DxOMark scores for 5DMkIII out - total score 81, 5DMkII had 79
- Thread starter Fishnose
- Start date
- Status
D
dichiaras
Guest
That's indeed quite a good point: people should remind themselves that these are ratings of the sensor. I've never seen somebody shooting while holding just a sensor in one's hands. There are no numbers to describe how good the AF, ergonomics, weather sealing, etc. are, so while probably most of the people don't need all the features of a D4, it's certainly a better camera than the D800.skitron said: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
skitron said:q3chap said:I hope, because the DxOMark test, everybody will buy the D800. Then Canon has to mark down the price, and I will buy the mark III when it has a price of 2000 eur
LOL, we should hack DxO's site to give it an overall of 16. ;D
I think that you guys are onto something here!
Articles like this should help as well:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415773-76/canon-5d-mark-iii-underwhelms-on-sensor-test/
All joking aside, I don't think that Canon is going to sell nearly as many 5D MkIIIs as they did its predecessor. The 'all the gear and no idea' crowd will be buying the D800 for the megapixel count (they won't even get as far as looking at DR or ISO -they didn't when it was the 5D MkII vs. the D700) and the filmmakers are now moving on to more suitable platforms, either RED EOS-C or the Sony FSxxx series. Disappointing sales figures may be a good thing for all of us, as it would put pressure on them to lower prices and/or R&D on sensors.
Upvote
0
M
Mike Ca
Guest
It is clear that Canon and Sony/Nikon have made different trade offs in their sensor design.
The Sony Exmor technology has the analog to digital converters (ADC) on the sensor chip. The Canon sensors take the analog signals off the sensor chip to an ADC in another chip. Very weak analog signals can pick up noise from the circuit boards. This is why the readout noise of the Canon sensors is higher than the Sony Exmor sensors and why the Sony Exmor sensors have better DR and lower deep shadow noise at low ISO.
So why doesn't Canon put the ADC on the sensor chip? There may be some patent issues, but I suspect the real reason is that the Sony Exmor technology has problems with video. The ADC on the sensor chip generate a lot of heat when the sensor is being read quickly, as in high frame rate video. Some Sony cameras that used Exmor have had problems with sensor over heating. Sony has fixed those issues in it most recent cameras. The fix probably involved better cooling for the sensor chip.
In the D800 36MP Exmor sensor has an additional problem. You cannot read the whole sensor at 30 fps to do HD video. Nikon is using some kind of pixel skipping to reduce the amount of data that has to be read off the sensor. This means the D800 is not using the whole sensor area, even the whole area within the HD image, to generate its video signal.
Canon has developed on sensor circuits that allow the analog signals of multiple pixels to be mixed for downs ampling to HD video resolution. Canon uses analog signals from the whole sensor area, at least the part that is in the HD aspect image. This allows the Canon sensors to give better high ISO video.
Dan Chung from DPR said that up to ISO 1600 the D800 and 5DIII video noise was similar, but above 1600 the 5DIII clearly had lower noise.
Sony Exmor puts the ADC on the sensor for lower read noise and improved DR. Canon puts analog video down sampling circuits on the sensor for improved high ISO video.
The Sony Exmor technology has the analog to digital converters (ADC) on the sensor chip. The Canon sensors take the analog signals off the sensor chip to an ADC in another chip. Very weak analog signals can pick up noise from the circuit boards. This is why the readout noise of the Canon sensors is higher than the Sony Exmor sensors and why the Sony Exmor sensors have better DR and lower deep shadow noise at low ISO.
So why doesn't Canon put the ADC on the sensor chip? There may be some patent issues, but I suspect the real reason is that the Sony Exmor technology has problems with video. The ADC on the sensor chip generate a lot of heat when the sensor is being read quickly, as in high frame rate video. Some Sony cameras that used Exmor have had problems with sensor over heating. Sony has fixed those issues in it most recent cameras. The fix probably involved better cooling for the sensor chip.
In the D800 36MP Exmor sensor has an additional problem. You cannot read the whole sensor at 30 fps to do HD video. Nikon is using some kind of pixel skipping to reduce the amount of data that has to be read off the sensor. This means the D800 is not using the whole sensor area, even the whole area within the HD image, to generate its video signal.
Canon has developed on sensor circuits that allow the analog signals of multiple pixels to be mixed for downs ampling to HD video resolution. Canon uses analog signals from the whole sensor area, at least the part that is in the HD aspect image. This allows the Canon sensors to give better high ISO video.
Dan Chung from DPR said that up to ISO 1600 the D800 and 5DIII video noise was similar, but above 1600 the 5DIII clearly had lower noise.
Sony Exmor puts the ADC on the sensor for lower read noise and improved DR. Canon puts analog video down sampling circuits on the sensor for improved high ISO video.
Upvote
0
While I was initially shocked by the score of 81, particularly after giving up the idea of buying a much cheaper used 1DS III in favour of the 5D III, I'm now not that bothered by it. I am hoping that it will prompt Canon to reduce the price of the camera to be the same as the D800, but I don't think it's going to happen.
I've seen the photos from the 5D and they look great. It is obviously better at ISO1600+ photography, compared to the D800, so whatever testing methodology they are using is flawed.
I mean, how seriously can you take a review site like DXOMark when their 'hands-on review' of the 5D Mark III began with this statement:
"Here is a first review based on the specifications and our first impressions..."
Don't they know what a hands-on review is...?
I've seen the photos from the 5D and they look great. It is obviously better at ISO1600+ photography, compared to the D800, so whatever testing methodology they are using is flawed.
I mean, how seriously can you take a review site like DXOMark when their 'hands-on review' of the 5D Mark III began with this statement:
"Here is a first review based on the specifications and our first impressions..."
Don't they know what a hands-on review is...?
Upvote
0
smithy said:
I don't think DxOMark is so much flawed as it's just formulated to reflect what they personally think is important to them.
They obviously don't think extended ISO is very important and that is why D4 and 5D3 lag behind in their scores compared to D800.
Obviously both Nikon and Canon feel there is a customer base that feels high ISO is very important and will buy accordingly - hence the models offered.
Upvote
0
Ridiculous.skitron said:
The D4 has 3 specific and significant advantages for pros with specific needs, such as sports and news:
Astronomical ISO
Very high fps
Fantastic build quality and sealing.
For them, these are critical factors.
Since it is not possible to build a 36MP camera with high ISO and high fps (yet), they have to make a choice and do without the high MP.
For most other photographers, these three issues are less significant and not worth extra dollars.
One day in the fairly near future it will be possible to have your cake and eat it - 36MP, 10 fps and 50K ISO. It's just a matter of time.
The exact same arguments apply of course to comparisons between 1Dx and 5DMkIII.
Upvote
0
Q
q3chap
Guest
traveller said:skitron said:q3chap said:I hope, because the DxOMark test, everybody will buy the D800. Then Canon has to mark down the price, and I will buy the mark III when it has a price of 2000 eur
LOL, we should hack DxO's site to give it an overall of 16. ;D
I think that you guys are onto something here!
Articles like this should help as well:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415773-76/canon-5d-mark-iii-underwhelms-on-sensor-test/
Maybe, we all should create homepages, where we can praise the D800
The one thing I have to complain about is the price policy of Canon. 3300 Euro for the MIII. 2300 Euro for the 24-70 L II. Unbeliveable. This su....
Till now, i am very happy with my MII.
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.
please remember that the DXO test only measures image quality. There are a lot of features the D4 has for the sports and action shooter that the D800 lacks. however image quality wise, the D800 IS indeed the better camera for most situtations.
Upvote
0
I hate to break it to you but no camera does, not even the 5DmkIII. as you say, has to do with data size. 36MP is a LOT of data to read in one pass. The D800 actually resolves more detail in video than the 5DmkIII as has been documented by EOSHD and other sites at the expense of moire. It's method also allows for less rolling shutter. It's a tradeoff.
similar technology is no doubt present in sony video sensors. canon doesn't read the full sensor and downscales because of the amount of computational power required is beyond the abilities of their cameras. instead they pixel bin. pixel binning comes at a trade off in resolution as you can see.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii
neither canon nor nikon/sony have perfect video on their dslrs. Neither camera is even remotely close to a 1080p downsample of a full sensor readout. everything we have today is a compromise in one way or another.
Upvote
0
F
Former Nikonian
Guest
I was a nikonian in film era equipped with N90S, N 8008S bodies + SB25 speedlight + (were) high end Nikkor lenses. Because of situation, I have left phography since 2003. However, my eyes still have been following the progress from SLR to DSLR. I have a little changed my view from Nikon to Canon since the first time I had a chance physically seeing a Nikon and a Canon DSLR bodies sitting side by side in a camera store years ago.
In my point of view, the Nikon looked cheap because of the orange stripe on left front. And I started loosing my love with Nikon.
Now, my situation has changed and I have opprtunity to come back with my love photogaphy. I was thinking and reading a lot of reviews online to choose among Nikon or Canon or Sony as it was an expensive investment in hobby (I was a Pro but have not been earning in photogaphy since the situation told above). After months of considering, I dropped Sony and paid attention on 2 new comers for my come back: D800 and 5D Mk iii
Finally, last night, I placed oderd 5d Mk iii and 2 L lenses. Why?:
- D800 looks cheap because the orange stripe as my view of aesthetics.
- I do not like the pop-up flash. It does not help much but is annoying, and looks cheap as well. As a Pro, external speedlight was always at my side.
- My composition used to be tight and in purpose. I do not shoot randomly then crop a lot later so I do not need extreme high MP. If 36 MP were good, it would be in D4.
- I used to take pictures in early morning and late afternoon and evening, so low light is a issue to me. 5D Mk iii gives me the convenience. I can rarely use speedlight.
- I am not biased by reviews online. I judged on my own eyes, especially the comparison on www.imaging-resource.com.
I am sad to leave Nikon and happy to join Canon.
In my point of view, the Nikon looked cheap because of the orange stripe on left front. And I started loosing my love with Nikon.
Now, my situation has changed and I have opprtunity to come back with my love photogaphy. I was thinking and reading a lot of reviews online to choose among Nikon or Canon or Sony as it was an expensive investment in hobby (I was a Pro but have not been earning in photogaphy since the situation told above). After months of considering, I dropped Sony and paid attention on 2 new comers for my come back: D800 and 5D Mk iii
Finally, last night, I placed oderd 5d Mk iii and 2 L lenses. Why?:
- D800 looks cheap because the orange stripe as my view of aesthetics.
- I do not like the pop-up flash. It does not help much but is annoying, and looks cheap as well. As a Pro, external speedlight was always at my side.
- My composition used to be tight and in purpose. I do not shoot randomly then crop a lot later so I do not need extreme high MP. If 36 MP were good, it would be in D4.
- I used to take pictures in early morning and late afternoon and evening, so low light is a issue to me. 5D Mk iii gives me the convenience. I can rarely use speedlight.
- I am not biased by reviews online. I judged on my own eyes, especially the comparison on www.imaging-resource.com.
I am sad to leave Nikon and happy to join Canon.
Upvote
0
In Addition, did anyone catch this inaccuracy within the article?
In the first section of the article it states:
New Digic 5+ processor and bursts
... because while the DIGIC 5 is 17 times more rapid than the DIGIC 4, the DIGIC 5+ is 3 times more rapid than the DIGIC 5. Still...
However on the next page it states:
The latest-generation DIGIC 5+ processor, announced as being up to 17 times faster than the Digic 5 (which itself was 3 times faster than the EOS 5D Mark II’s DIGIC 4).
How much credence can one have based on these inaccuracies ? The old adage comes to mind.."don't believe everything you read"
Rev
Anthony
In the first section of the article it states:
New Digic 5+ processor and bursts
... because while the DIGIC 5 is 17 times more rapid than the DIGIC 4, the DIGIC 5+ is 3 times more rapid than the DIGIC 5. Still...
However on the next page it states:
The latest-generation DIGIC 5+ processor, announced as being up to 17 times faster than the Digic 5 (which itself was 3 times faster than the EOS 5D Mark II’s DIGIC 4).
How much credence can one have based on these inaccuracies ? The old adage comes to mind.."don't believe everything you read"
Rev
Anthony
Upvote
0
That's it, I'm sending my 5DIII back. I really like this camera, it produces amazing images, and the build quality and ergonomics are superb, but obviously these DxO scores are more important than my hand-on impressions of using it in the field.
Upvote
0
DxO results out for 5D3
Despite all the incredible bashing and troll call outs (and worse) given to those who said the numbers for the new camera's sensors would turn out a certain way, well it turns out that DxO matches virtually exactly the predictions so maybe all those methods were not faulty or trolling after all?:
(check the DxO site for all the finer details and complete reports up and down the ISO scales.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/483%7C0/(brand3)/Canon
There is one extra curious thing though about their results though. As I've long said it is best to ignore their overall sensor ratings since they use some weird weighting of this and that which isn't really useful for most people since there is little chance that what you care about will exactly match their weightings. I've also said to be slightly wary of even their sectional overall ratings at times, due to weightings again, although they often hadn't been that bad before. Their plots are where they've had the good stuff, just look at their measurements section. But the weird thing is this time their overall sectional rating is so weird for low-light sports.
They gave the 5D3 a much lower sectional overall mark for that than D800. I think they rated it a tiny bit closer to the 5D2 than the D800 even for high ISO and yet if you look at all of their charts I don't see how they (sensibly) came up with that. They give the overall low-light sports win to the D800 by a large margin. How? Based on what? Something a little odd with that.... they punished the 5D3 for reducing the color-filter array, making it more color-blind, it probably is fair to push it for that since it has the worst metamerism ratings I've ever seen for a DSLR from what I recall, but OTOH in the real world usage the way they weight things exaggerated it all a bit I think so I think it rather overstates the apparent usable difference quite a lot, although it's probably useful to keep the camera makers honest, the filter has now been reduced as far as you'd ever want to go and it is true Nikon gets to the same noise level while using a less color blind filter)
Anyway they report that for base ISO dynamic range that the D800 has 2.5 stops better DR at base ISO (even more usable, but they don't take banding into account) than the 5D2 and that the 5D2 measures 0.12 stops more than the 5D3 (although the 5D3 usable is probably a trace more, but once you are talking 1/4,1/8th stops it's all meaningless anyway, IF the vertical banding can be removed with special software the 5D3 might end up with .25 to .4 or so more usable than the 5D2). (i.e. 100% exactly as predicted by all the incompetent trolls as were much of the rest below)
I reallllllly wish we had been wrong though. This is the one area where the 5D3 blew it. Not one bit of progress for maximum dynamic range since the 1Ds3.... almost half a decade ago. And the camera scores even more color-blind than the 5D2 overall!
--------------
And DxO says that the 5D3 rates each ISO more conservatively than the 5D2 had. So, for instance, ISO3200 on the 5D3 is actually higher than ISO3200 on the 5D2 is so if you compare the two straight up you are actually under selling the 5D3 advantage over the 5D2 a little bit.
--------------
And DxO says that SNR is about 2/3 stops better than the 5D2 (and about the same as the D800). This is actually a really good result. It may not sound like much, but as many had been trying to say, talk of 1.5 to 2 to 3 stops better SNR was just not realistic or even theoretically possible. This brings the 5D3 into a few way tie (with D4 and D800 and D3s, the D3s drops out at ISO100 since it doesn't have that) for the best SNR across the board of any consumer camera ever (although the Canon seems to have to become a bit more color-blind than the others to do this).
-------------------------------------
And DxO says that the high ISO DR of the 5D3 is better than that of the 5D2, by a noticeable amount starting around ISO2000 and up (more than a stop better at the very high ISOs). And that it does better than D800 from around ISO5000 and up in that regard. This very much matches Aglet's chart predictions from a couple days ago, although is chart seems to have exaggerated all of the differences by almost a factor of two, across the board for some reason. Maybe something to do with LR?? But the pattern was exactly as his chart suggested.
----------------
Some had speculated that the 5D3 might have slightly better color sensitivity than the 5D2 and it does, although the difference is smaller than expected and surprisingly the D800 has a bit of an advantage here across the board, well at least ISO1600 and under, fairly surprising.
Despite all the incredible bashing and troll call outs (and worse) given to those who said the numbers for the new camera's sensors would turn out a certain way, well it turns out that DxO matches virtually exactly the predictions so maybe all those methods were not faulty or trolling after all?
:(check the DxO site for all the finer details and complete reports up and down the ISO scales.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/483%7C0/(brand3)/Canon
There is one extra curious thing though about their results though. As I've long said it is best to ignore their overall sensor ratings since they use some weird weighting of this and that which isn't really useful for most people since there is little chance that what you care about will exactly match their weightings. I've also said to be slightly wary of even their sectional overall ratings at times, due to weightings again, although they often hadn't been that bad before. Their plots are where they've had the good stuff, just look at their measurements section. But the weird thing is this time their overall sectional rating is so weird for low-light sports.
They gave the 5D3 a much lower sectional overall mark for that than D800. I think they rated it a tiny bit closer to the 5D2 than the D800 even for high ISO and yet if you look at all of their charts I don't see how they (sensibly) came up with that. They give the overall low-light sports win to the D800 by a large margin. How? Based on what? Something a little odd with that.... they punished the 5D3 for reducing the color-filter array, making it more color-blind, it probably is fair to push it for that since it has the worst metamerism ratings I've ever seen for a DSLR from what I recall, but OTOH in the real world usage the way they weight things exaggerated it all a bit I think so I think it rather overstates the apparent usable difference quite a lot, although it's probably useful to keep the camera makers honest, the filter has now been reduced as far as you'd ever want to go and it is true Nikon gets to the same noise level while using a less color blind filter)
Anyway they report that for base ISO dynamic range that the D800 has 2.5 stops better DR at base ISO (even more usable, but they don't take banding into account) than the 5D2 and that the 5D2 measures 0.12 stops more than the 5D3 (although the 5D3 usable is probably a trace more, but once you are talking 1/4,1/8th stops it's all meaningless anyway, IF the vertical banding can be removed with special software the 5D3 might end up with .25 to .4 or so more usable than the 5D2). (i.e. 100% exactly as predicted by all the incompetent trolls
as were much of the rest below)I reallllllly wish we had been wrong though. This is the one area where the 5D3 blew it. Not one bit of progress for maximum dynamic range since the 1Ds3.... almost half a decade ago. And the camera scores even more color-blind than the 5D2 overall!
--------------
And DxO says that the 5D3 rates each ISO more conservatively than the 5D2 had. So, for instance, ISO3200 on the 5D3 is actually higher than ISO3200 on the 5D2 is so if you compare the two straight up you are actually under selling the 5D3 advantage over the 5D2 a little bit.
--------------
And DxO says that SNR is about 2/3 stops better than the 5D2 (and about the same as the D800). This is actually a really good result. It may not sound like much, but as many had been trying to say, talk of 1.5 to 2 to 3 stops better SNR was just not realistic or even theoretically possible. This brings the 5D3 into a few way tie (with D4 and D800 and D3s, the D3s drops out at ISO100 since it doesn't have that) for the best SNR across the board of any consumer camera ever (although the Canon seems to have to become a bit more color-blind than the others to do this).
-------------------------------------
And DxO says that the high ISO DR of the 5D3 is better than that of the 5D2, by a noticeable amount starting around ISO2000 and up (more than a stop better at the very high ISOs). And that it does better than D800 from around ISO5000 and up in that regard. This very much matches Aglet's chart predictions from a couple days ago, although is chart seems to have exaggerated all of the differences by almost a factor of two, across the board for some reason. Maybe something to do with LR?? But the pattern was exactly as his chart suggested.
----------------
Some had speculated that the 5D3 might have slightly better color sensitivity than the 5D2 and it does, although the difference is smaller than expected and surprisingly the D800 has a bit of an advantage here across the board, well at least ISO1600 and under, fairly surprising.
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
(going by manufacturer ISOs and not rated ISOs in terms of when talking about various ranges)
In summary 5D3 vs 5D2:
5D3 has a full 2/3 stop better SNR across most of the range, expanding to a somewhat great than 1 stop advantage at ISO25,600. Considering how close the 5D2 already was to theoretical best, that is a really solid improvement, and realistically just about everything one could have hoped for. I'm really glad it did turn out to be the 100% full 2/3 stop better and not the more or less meaningless 1/4-1/3 stop some had feared. ;D We got everything that was realistically possible here. ;D
5D3 has better DR than the 5D2 from ISO2000 and up (but sadly not one touch better below ISO2000), although not much in it until ISO3200+.
5D3 has basically the same MP count.
5D3 has better color sensitivity than the 5D2 although it's basically a meaninglessly small improvement until you get to ISO6400 or so and even then it's not all that significant until you get above 12,800 where it does do significanty better in this regard.
The 5D3 has one of the worst metamerism scores I've seen though for daylight, much worse yet than even the 5D2, so it will blend even more shades together than the 5D2 did. However, it trades blue for red so it might actually handle pure reds better than the 5D2 although blues worse, so for reds and red-greens it should do better but for blues and blue greens it should do worse. In some ways I think red and red orange may matter more so in the end perhaps it would be a wash and not actually be any worse, maybe even a touch better?? Really hard to say. It's a very complex business and I don't have enough to go on. Have to think about it more. But overall it is one of the most color-blind of all DSLR it seems. They probably had to cheat to match the top SNR using older sensor technology.
---------------------------------------
LOW ISO ISO100-200: nothing doing sadly, wow, still can't believe they did nothing here, I had taken it as a given it would be so much better here prior to the first samples
(The 2/3 better SNR perhaps mean you can sharpen it a bit more aggressively though? might be rather more color-blind though? maybe a touch less so for red though???)
------
MID ISO ISO400-800: it's a minor update in image quality
(you should be able to sharpen 800 a bit more without getting noise and I guess 800 now becomes as 400 used to be an ISO where you simply don't worry about noise at all)
-----
HIGH ISO ISO1600+: it is a solid improvement, especially ISO2500+ and a very considerable improvement ISO25,600+
------------
The 5D3 has a better sensor (other than perhaps for certain color blindness, but it's hard issue to sort out), but it doesn't really matter much at all until you are above ISO800 for the most part.
The low ISO is a real let down, not only the same MP (maybe OK if they had to for speed/video) but then nothing with the dynamic range or color? They've just sat around and done nothing. D4 doesn't use any fancy Exmor patents and yet they have greatly improved the low ISO dynamic range on it. The low ISO lack of improvement on the 5D3 is the one area I had been expected a certain improvement and feel most let down about the whole camera.
The high ISO SNR is noticeably better though and tied for best ever. ;D
(going by manufacturer ISOs and not rated ISOs in terms of when talking about various ranges)
In summary 5D3 vs 5D2:
5D3 has a full 2/3 stop better SNR across most of the range, expanding to a somewhat great than 1 stop advantage at ISO25,600. Considering how close the 5D2 already was to theoretical best, that is a really solid improvement, and realistically just about everything one could have hoped for. I'm really glad it did turn out to be the 100% full 2/3 stop better and not the more or less meaningless 1/4-1/3 stop some had feared. ;D We got everything that was realistically possible here. ;D
5D3 has better DR than the 5D2 from ISO2000 and up (but sadly not one touch better below ISO2000), although not much in it until ISO3200+.
5D3 has basically the same MP count.
5D3 has better color sensitivity than the 5D2 although it's basically a meaninglessly small improvement until you get to ISO6400 or so and even then it's not all that significant until you get above 12,800 where it does do significanty better in this regard.
The 5D3 has one of the worst metamerism scores I've seen though for daylight, much worse yet than even the 5D2, so it will blend even more shades together than the 5D2 did. However, it trades blue for red so it might actually handle pure reds better than the 5D2 although blues worse, so for reds and red-greens it should do better but for blues and blue greens it should do worse. In some ways I think red and red orange may matter more so in the end perhaps it would be a wash and not actually be any worse, maybe even a touch better?? Really hard to say. It's a very complex business and I don't have enough to go on. Have to think about it more. But overall it is one of the most color-blind of all DSLR it seems. They probably had to cheat to match the top SNR using older sensor technology.
---------------------------------------
LOW ISO ISO100-200: nothing doing sadly, wow, still can't believe they did nothing here, I had taken it as a given it would be so much better here prior to the first samples
(The 2/3 better SNR perhaps mean you can sharpen it a bit more aggressively though? might be rather more color-blind though? maybe a touch less so for red though???)
------
MID ISO ISO400-800: it's a minor update in image quality
(you should be able to sharpen 800 a bit more without getting noise and I guess 800 now becomes as 400 used to be an ISO where you simply don't worry about noise at all)
-----
HIGH ISO ISO1600+: it is a solid improvement, especially ISO2500+ and a very considerable improvement ISO25,600+
------------
The 5D3 has a better sensor (other than perhaps for certain color blindness, but it's hard issue to sort out), but it doesn't really matter much at all until you are above ISO800 for the most part.
The low ISO is a real let down, not only the same MP (maybe OK if they had to for speed/video) but then nothing with the dynamic range or color? They've just sat around and done nothing. D4 doesn't use any fancy Exmor patents and yet they have greatly improved the low ISO dynamic range on it. The low ISO lack of improvement on the 5D3 is the one area I had been expected a certain improvement and feel most let down about the whole camera.
The high ISO SNR is noticeably better though and tied for best ever. ;D
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
In summary 5D3 vs D800:
They have the same SNR across the board (although since you can apply NR better to high MP counts, the D800 would after advanced processing end up doing slightly better for SNR across the board).
The D800 has radically better dynamic range at ISO100 and the same still holds at ISO400. EVen at ISO800 is still noticeably better in that regard. By ISO2000 they are even though. By 25,800 the 5D3 is 1/2 stop ahead.
D800 has a noticeably higher MP count.
D800 has better color sensitivity through ISO800 then very modestly so above that.
D800 has a much better metamerism index for daylight appearing to be less color blind for blues and blue-greens. (for tungsten lighting all three also respond differently but the overall amount of shades they can tell apart are about the same)
IF you want to maintain the reach detail advantage of the D800 over the 5D3 and wonder how they would compare in that case (100% view) the D800 would have to give up 1/2 top to over a stop of DR at ISO3200+) and it would have the same color sensitivity and about 1/2 to 2/3 stop worse SNR but still retain hugely more dynamic range at any of the lower ISOs.
The D800 clearly has a better sensor without any question (other than with two caveats*).
*1. If you shoot almost everything at high ISO it won't be all that much better and you'll have to store much larger files.
2. If you need 6fps speed AND shoot mostly at high iso AND can frame the subject fully at FF size then the 5D3 is better since you get 6fps at FF while the D800 does 6fps only at 1.5c crop and 5fps at 1.2x crop so the 5D3 will certainly give you better image quality, without question, by a noticeable amount. (That said if you subject is too far to be framed as desired at FF then the advantage of the 5D3 goes awawy again since you are basically shooting both at 1.5x crop at that point. So even for low light sports it would only have much better image quality sometimes and in some cases it could have slightly worse.)
In summary 5D3 vs D800:
They have the same SNR across the board (although since you can apply NR better to high MP counts, the D800 would after advanced processing end up doing slightly better for SNR across the board).
The D800 has radically better dynamic range at ISO100 and the same still holds at ISO400. EVen at ISO800 is still noticeably better in that regard. By ISO2000 they are even though. By 25,800 the 5D3 is 1/2 stop ahead.
D800 has a noticeably higher MP count.
D800 has better color sensitivity through ISO800 then very modestly so above that.
D800 has a much better metamerism index for daylight appearing to be less color blind for blues and blue-greens. (for tungsten lighting all three also respond differently but the overall amount of shades they can tell apart are about the same)
IF you want to maintain the reach detail advantage of the D800 over the 5D3 and wonder how they would compare in that case (100% view) the D800 would have to give up 1/2 top to over a stop of DR at ISO3200+) and it would have the same color sensitivity and about 1/2 to 2/3 stop worse SNR but still retain hugely more dynamic range at any of the lower ISOs.
The D800 clearly has a better sensor without any question (other than with two caveats*).
*1. If you shoot almost everything at high ISO it won't be all that much better and you'll have to store much larger files.
2. If you need 6fps speed AND shoot mostly at high iso AND can frame the subject fully at FF size then the 5D3 is better since you get 6fps at FF while the D800 does 6fps only at 1.5c crop and 5fps at 1.2x crop so the 5D3 will certainly give you better image quality, without question, by a noticeable amount. (That said if you subject is too far to be framed as desired at FF then the advantage of the 5D3 goes awawy again since you are basically shooting both at 1.5x crop at that point. So even for low light sports it would only have much better image quality sometimes and in some cases it could have slightly worse.)
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
