5dIII review at DxOMark

[Jon Ruyle]

In case anyone is interested, here it is.
According to the reivew, the iso improvement is about 1/2 stop from the 5DII (much less than claimed, but about as expected), bringing it *almost* on par with the D700

[Daniel Browning]

Only 2293 on the low light ISO score. The D800 has one third stop better performance (2853), despite a 76% higher pixel count. Both are still excellent cameras, of course.

[HDNitehawk]

I went to the review, and stopped reading after the first few lines. The review appears to be written some time ago before they received an actual copy. I was hoping this was a hands on actual review and test.

The sensor test doesn’t give a date they generated it. Nor does it say they actually had a copy to compare, or if they based this comparison on available data.

I have questioned some of DxO’s reviews in the past. This one seems questionable as well.

[DavidEccleston]

I went to their compare thingy (there's a link to their compare tool at the end of the last page). I changed out the 5DmkII for a D800, clicked on measurements, and looked at all the pretty graphs comparing the D800 and the 5DmkIII.

The only difference the graphs show is that there is more dynamic range on the D800 for ISOs under 800. For everything else, they're pretty much equal. The 5DmkIII even has slightly more DR at high ISO.

I'm not sure how this ends up becoming a much higher low-light value for the D800. Low light when using ISO 100 and long exposures?

[Busted Knuckles]

I noticed the 5dIII seemed to have 1 stop for noise issues in other test shots.

As my little T3i is in the shop for a warranty repair, and I got all distracted by a 5dIII on vacation, before I jump up to something like this, I am seriously wondering about DB's switch to n n n nikon and how he likes it after the extended test drive.

It also looks like Nikon thinks a crop body w/ 24megapixels has market appeal....

If I make the jump over to N N N Nikon it wouldn't cost me too much as I am not that deep into it yet (4k in lenses - deep is relative I guess).

Canon may be "right" just like the pedestrian the crosswalk that gets squished by the truck....

This whole light leak thing, and the software "softness" is just really poor form for a "tech" company that is supposed to be 6 sigma

[dsiegel5151]

I went to their compare thingy (there's a link to their compare tool at the end of the last page). I changed out the 5DmkII for a D800, clicked on measurements, and looked at all the pretty graphs comparing the D800 and the 5DmkIII.

The only difference the graphs show is that there is more dynamic range on the D800 for ISOs under 800. For everything else, they're pretty much equal. The 5DmkIII even has slightly more DR at high ISO.

I'm not sure how this ends up becoming a much higher low-light value for the D800. Low light when using ISO 100 and long exposures?

This is why I quit reading DxO: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cam...(brand2)/Nikon

I don't see how these measurements give one sensor a score of a 95 and the other a score of an 81.

Here's another example: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cam...brand3)/Pentax

Notice that the Pentax K5 has scored an 82 overall; however, it is inferior to the 5d Mark III in ever category except Dynamic Range at low Iso settings. Thus, am I to infer that Dynamic Range at low Iso settings is the only measurement that matters when rating a sensor?

[HDNitehawk]

I think the same way about DxO’s reviews.

What would be helpful to read is if we could talk Daniel in to finding a buddy with a 5D III, then he take his D800 and the lens that works on both cameras, and give us a side by side sample review. (big hint hint…)

[Daniel Browning]

I went to the review, and stopped reading after the first few lines. The review appears to be written some time ago before they received an actual copy. I was hoping this was a hands on actual review and test.

Yeah, there's no updated review as far as I know. What's new is the data.

The sensor test doesn’t give a date they generated it. Nor does it say they actually had a copy to compare,

I assume they only test one copy. But it would be nice if they did a dozen or so. Plus if they re-tested every 3 months to see how consistent Canon's manufacturing is. Also, I want a pony.

or if they based this comparison on available data.

DxO generates all their own data.

I have questioned some of DxO’s reviews in the past. This one seems questionable as well.

With few exceptions, their numbers usually match up very closely with other similar tests from around the web. But sometimes they're way off (bad copy?), or obviously made an error somewhere (like when one ISO setting is way off). We'll see how this compares to other test data (e.g. R. Clark).

The only difference the graphs show is that there is more dynamic range on the D800 for ISOs under 800. For everything else, they're pretty much equal. The 5DmkIII even has slightly more DR at high ISO.

That's only if you shoot high ISO by actually changing the setting on your camera. If you do it the better way (for the D800), by just changing exposure, and push it in post, then the D800 has far more dynamic range at any ISO. But not everyone can or would want to do that, for a variety of good reasons (less useful image preview, braindamaged raw converters, etc.).

I'm not sure how this ends up becoming a much higher low-light value for the D800. Low light when using ISO 100 and long exposures?

DxO's low light score is measured by finding the (equivalent) ISO that can you shoot while maintaining a certain minimum quality level. Specifically:

SNR 30dB, 9 EV DR, and 18 bits of color depth. That's a much higher minimum standard of quality than what I personally require, but it matches pretty good with most photographers.

, I am seriously wondering about DB's switch to n n n nikon and how he likes it after the extended test drive.

Still liking it so far. I shot some comparison tests using the same lens on both my 5D2 and D800, but I haven't really analyzed them yet.

It also looks like Nikon thinks a crop body w/ 24megapixels has market appeal....

I think they're right. Personally, I'd like to see at least 100 MP in an APS-C camera.

[Daniel Browning]

This is why I quit reading DxO [...] I don't see how these measurements give one sensor a score of a 95 and the other a score of an 81.

It's pretty simple. You measure three areas of performance (DxO's portrait, landscape, and sports scores) and then average them together. The D800 sensor did better in all three, so it had a higher combined score.

Here's another example: [...] Notice that the Pentax K5 has scored an 82 overall; however, it is inferior to the 5d Mark III in ever category except Dynamic Range at low Iso settings. Thus, am I to infer that Dynamic Range at low Iso settings is the only measurement that matters when rating a sensor?

No. Say Johnny gets 65% in Chemistry, 65% in English, and 100% in Math. While Sally gets 70% in all three. Sally beat Johnny in two out of three subjects, but Johnny's GPA is still higher. Are you to infer that Math is the only subject that matters when calculating someone's GPA?

Any time you try to reduce something down to a single number, it will *not* reflect the full reality and complexity of the situation.

Summarizing something as complicated and nuanced as sensor performance into a single number is impossible. But a lot of people *want* a single number, because they don't have the time or inclination to learn all that stuff. So DxO provides the solution for everyone.

At one end of the spectrum (technically-minded folks), it provides the full charts and data so you can go in and see how it really does for yourself. Make up your own metrics that reflect what you do with the camera, and use their data for it.

Towards the other end of the spectrum, DxO has chosen three particular measurements, that while they may not match your shooting exactly, they do reflect the taste and perception of many photographers. You merely choose how important each of these three are to you and weight them yourself (for one, low light may be twice as important as dynamic range and color depth; for another photographer, the reverse).

Then at the very end of the spectrum you have folks for whom even three numbers is too much. They only have time or inclination to compare based on a single number. DxO doesn't know how important the three factors are for every person, so they just weight them equally. I think that's a good choice, even though it doesn't match the weighting that I would use for myself, personally.

[HDNitehawk]

I don't get the D800's high score for Sports (Low Light ISO) performance. I didn't see where they offered graphs or anything to back this up. I would have thought the 5D III would have been the victor here.