DXO Labs publishes sensor rankings on Canon 5D MK II (lower than Nikon and Sony)

[CannedHeat]

Just passing this along:

5D MK II ranked lower than Nikon D3, Nikon D700 and even Canon 1Ds Mark III (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor)

and on the main page (http://www.dxomark.com/), Sony is ranked higher (although I don't understand why Sony wasn't on the secondary page)

[ErikM]

OMG... should I return my 5D2 then?

I mean.. if it ranks below the $7000 1ds III...

[basroil]

That place is full of BS and meaningless numbers. They site using the "proper" ISO procedure for measuring iso speed, but fail to tell you which of the three methods they used. On top of that, they make absolutely no attempt to tell you what the photos actually look like and just assume that numbers >> actual photo quality. Also, do note that these are all full sized RAW files, and they are comparing a 21mp camera to just 12mp cameras. If they used sRAW1, then they would find themselves in quite a predicament, as the results do not scale linearly with size.

[MarKap77]

Yeah, wow, they did. A whole 1.6 points less than the top camera rated. I say burn all the Canon cameras and go with Nikon. They are SO much better!

(not directed at you, CannedHeat)

Geez, I get so tired of everyone saying how bad this or that thing is when compared to something else. Or that it lost in a totally objective test by some independent lab. Hey, the 5D Mk II is in the same league will all the big boys. Yeah, it got rated slightly lower than the Nikon, but so what? All devices have some differences, and just because someone else says it's better (or worse) isn't' the only reason to buy or not buy. Try it out yourself.

Me, I could care less about how the Nikons rank, because I am so heavily invested in Canon lenses. I already made a mistake when I got my first SLR by buying Olympus, so I'm not gonna change brands just because whatever Nikon makes is 1% better in some blind taste test.

Sorry for the rant.

[timnosenzo]

I don't really understand what this is telling us though. I mean, most people would say that the 1D MKIII has excellent IQ, for both noise control and tonal range, yet it seems to rank lower than the Nikon D90 & the 1Ds MKII. Just seems strange.

[Perry Ge]

I'm sorry, but who gives a ****? Number crunching is even worse than pixel peeping.

This isn't directed at the OP, I know you're just passing this along, but you know some folk are gonna go 'omg the 5DII sucks' because of something like this. I don't see how these kinds of things have any impact on actual photography, it just contributes to the wang-size contest that a good chunk of the DSLR market has become. People need to just get out and take some damn pictures!

[timnosenzo]

Check out the "Low Light ISO Ranking". The 1D MKIII falls lower than the 1Ds MKII, the 1Ds MKIII, the Sony A900 (which has abysmal high ISO performance IMO) and even the original 5D. That just doesn't seem to match real world results.

[CannedHeat]

This isn't directed at the OP,

Thank you, and yes I would prefer it be kept that way. That's why, in the post, I made no comment. I simply passed on an article of interest and what the article said.

[r1ch]

OMG... should I return my 5D2 then?

I mean.. if it ranks below the $7000 1ds III...

No, you should return it because it has black dots and a print button.:lol:

[CannedHeat]

A positive analysis from CNET.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10120186-39.html

[ErikM]

No, you should return it because it has black dots and a print button.:lol:

I love direct printing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MuahMan]

OMG... should I return my 5D2 then?

I mean.. if it ranks below the $7000 1ds III...


Yeah return it and get the 1Ds. Let me know what store you returned it to. :)

[Croasdail]

You all act like someone told you your mother is ugly. Shame on DXO for not rating the 5D mk II the worlds greatest camera ever numerically. How dare they. Its about noise... screw it that Nikon right now has greater dynamic range... who needs that anyway.

Common you all. Like one poster said, the differences is next to nothing, 1.5 points. There are tons of reasons to buy a camera, the numbers (which do count) are only ONE factor.

Just like a car, MPG is a measure to see how one car compares to another. In real world use, your milage may vary based on your driving/shooting style. A crappy shooter using a 1D or 5D that doesn't know to dial in some exposure compensation to prevent highlights from clipping isn't going to get better pictures than someone who has a clue with a 40D. It is down to what you know, not what rating your camera got. In this case, unlike other debatable conditions, size doesn't matter. If your not getting compelling shots, it isn't your gears fault.

[narlus]

there's a thread on the concert photography board w/ one guy now proclaiming that his minimum specification for signal to noise ratio on a digital body is 32 dB.

i can't make this stuff up.

[CannedHeat]

Common you all. Like one poster said, the differences is next to nothing, 1.5 points. There are tons of reasons to buy a camera, the numbers (which do count) are only ONE factor.

This is apparently a sensor quality evaluation, all other points disregarded.

When Consumer Reports evaluates an item, they consider quality AND price to determine a Value. As noted, with the close numbers involved Consumer Reports might have evaluated this as the BestBuy.