Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark

H

Higs42

Guest
The data presented here is for the old Canon cameras. We will see how the new Nikon compares to the new Canon cameras at some point, but not yet. So at least keep your comments to reality, not making things up that you hope or wish to be true. If you have the data for the 5D3 or 1DX, let's see it and we can discuss, but comparing a new camera to 4 year old designs was my point.
 

birtembuk

EOS 90D
Feb 23, 2012
115
0
Numbers are numbers, field is field and I would not buy a gear based on DxO reviews. Just remember the review of the 70-200/2.8II by them. It fares worse than the Sony 70-200/2.8 G...

We are talking here of pure academic assessment by guys in white coat in an immaculate lab. In absolute terms, for sure the D800 sensor will out-resolve the 5D3's. Period. No need whining. Now, just pixel-peep the Still-life 6400 at http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM and compare between D800 and 5D3. Not surprisingly, D800 will out-resolve the 5D3 in the fabrics area. This is to be expected as fabrics are sort of micro 3D textures that require lots of resolving power for extracting details. Good if you are in the garment industry. Now, move around anywhere else in the pictures and conclude by yourself. For me, there's a two stops difference in ISO. As far as I am concerned, that's what I am looking for.

So, what's the big deal here ? ISO or resolution ? Just make you pick and be happy ever after.
 
S

SRHelicity

Guest
V8Beast said:
psolberg said:
Higs42 said:
So in summary, when you compare the new Nikon that is just hitting the market, it outperforms a Canon 5d2 that was designed in 2008. Mother of god, who would have guessed?
No. It beats everything recent. And this is the terrible high mp sensor everybody dismissed as being noisy and bad :)

Yes, there were lots of Canon fan body in denial, but I think the D800 has proven itself as having a great sensor. To my eyes, however, the real-world benefits of its awesomeness are tough to spot in most of the images taken with it so far.

+1

The data are what they are. The results are not "biased" (I hear "DxO is biased against Canon" occasionally, which is false) -- they are designed to be objective. However, what is important is to remember what the numbers represent. They do not represent ease of use, speed and complexity of the AF system, and in-camera features. They don't represent the lens ecosystem, nor do they represent the accessories that are available for that particular camera. Altogether, they DO NOT represent which camera will be best for YOU. We all have different shooting characteristics (shooting sports vs. portraits vs. landscapes, etc.) and buying criteria (budget, lenses owned, etc.), so a camera with a higher DxO score doesn't mean that it'd be better for YOU or for ME. DxO results *are* effective at giving us some objective data, however, to allow us to judge sensor performance.
 

dr croubie

Too many photos, too little time.
Jun 1, 2011
1,382
0
dilbert said:
Thus far, all the evidence points to the 5D3 being about the same as the 5D2 for ISO 100 through to 400.

And if that's the case, regardless of how well the 5D3 does in high-iso performance, if the iso 100-400 just plateaus again at 12-13 bits DR, then they're pretty much handing landscape photographers on a platter over to Nikon...
 
A

Astro

Guest
FanBoyKillah said:
And please no, "What if Canon makes a camera like this in a year with more MPs are you going to switch back?" Because the truth is I wouldn't switch back because Canon will never make a camera like this, not in a long time if ever.

if i had your gift to foresee the future i would not waste my time in a studio with a 35mm.... i would go to vegas!!
 
K

KeithR

Guest
V8Beast said:
I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time.
Even when you do pixel peep, people reach different conclusions based on their biases. If this is someone's idea of enjoying photography, I find it quite pathetic.
To my eyes, however, the real-world benefits of its awesomeness are tough to spot in most of the images taken with it so far.
And yet you'd already decided that the D800 was the way to go, purely on the basis of spec sheets.
 
K

KeithR

Guest
sarangiman said:
Which is impressive given the much smaller pixel pitch
Pixel pitch has no relevance whatsoever to relative sensor performance.
 
S

smirkypants

Guest
That sound.... that loud rumbling... it's the sound of a herd of Canon landscape photographers rushing to buy a D800 and a 14-24/2.8. It crushes on MP and it crushes on DR. It will happen, and all the defensive fanboy snottiness isn't going to change that.

I don't shoot landscape. The D800 is the wrong camera for me, but all the signs point to it being killer.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
smirkypants said:
That sound.... that loud rumbling... it's the sound of a herd of Canon landscape photographers rushing to buy a D800 and a 14-24/2.8. It crushes on MP and it crushes on DR. It will happen, and all the defensive fanboy snottiness isn't going to change that.

I don't shoot landscape. The D800 is the wrong camera for me, but all the signs point to it being killer.

+1
agree 100%

14.4 stops DR @ ISO 100 ... wow! Even if DXO-Marks intransparent testing was off by 2 stops, it would still best any Canon including 5D III by quite some margin.
 
G

Gothmoth

Guest
sawsedge said:
Reds are poor with defaults from ACR in some Canon models, but I found I can tweak settings and get detail without too much trouble. For more troublesome color images, I use DPP, which usually nails the color.

x-rite colorchecker passport....

you can´t expect accurate colors without such tools in LR.
not from the presets that come with LR.
 
S

smirkypants

Guest
dilbert said:
If I were you I'd settle for commenting on the area of photography that you do engage in.
You are correct. I don't shoot landscapes professionally, therefore I know nothing about composing or shooting one, and that I don't know anything about the tools that are best suited for the job. It also means since I don't shoot landscapes professionally, I don't have any friends that do and that they tell me nothing of their desires and observations. I'm just a monkey... with a 5D3... and a 1D4... oh, and a D4 on order.
 
K

KeithR

Guest
dilbert said:
That means the D800 at ISO 200 is generating images as good as the 5D2 at ISO 100.

Wow - huge!

I do not believe for a moment that this is a game-changing or deal-breaking difference for anyone - it's just fodder for whiners.

Besides, at the risk of rolling out a hoary old cliché, it takes a damn' sight more a stop of DR more or less at low ISO to make the difference between a "good" and a "bad" image. I'd go as far as to bet that for 99.999% of users out there, it will make no practical difference whatsoever.

Seriously, it boils down to this: if an extra stop at base ISO really is "everything" to a photographer, then maybe the 5D Mk III is not for them: but I guarantee that the rest of the planet will be able to churn out spectacularly fine images in their millions with the 5D Mk III.


This forum is getting depressingly like DPR in terms of the obsession for measurebation over end results...
 
B

briansquibb

Guest
AvTvM said:
smirkypants said:
That sound.... that loud rumbling... it's the sound of a herd of Canon landscape photographers rushing to buy a D800 and a 14-24/2.8. It crushes on MP and it crushes on DR. It will happen, and all the defensive fanboy snottiness isn't going to change that.

I don't shoot landscape. The D800 is the wrong camera for me, but all the signs point to it being killer.

+1
agree 100%

14.4 stops DR @ ISO 100 ... wow! Even if DXO-Marks intransparent testing was off by 2 stops, it would still best any Canon including 5D III by quite some margin.

I have been through my 1ds3 photos using DPP (which shows dr). The 1ds3 is tested at 12+ at 100iso. Most of my pictures dont go past 10 - so a d800 would be of no benefit (for DR). I print no bigger than 20x16 so I am coming to the conclusion that, yes, the D800 measures up in the lab but in the field it has no benefit to me.

For those DR fixated Nikon fanboys - other Nikons give higher than 12DR but they didn't capture the market.

For the serious landscape takers I would suggest something like a Mamiya MF 80mps to capture the detail.

So here is a 10 stop DR picture for you taken at 100 iso, 25 seconds
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4184x.jpg
    IMG_4184x.jpg
    140.9 KB · Views: 1,295

bvukich

EOS RP
CR Pro
dilbert said:
The first thread on this topic has already been deleted by the site admins... wonder how long this one will survive.

It will last as long as people remain civil adults. When threads devolve to ad hominem attacks, that's when they go to the bit-bin.

You can attack the equipment all you want, cogent arguments are preferred, but the inane ones are tolerated. Don't attack the people.
 

elflord

EOS RP
Aug 2, 2011
692
0
KeithR said:
dilbert said:
That means the D800 at ISO 200 is generating images as good as the 5D2 at ISO 100.

Wow - huge!

I do not believe for a moment that this is a game-changing or deal-breaking difference for anyone - it's just fodder for whiners.

Besides, at the risk of rolling out a hoary old cliché, it takes a damn' sight more a stop of DR more or less at low ISO to make the difference between a "good" and a "bad" image. I'd go as far as to bet that for 99.999% of users out there, it will make no practical difference whatsoever.

It's about 2-2.5 stops of difference in dynamic range at base ISO. The difference between SNR is smaller (more like 1 stop).

Not everyone needs the best sensor performance at low ISO, but let's not kid ourselves here -- the D800 sensor is a performer.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
briansquibb said:
So here is a 10 stop DR picture for you taken at 100 iso, 25 seconds

Thanks, your picture proves my point very nicely. With a D800 and its 14.4 stops DR, there would be no clipped highlights on top of that broken wall bottom left.

re. MF cameras ... give me a break!
Nice thing about the D800 is: plenty resolution and plenty DR at ISO 100 ... and still excellent IQ at ISO 3200. Try this with a cludgy, expensive MF camera. And best of all: at a reasonable price of € 2600. I am not going to switch to FF any time soon, but if I had to today, I'd definitely get a D800.

Now smite away fanboys ... oO .. no more smiting ... u'r out of luck now, hehe!
 
K

KeithR

Guest
Here's the problem with DxOMark. They say about themselves:
To design DxOMark Scores, we have made choices about our photographic use cases and their associated image quality requirements (such as resolution, distortion, noise, dynamic range, etc.). It is clear that other photography experts may see things differently. We are very open on this site about the choices we have made so that anyone interested in creating a different scoring system can do so based on their own analysis of our DxOMark Scores and Measurement Database.

They apply arbitrary - and by their own admission, completely subjective - scores to a series of metrics to end up with one number.

The issue is that if you don't give the same priority to the metrics that they do, the scores can be moved substantially.

The simple fact is that DxOMark's conclusions are no more objective than simply looking at the images and picking the one you like best.
 
G

Gothmoth

Guest
AvTvM said:
Now smite away fanboys ... oO .. no more smiting ... u'r out of luck now, hehe!

yes we need an ignore button instead of smiting.... :D
 
K

KeithR

Guest
elflord said:
It's about 2-2.5 stops of difference in dynamic range at base ISO. The difference between SNR is smaller (more like 1 stop).
Oh I know - I was just focusing on the specific 100 ISO/200 ISO reference in the earlier post for simplicity.

Not everyone needs the best sensor performance at low ISO, but let's not kid ourselves here -- the D800 sensor is a performer.
No denying that - the issue here is whether DxOMark has "proved" that it's superior to the 5D Mk III to the extent that some folk on here seem to have bought into.