this figure actually went down compared to the 5D2 is pathetic.
Of course, as the glass-half-fullers correctly point out, none of this is to say that the 5D3 isn't completely capable of producing breathtaking images. Yet the real issue in my mind is the fact that Sony/Nikon continue to advance the state-of-the-art in sensor tech while Canon seems focused on $30k cinema cameras. I wonder if anyone at Canon HQ has bothered to drop by their sensor R&D facility to make sure these guys are still showing up for work.
Upvote
0
skitron said:DxOMark Overall Nikon D4 - 89
DxOMark Overall Nikon D800 - 95
Go ahead and convince yourself that a D800 is better than a D4...
You say that as though it is obvious that the D800 is not better than the D4. I would argue that for most purposes it is better, high ISO/low light shooting and high frame rate shooting being the exceptions in my mind.
Upvote
0
t.linn said:skitron said:DxOMark Overall Nikon D4 - 89
DxOMark Overall Nikon D800 - 95
Go ahead and convince yourself that a D800 is better than a D4...
You say that as though it is obvious that the D800 is not better than the D4. I would argue that for most purposes it is better, high ISO/low light shooting and high frame rate shooting being the exceptions in my mind.
Well, there you have it then...D800 is better than D4. Nikon should remove D4 from the market since it clearly sucks and DxOMark proves it.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
