p.2 #1 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
freaklikeme wrote:
The tranny mirror can be removed. Then you'll have a usable EVF and LCD.
'Tranny mirror'-less won't AF, which is the upside to the D3200 for a wimp like me. I wonder how usable the AF confirm points will be on D3200 w/ the f/2 ZF's.
Apr 19, 2012 at 01:45 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
:
Tariq Gibran responded:
The big issue with rationalizing the discrepancy between the two in this way is that the higher MP sensor in the D800 has smaller sensels which logically should put it at an even greater disadvantage to the lower MP sensor in the 5DIII. The fact that the D800 sensor, even with it's higher MP/ smaller sensels, is still better justifies calling the 5DIII sensor "spanked".
It is not rationalizing. I have no horse in this race. Smaller sensels don't logically put the D800 at a disadvantage. As Brainiac showed endlessly a few years ago when the 1DsMKIII came out, higher resolution cameras are not at a disadvantage for high ISO if you standardize the output size. The same can be said for color sensitivity, downrezzing compensates greatly for the apparent "logical" disadvantage. DXO reports four measurements. On two of the four (Signal to Noise Ration and Tonal Range, the camera perform almost identically. On the other two the D800 has a clear advantage that can be further specified as I did above. I agree it is a clear win for the D800 as I suggested above, but I also think as is typical the DXO scores distort this advantage.
Apr 19, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
mawz wrote:
The D800's advantage in colour resolution does not come from having higher overall resolution but rather from having a stronger CFA which reduces metamerism and therefore improves colour resolution. Canon is using weak CFA's to offset their lower-performing sensors.
Actually, I think it is the two things combined. Certainly when you equalize output size (e.g., downrezzing the bigger file) having more pixels to work with is a good thing and should improve the color sensitivity. Said another way at the per pixel level the smaller sensels of the D800 (which reduce color sensitivity compared to larger sensels) and the stronger CFA of the D800 offset each other and create remarkably similar color sensitivity as the larger sensels and weaker CFA of the 5D MKIII. It is when one equalize output size that the greater color sensitivity of the D800 becomes evident.
p.2 #4 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
I'll only say that I picked up a NEX-5n recently and have been very impressed with the sensor. (Lens selection sucks though). Since I have mucho dinero invested in Canon glass, I'd like for them to step it up a bit. When I finally upgrade my bodies, which won't be this model generation, I want them to be cutting edge. They may be running into IP problems and finding it difficult to duplicate Sony's progress in some entirely different way.
p.2 #6 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
mco_970 wrote:
'Tranny mirror'-less won't AF, which is the upside to the D3200 for a wimp like me. I wonder how usable the AF confirm points will be on D3200 w/ the f/2 ZF's.
Okay, I see the logic then, strange and twisted as it may be. I don't know about the focus confirm. My only experience with Nikon digital bodies is the D700 and D3, and only with AF lenses.
p.2 #7 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
This reminds of a post on a photography forum about what companies will typically do in an economic downturn (camera companies in this case):
Innovate and tred new ground, or simply double down on your R&D, to jump ahead of your competitors when the economy turns back around
Do nothing new, but increase marketing and advertising budgets to move inventory
Stick your head in the sand and hope it blows over
Nikon clearly went with #1. While not necessarily "innovative" they were obviously busy improving things. What was Canon doing?
Or is Canon innovating in their video capabilities at the expense of still photography?
p.2 #8 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
Looking at the measurement curves, the major difference is in the DR at low-to-mid ISO. Everything else is pretty much identical or very close. By around ISO 1600 the DR difference goes away and above that 5DIII pulls ahead a touch though again not a significant difference. So in terms of high ISO performance there is nothing between the two models. The "shadow lifting" capability of D800 at the low-mid ISOs is the main deal here.
The massive DR at low ISOs has been a feature of recent Sony sensors and it is something which no other company including canon has been able to catch up with up. Even Nikon's acclaimed D3 / D3s sensors don't compete with Sony in that aspect.
p.2 #9 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
freaklikeme wrote:
Okay, I see the logic then, strange and twisted as it may be. I don't know about the focus confirm. My only experience with Nikon digital bodies is the D700 and D3, and only with AF lenses.
Yeah, there are some options here to use nice primes with AF when it's wanted and I could potentially convert my favorite CY's to Nikon mount. For my particular wants in a travel camera, it's tempting (moreso than the NEX 7).
The camera body size is also probably better for my CY35-70. It's OK on NEX, but not going to win any awards for ergonomics.
ETA: if I do decide to go this direction, it would potentially replace 5D2 and NEX 5N in my kit. Kind of an interesting direction for a light landscape/travel setup.
p.2 #10 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
wayne seltzer wrote:
Pretty pathetic sensor development.
Really? At the moment there are only four camera brands that produce full frame 24x36 cameras. If Canon is a tad behind Nikon, "the leader", does it really make their development pathetic? I don't think so. They have had no idea of what soup Nikon cooked during the last three years, so it's of course like russian roulette each time a new camera is released.
And even if Canons sensor development was "pathetic", this camera will produce millions of fantastic photographs from professionals and amateurs, knowing how to use their equipment properly and avoiding the shortcomings.
I'd be happy to own a 5D Mk III, even if I've been a Nikon shooter for quite a while.
p.2 #11 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
Steve Spencer wrote:
It is not rationalizing. I have no horse in this race. Smaller sensels don't logically put the D800 at a disadvantage. As Brainiac showed endlessly a few years ago when the 1DsMKIII came out, higher resolution cameras are not at a disadvantage for high ISO if you standardize the output size. The same can be said for color sensitivity, downrezzing compensates greatly for the apparent "logical" disadvantage. DXO reports four measurements. On two of the four (Signal to Noise Ration and Tonal Range, the camera perform almost identically. On the other two the D800 has a clear advantage that can be further specified as I did above. I agree it is a clear win for the D800 as I suggested above, but I also think as is typical the DXO scores distort this advantage....Show more →
I don't believe DXO even considers resolution/ MP's as a variable. Traditionally, higher density/ smaller sensels are a disadvantage (something about quantum efficiency and light?).
p.2 #12 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
Makten wrote:
If Canon is a tad behind Nikon, "the leader", does it really make their development pathetic? I don't think so.
We'll have to see what the 1Dx sensor can do to be able to tell, but people are disappointed with Canon's sensor team not so much because they fell behind Sony/Nikon, but because the 5D3 sensor is a slightly warmed over 5D2 sensor. Three years is a lot of time in technology, and..?
Makten wrote:
They have had no idea of what soup Nikon cooked during the last three years, so it's of course like russian roulette each time a new camera is released.
Of course they had an idea. They didn't know the details, and, of course, the price points, but Sony's been putting EXMOR sensors into cameras for quite a while by now. D700 is how old?
p.2 #13 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't believe DXO even considers resolution/ MP's as a variable. Traditionally, higher density/ smaller sensels are a disadvantage.
DxoMark doesn't put higher density sensors at a disadvantage at all. In fact they assume a perfect gain in SNR and DR when the high resolution image is down-sampled to 8MP. So if anything they might be giving the high-res image a slight advantage by assuming perfect mathematical scaling.
p.2 #14 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
I don't understand something. I've seen all of these figures and arguments multiple times over the last month or so as they apply to still photos, but no one seems to have explained why the 5D Mark III has so much less noise in video mode at high ISO than the D800. Anyone have any idea? Is it noise reduction, and the D800 is actually holding more detail than the 5D Mark III? I think it applies to this discussion because if the sensor is worse than the D800, why does it have so much less noise in video mode when compared? When it gets up to 6400 or so, the 5D Mark III seems shockingly better in the noise department. Though the D800 is exposed 2/3 stop higher or so at the same settings, which perhaps is even more puzzling.
p.2 #15 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
The noise in video mode depends on how you convert the full 22mp / 36mp frame to a 1080p video frame. Many DSLRs do line skipping in video mode which means you are not using all pixels from the sensor and throwing away many rows of them. This leads to not-so-great high ISO performance as well as moire issues. I believe 5DIII (unlike 5DII) does pixel binning where you combine the pixels to create the lower res video frame instead of skipping. With that you get better high-iso performance since you are using all pixels and also reduce the chances of moire. Plus at high ISO's that you are talking about 5DIII isn't worse than D800 anyway
p.2 #16 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
What's even more interesting is that the year old m4/3 camera, the GH2, still has better video quality than the 5D Mark III, in everything except perhaps at ISO 3200.
p.2 #17 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
nadroj wrote:
I don't understand something. I've seen all of these figures and arguments multiple times over the last month or so as they apply to still photos, but no one seems to have explained why the 5D Mark III has so much less noise in video mode at high ISO than the D800. Anyone have any idea? Is it noise reduction, and the D800 is actually holding more detail than the 5D Mark III? I think it applies to this discussion because if the sensor is worse than the D800, why does it have so much less noise in video mode when compared? When it gets up to 6400 or so, the 5D Mark III seems shockingly better in the noise department. Though the D800 is exposed 2/3 stop higher or so at the same settings, which perhaps is even more puzzling....Show more →
I think -- and I'm not sure since I'm not much interested in video -- that the 5D3 does pixel binning: each video pixel is a composite of 3x3=9 sensor pixels. That gives it a serious noise advantage over the D800 which does not do pixel binning, but just drops lines to "downsample" from the sensor resolution to the video resolution.
p.2 #18 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
Makten wrote:
I'd be happy to own a 5D Mk III, even if I've been a Nikon shooter for quite a while.
Agreed, the 5DIII seems like a well sorted camera. The only minor niggle (apart from the top LCD light leak metering problem) is the lack of interchangeable focusing screens, but this is work-around-able.
p.2 #19 · D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
To me Canon is moving at a snail's pace, as a lot of the tech in the 5d3 was done for the 7d 2 years ago ie. the AF system, the menu and UI, and the new viewfinder. Looks like they just had to wait for new Digic chip to handle the higher 6fps throughput and voila done. Not much new in sensor tech.
Seems like if you know you are weak in per pixel IQ, then your only chance to compete is to fit more of them on chip than your competitor. Canon can't even do that.
