Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark

[DZY]

Many people here are shooting for events which is usually in low light environment. D800 cannot bring much benefits for them even though it has more details and better DR.

But the D800 doesn't really hurt either. When the D800 image is downsized to 5D Mark III sizes, it's ISO 6400 images are virtually identical to the 5D Mark III image in terms of noise. I haven't compared higher ISOs myself. Video at higher ISOs do suffer on the D800 though.

to downsize the picture? What a joke to these downsize from nikon, first, why not you downsize both 5D3 and D800 to 800x600, I bet they will be the same. To be extreme, we can downsize any photo to 1x1 size and all picture will be the same for the same scene and exposure. Second, are you buying a 36MP camera and use as a 22MP each every time?

 

[Dylan777]

Making it the Highest Rated Sensor they've tested. Impressive! Don't Let us down Canon.

Nikon D800

Overall Score - 95

Color Depth - 25.3 bits

Dynamic Range - 14.4

Low Light ISO - 2853

This is killing me, I think Canon's going to lose this round big. I'm not jumping ship though, I'll still get the 5D3 or 1D X... because I just can't stand how the Nikon Cameras feel in my hand, and I've got all my Canon Gear.

My 5D III scored 120pts in my lab ;D

 

[cliffwang]

Many people here are shooting for events which is usually in low light environment. D800 cannot bring much benefits for them even though it has more details and better DR.

But the D800 doesn't really hurt either. When the D800 image is downsized to 5D Mark III sizes, it's ISO 6400 images are virtually identical to the 5D Mark III image in terms of noise. I haven't compared higher ISOs myself. Video at higher ISOs do suffer on the D800 though.

to downsize the picture? What a joke to these downsize from nikon, first, why not you downsize both 5D3 and D800 to 800x600, I bet they will be the same. To be extreme, we can downsize any photo to 1x1 size and all picture will be the same for the same scene and exposure. Second, are you buying a 36MP camera and use as a 22MP each every time?

I believe that's not what the poster want to say. The poster want to say in low ISO, D800 has better IQ than 5D3. In high ISO, you would also get same IQ after downsizing the photos. You actually don't need to downsize the photos because when you print them on 11 inches paper or display on your monitor, they are already downsized automatically.
The argue part is high MP will slow down your camera performance and request more processor power on your computer. However, it bring more details. That's trade off. I take only about 8K to 10K photos a year. For me I would like Canon release a high MP camera like D800.

 

[sarangiman]

the result becomes a system overall performance.

... which is exactly what we should care about.

It has been well known in the astrophotography that Nikon does NOT output real raw data, some degrees of NR is applied to their RAW.

This is a good point, something I didn't want to get into earlier b/c of the complexity of the issue. But since you brought it up... what one can do is actually fit the quantitated data from the RAW file (of the wedge shot) to the theoretical luminosity curve of the wedge. You can then find the point at which the fit deviates significantly from the model, & set that as your lower end. To standardize results, maybe set a 'maximum deviance' criterion. From this fit vs. model you can also detect 'shadow crushing'... that is, if data is significantly clipped on the lower end (as some suspect is the case for Nikon RAWs), the quantitated data will deviate from the model quicker (instead of continuing to be linear on a log scale, the quantitated data will level out). I've done these measurements for a D7000 vs. my 5D II & 5D III; both cameras show this 'toe' on the darker end, & even if you pick the lower acceptable end based on this toe, the D7000 is still ~2 stops better than any of the 5D series bodies.

Let's put another grey color filter, there is no maximum white to be represented by the sensor any more

[list type=decimal]
[*]First of all, that's an extreme case.
[*]Secondly, of course there's still maximum white... you adjust the exposure. Like I said, you take exposures right around the exposure that blows the brightest patch. An ND filter, e.g., simply does not trip up this methodology whatsoever.
[/list]

I just don't see how you can say the DXO score IS the sensor only properties.

I never claimed anything of the sort.

to downsize the picture? What a joke to these downsize from nikon, first, why not you downsize both 5D3 and D800 to 800x600, I bet they will be the same. To be extreme, we can downsize any photo to 1x1 size and all picture will be same for same the scene and exposure. Second, are you buying a 36MP camera and use as a 22MP each every time?

Since this has been covered extensively in other threads, I won't belabor the point... but, in a nutshell, the point is simply that the 36MP camera offers you the advantage of more resolution if you want it, while giving you just as clean images at the resolution of the 5D Mark III.

I will say though that it would've been nice for Nikon to include mRAW functionality for lower resolution RAW images right off the camera to ease the workflow of photographers. But that has its own issues, since mRAWs require demosaicing prior to downsizing (and so you don't benefit from the freedom of choice of demosaicing algorithm, or the evolution of such algorithms in the future). So perhaps it behooves RAW converters (ACR, Aperture, etc.) to offer this option in their software as we get higher & higher megapixel cameras... but that raises other issues -- e.g. do you save the original RAW file or not?

 

[EchoLocation]

i would have read all of this thread but i've been out all weekend shooting with my 5Dmk3
since i don't really follow the lab tests or particularly care about them for that matter, 95 is good is it?

Second to that. There will always be something better out there. I can't say if D800 is better because I. don't care. I've had my MkIII a couple of weeks now and it's just great. Being just an ethusiast I have learnt tons already. Yesterday even my wife commented that the pics looks greater than with my old 60D. I'll continue shoot this weekend and not worry too much about what Nikon does, I hope all D800 owners are just as happy I am though.

If you don't care, that's fine. However, when i choose to spend over 3000 dollars on an item I usually want to know I'm getting the best that I possibly can for my money. From the tests, reviews, sample shots I've seen, the 5DIII is at best as good as the D800 and is often considered to get destroyed by the Nikon. Personally, I prefer the feel of the 5DIII more, but I think the 800 takes better pictures. I would love to have either, but I own Canon now, and there is no way that I would pay 500 dollars MORE for the III than the 800. I might pay 2700 for the Canon if the Nikon was 3000. As of now, It seems like Canon simply got killed this round, I am waiting for the D600 and Canon's mirrorless response/Photokina before making my next purchase.
I was really hoping for a D600ish Canon for around 2000 to upgrade to from my 5DC.

 

[bkorcel]

Well tough to say that the D800 kills the 5dm3. Maybe it kills it for YOU! I am just happy enough to be able to use my canon gear instead of waiting for stock somewhere.

And for the record, I am a canon user simply because three associates have had Nikon failures during critical shoots and thus far I cannot say that about anyone I know that uses canon gear. So if 500 bucks more for the m3 buys me reliability then it's worth it indeed!

 

[unfocused]

All this macho fighting over the trees, without seeing the forest.

The significance here is the convergence of quality between APS-C and full frame. The objective differences get smaller and smaller with each new generation. It doesn't matter if Nikon or Canon has a slight edge this month, the long march is toward indistinguishable differences in quality between two different size sensors.

 

[sarangiman]

It doesn't matter if Nikon or Canon has a slight edge this month

>2 stops more dynamic range is hardly a 'slight edge'. If you extrapolate the read noise performance of Sony's EXMOR sensor on the D800 to a lower resolution 16MP sensor, it could have 15.8 stops of dynamic range. I'm not saying that's a valid extrapolation, but it certainly might be possible if they can keep the read noise down to ~3 electrons while increasing the saturation point.

16 stops of dynamic range would be absolutely game-changing/revolutionary for certain types of photography.

If that doesn't matter to you, sure it's absolutely valid for you to not care. My main point was that it's unfair to call DXO biased. They're reporting on image quality, after all.

 

[sanj]

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...

Disagree that 1 stop improvement is not a big deal. It certainly is. I have the 5d3 and am very happy with it, but 1 stop improvement would have been super for me for all low light action photography I do with tele lenses in jungles.

 

[sarangiman]

Disagree that 1 stop improvement is not a big deal. It certainly is. I have the 5d3 and am very happy with it, but 1 stop improvement would have been super for me for all low light action photography I do with tele lenses in jungles.

... and it's not just a 1 stop improvement. According to DXO's numbers, you can underexpose your image 3 stops at ISO 100 on the D800 & have it look like the properly exposed image at ISO 100 on the 5D3. If you wanted to use the same shutter speed/aperture on the 5D3 as the 3-stop underexposed exposure on the D800, you'd have to use ISO 800 on the 5D3, which of course then runs the risk of significantly blowing highlights that would be retained in the D800 exposure. Meanwhile, the shadows of the 5D3 ISO 800 image would not be any cleaner than the D800 ISO 100 image pushed 3 stops in post (and, in fact, might be worse). So the advantage goes to the D800.

And it's not just obsession over numbers. My real-world landscape comparisons (literally side-by-side using a dual camera mount on my tripod) show an incredible advantage to the Nikon D7000 over any of the 5D cameras. Haven't gotten my D800 yet (Advantage: Canon!) so can't comment on real-world comparisons in my own hands yet.

In my opinion, they should have allowed for an ISO-less option on the D800 w/ a 'floating' ISO that doesn't actually apply any amplification in the hardware but, instead, allows you to apply it in software during RAW development (much like white balance controls for RAW now).

 

[lonebear]

All this macho fighting over the trees, without seeing the forest.

The significance here is the convergence of quality between APS-C and full frame. The objective differences get smaller and smaller with each new generation. It doesn't matter if Nikon or Canon has a slight edge this month, the long march is toward indistinguishable differences in quality between two different size sensors.

+1.

And that will eventually affect the lens selection, probably the lens design of the entire focal range.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Dynamic Range - 14.4

The D800 has 14 bits A/D converters, so how could it have more than 14 bits of dynamic range?

 

[sarangiman]

The D800 has 14 bits A/D converters, so how could it have more than 14 bits of dynamic range?

Well, let me put it this way: a JPEG file is 8-bit, but that doesn't mean that the maximum scene dynamic range it can encode is only 8 stops, yes?

Similarly, though you want to typically match the bit-depth of the ADC to the dynamic range of the sensor (to decrease quantization errors & retain maximum tonality), it's not necessary.

In this case, DXO got 14.4 b/c of their normalization process. Any time you downsample an image, you decrease noise. Decreased noise means a lower acceptable signal at which SNR=1; hence the dynamic range increase.

 

[loveboxer]

I have only read a few of the posts in this thread. This is what I have to share. My partner and I have a photo studio in L.A. and we have had working relations with both Nikon and Canon. I shot for almost 20 years exclusively on Nikon and my partner on a Canon for almost 10. We have been shooting for the last 3 years on a 5D2. When the D800 and 5D3 was announced a few months back, we scoured the net for every review and user feedback there is, almost nightly.

We literally spend a few hours every day talking about this subject because we know that the camera we choose will be what we live with for the next three years and perhaps longer because it is a pain to switch. The feedback from the net about a D800 including DXO had my partner switch his entire system to Nikon, to two D700's and Nikons top glass, to buy him time until he could get his hands on D800's.

I could not wait to switch, being a Nikon fan boy but i decided to be prudent and just wait until after I did a side by side test of both cameras, D800 to 5D3.

Finally, last week we found two places that had both cameras available for us to shoot with. My partner was so excited because he was well prepared with all his beautiful Nikon glass and I was so excited just because I was used to my Nikon ergonomics. I know it sounds funny but I just never settled into the way the Canon feels in my hand and I often have to ask him to remind me how to adjust settings because they are not yet intuitive to me with Canon. I can pick up a Nikon and dial it in with my eye's closed.

Well, if you are wondering why the hell I am telling the internet all this in a Canon forum??? Well, I thought you Canon folk would like to know this. My partner and I live and support our families from photography. We are good at what we do. We took a D800 and a 5D3, with their best equivalent glass and shot them side by side, with the same settings. We did this for three days at two separate locations that had different cameras, just to make sure, there was no problem with any of the cameras influencing the outcome or the ambiance of the space affecting the color balance.

Moral of the story..... My partner has already begun selling ALL his Nikon gear. I am not switching back to Nikon...

Let it be known that when virtually every comparative shot was put side by side, the Canon won in sharpness, color balance or just a feeling that would draw us to the Canon image. The Canon shot was picked over the Nikon almost every time even though it was the smaller image and that size seems to usually impress / influence, as it would when we would compare a D700 file to a 5D2.

Moral of the story, no internet review or forum told us what our tests revealed to us, not one... Or if they did, they got shuffled because our minds seem to selectively choose what we want to read / listen to..


All the best...

L.B.

 

[Kernuak]

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...

Disagree that 1 stop improvement is not a big deal. It certainly is. I have the 5d3 and am very happy with it, but 1 stop improvement would have been super for me for all low light action photography I do with tele lenses in jungles.

Dynamic range would have virtually no relevance in a jungle, as in low light situations, dynamic range is very low, certainly well within the range that any Canon Camera can capture (unless there is directional light lighting up part of the scene, such as in clearings). Low noise at high ISO is more relevant. At higher ISOs, if you believe all the numbers, the 5D MkIII actually has the greater DR anyway.

 

[sanj]

I meant 1 stop ISO helps me. Sorry was not clear, was not talking about DR.

 

[SPL]

I have only read a few of the posts in this thread. This is what I have to share. My partner and I have a photo studio in L.A. and we have had working relations with both Nikon and Canon. I shot for almost 20 years exclusively on Nikon and my partner on a Canon for almost 10. We have been shooting for the last 3 years on a 5D2. When the D800 and 5D3 was announced a few months back, we scoured the net for every review and user feedback there is, almost nightly.

We literally spend a few hours every day talking about this subject because we know that the camera we choose will be what we live with for the next three years and perhaps longer because it is a pain to switch. The feedback from the net about a D800 including DXO had my partner switch his entire system to Nikon, to two D700's and Nikons top glass, to buy him time until he could get his hands on D800's.

I could not wait to switch, being a Nikon fan boy but i decided to be prudent and just wait until after I did a side by side test of both cameras, D800 to 5D3.

Finally, last week we found two places that had both cameras available for us to shoot with. My partner was so excited because he was well prepared with all his beautiful Nikon glass and I was so excited just because I was used to my Nikon ergonomics. I know it sounds funny but I just never settled into the way the Canon feels in my hand and I often have to ask him to remind me how to adjust settings because they are not yet intuitive to me with Canon. I can pick up a Nikon and dial it in with my eye's closed.

Well, if you are wondering why the hell I am telling the internet all this in a Canon forum??? Well, I thought you Canon folk would like to know this. My partner and I live and support our families from photography. We are good at what we do. We took a D800 and a 5D3, with their best equivalent glass and shot them side by side, with the same settings. We did this for three days at two separate locations that had different cameras, just to make sure, there was no problem with any of the cameras influencing the outcome or the ambiance of the space affecting the color balance.

Moral of the story..... My partner has already begun selling ALL his Nikon gear. I am not switching back to Nikon...

Let it be known that when virtually every comparative shot was put side by side, the Canon won in sharpness, color balance or just a feeling that would draw us to the Canon image. The Canon shot was picked over the Nikon almost every time even though it was the smaller image and that size seems to usually impress / influence, as it would when we would compare a D700 file to a 5D2.

Moral of the story, no internet review or forum told us what our tests revealed to us, not one... Or if they did, they got shuffled because our minds seem to selectively choose what we want to read / listen to..


All the best...

L.B.

Nice!...

 

[Marsu42]

Let it be known that when virtually every comparative shot was put side by side, the Canon won in sharpness, color balance or just a feeling that would draw us to the Canon image.

YEAH! In your face, Nikon!

If the winner wouldn't have been the 5d3, someone anonymous with one (1) post giving a such a clear-cut message contrary by all known facts would be a damn Nikon troll! But now, I'm sure this post is very soothing to Canon folks' minds ... I hope the poster will deliver the good news all over the Internet.

But wait, after thinking again: Canon, stop spending the profit from my purchases for viral marketing, but start working on a really improved sensor already, will you !?

 

[HarryWintergreen]

this 'who's got the best camera and if it's not my brand I'm gonna fall into despair' attitude still doesn't appeal to me. Is there anybody out there who believes seriously his or her poor Canon gear will prevent him or her from showing what his or her creativity is up to? And will we have to assume a future started by the D800 where people say, 'oh quite nice with your 5D3 but if you had taken your images with a Nikon body this would have made the essential difference and therefore stay in the realm of inferiority'?

 

[lonebear]

Canon has been making small improvements here and there over years, which leads to systemwise advantage in quality and useability. I think it pays off in that side by side test. But, hey, Canon, in terms of sensors, you are lagging behind. How about another three years, show us some improvement in that department...

Expecting Photokina this September to see what "big splash" Canon is going to make.