Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark

[Ricku]

Amusing fanboys are amusing.

The D800 turns out to be a better camera than the 5D3. It gets an amazing score from DxO, and the Canon fanboys reacts like: "Meh, who cares about DxO?! better camera does not make u better photographer! Canon power!!!1"

But if the 5D3 had the same score or higher, they would all be cheering and shouting: "OMG! Look at that fat DxO score! OUR CAMERA IS WINNER!! Take that, Nikon!" ;D

 

[sawsedge]

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.

Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[sparda79]

"OMG! Look at that fat DxO score! OUR CAMERA IS WINNER!! Take that, Nikon!"

Funny... because I actually saw several comments like this on Nikon Rumors ;D

 

[EYEONE]

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.

I really don't think that part of the picture is clipped. It's just bright.

 

[sawsedge]

How many of you used slide film back in the day?

 

[japhoto]

I'm still standing by a few points that I've said earlier in other threads:

1.) The D800 seems to be a great "all-rounder" camera, but I must admit that 5DIII with the improved AF-system comes much closer to being one too.

2.) I still think that D800 owners will have to adapt a medium format "workflow" to get the best results from it. Hand-holding is going to be tricky one here, at least to get sharp images at 1:1.

 

[Gothmoth]

How many of you used slide film back in the day?

i am .. but i won´t go back.....

 

[sawsedge]

I'm still standing by a few points that I've said earlier in other threads:

1.) The D800 seems to be a great "all-rounder" camera, but I must admit that 5DIII with the improved AF-system comes much closer to being one too.

2.) I still think that D800 owners will have to adapt a medium format "workflow" to get the best results from it. Hand-holding is going to be tricky one here, at least to get sharp images at 1:1.

No argument. As I have gone to smaller pixels, I've had to be more careful about my technique to get good images. I won't be surprised to see a lot complaints about it from users who haven't dealt with it before.

 

[markd61]

The numbers are impressive. Fortunately (or unfortunately) no photos ever taken have been good or bad because of lab numbers. Moreover, no one has ever said "That must be a Canon/Nikon/Leica image." by viewing an image and inferring a DxO score.

I like Nikons and I like Canons and I like most cameras. What I really like is a fun camera.

 

[sawsedge]

How many of you used slide film back in the day?

i am .. but i won´t go back.....

Neither will I, digital has spoiled me. But, with the approximately 5 stops of DR in slide film, many photographers made great landscapes, wildlife, and every other type of photograph we enjoy.

 

[EYEONE]

I'm still standing by a few points that I've said earlier in other threads:

1.) The D800 seems to be a great "all-rounder" camera, but I must admit that 5DIII with the improved AF-system comes much closer to being one too.

2.) I still think that D800 owners will have to adapt a medium format "workflow" to get the best results from it. Hand-holding is going to be tricky one here, at least to get sharp images at 1:1.

No argument. As I have gone to smaller pixels, I've had to be more careful about my technique to get good images. I won't be surprised to see a lot complaints about it from users who haven't dealt with it before.

Hand holding won't a problem. It's 36mp but it still has bigger pixels than the 7D.

 

[Gothmoth]

How many of you used slide film back in the day?

i am .. but i won´t go back.....

Neither will I, digital has spoiled me. But, with the approximately 5 stops of DR in slide film, many photographers made great landscapes, wildlife, and every other type of photograph we enjoy.

i know what you wanted to say.
but honest my digital images look so much better them my images back from the 80-90s.

i see the benefit of more DR etc.

 

[briansquibb]

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.

Well you haven't looked at the picture closely enough to spot that:

- exposure was 25 sec
- the highlights were caused by a full blown spotligh just a few feet away. The histogram does not show clippring
- I did nothing to the picture apart from sharpen, resize and convert to jpeg

So it didn't prove anything your point at all.

 

[elflord]

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.

That's true of the aggregate use case scores. But we are discussing the graphs which do indicate unambiguously that the D800 sensor has better dynamic range at low ISO. Whether or not dynamic range at low ISO is important is subjective and depends on how you're using the camera. How to weight the three different use case scores to get the final number is also very subjective (to some users only one of those three measures might matter). Also, they made some somewhat arbitrary choices about the way they combined the different factors to get the high ISO score.

To get a more accurate picture, you really need to look at the measurements to see where the differences really lie, and this is what was done in this thread.

We won't know exactly how good the 5DIII is until we see the scores for that, but it's pretty clear that the D800 has a better performing sensor than the 5D2 (but hardly surprising -- previous Nikon models were already performing better. Even the Sony APS-C cameras were doing better for low ISO dynamic range)

 

[briansquibb]

re. MF cameras ... give me a break!

Yep I guess you are in denial that there is anything better than a D800

 

[Astro]

this is coming from MF users.....

A 36 Megapixel camera, with or without an AA filter is terra incognita for many photographers. Till now, unless one has been able to outlay $25,000 to $50,000 for an MF back, camera and lenses, this type of resolving power has not be accessible. Now, for about $3,000, is the D800 series able to match medium format other than in resolving power? We'll have to wait until photographers with MF systems have a chance to do some comparisons, but I wouldn't take bets either way at this point.

Keep in mind that a 36 Megapixel camera isn't for everyone. If you just shot for the web and electronic media; if you rarely make prints larger than Super-A3 (13X19"), if you don't own high-end glass and know how to get the most from it, then neither the D800 nor the D800e are going to make a visible difference to your photography – at least not in terms of their higher resolving power. But if you do make large prints, do have some top Nikon and third party lenses, and do understand and practice optimum shooting technique, then it's my guess that there is nothing for the price that will do as much for your output as one of these two new cameras.

I can tell you that I have placed my order for a Nikon D800e from my local dealer, and hope to take delivery in mid-April. This coincides with my return to Toronto from Mexico, and I expect to spend a good part of the summer shooting various projects (stills and video) with the new Nikon. You can therefore expect several reports on the D800e to appear here in the weeks and months ahead. Friends and colleagues with various MF gear, including the Leica S2, Pentax 645D and Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad backs have already volunteered to help with comparison shoots, and likely the web will be full of such from other sources as well before long.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_or_d800e.shtml


i stay with canon.. but fair is fair....

and i think there is no question that it will be more versatile then a MF camera.

 

[briansquibb]

this is coming from MF users.....

A 36 Megapixel camera, with or without an AA filter is terra incognita for many photographers. Till now, unless one has been able to outlay $25,000 to $50,000 for an MF back, camera and lenses, this type of resolving power has not be accessible. Now, for about $3,000, is the D800 series able to match medium format other than in resolving power? We'll have to wait until photographers with MF systems have a chance to do some comparisons, but I wouldn't take bets either way at this point.

Keep in mind that a 36 Megapixel camera isn't for everyone. If you just shot for the web and electronic media; if you rarely make prints larger than Super-A3 (13X19"), if you don't own high-end glass and know how to get the most from it, then neither the D800 nor the D800e are going to make a visible difference to your photography – at least not in terms of their higher resolving power. But if you do make large prints, do have some top Nikon and third party lenses, and do understand and practice optimum shooting technique, then it's my guess that there is nothing for the price that will do as much for your output as one of these two new cameras.

I can tell you that I have placed my order for a Nikon D800e from my local dealer, and hope to take delivery in mid-April. This coincides with my return to Toronto from Mexico, and I expect to spend a good part of the summer shooting various projects (stills and video) with the new Nikon. You can therefore expect several reports on the D800e to appear here in the weeks and months ahead. Friends and colleagues with various MF gear, including the Leica S2, Pentax 645D and Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad backs have already volunteered to help with comparison shoots, and likely the web will be full of such from other sources as well before long.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_or_d800e.shtml


i stay with canon.. but fair is fair....

and i think there is no question that it will be more versatile then a MF camera.

For me personally I dont output at larger than Super A3 (A3+) so the D800 has no benefits.

The MF is really a niche camera - I was saying that it would be better for landscapes than the D800. I have seen a wall sized landscape print from a 80mb Mamiya/Leaf and the IQ was stunning - the D800 cant compete with this type of camera.

If we are talking of all rounder between the D800 and the 5D3 well I dont think it is as clear cut as some are saying

 

[Spriter]

I am mesmerized by this. What does that means.

Nikon is able to do a great sensor on FF 36mp but in comparison failed to benefit from all the light available to their smaller sensor on the D4? To me, this is rather choking. Can't be.

When looking to DXOMark sensor evaluation I can't help but think that there is something wrong about all this. They apparently are doing this on production unit and the D800 does not ship yet. Is this because Canon is now shipping and has a lot of success with their sales?

I can't trust them. That's all.

 

[Astro]

I am mesmerized by this. What does that means.

Nikon is able to do a great sensor on FF 36mp but in comparison failed to benefit from all the light available to their smaller sensor on the D4? To me, this is rather choking. Can't be.

question is.. nikon or sony?

but you are right i wondered about the D4 too.

 

[Marsu42]

Personally, I don't see much groundbreaking about it besides the 36MP.

Imho the groundbreaking fact about the D800 is that they have 36mp and *still* get better noise and dr results which contradicts everything ever said about the disadvantages of high mp sensors. If they'd put in a 22mp sensor too, the big leap forward would be much more obvious because dr/noise would make the Canon sensors look like a past generation.