1st, 2nd, 3rd to Nikon in RAW image quality performance,

[condyk]

Seems Canon is no longer top doggie when it comes to RAW image quality, though the 1Ds Mk II and 5D Mk II put in good performances. Top spots go to D3x, D3, D700 Click (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor)

[basroil]

We've discussed this all over before, DxO does not actually rate the sensors based on ISO 12232:2006 standards for outputs in RAW formats. That means you should take it with a bathtub of salt and look at real world examples instead. In real world tests, 1dsmkiii squarely beats all three by a narrow margin, 5dmkII kicks the D3 and D700 out of the arena, and looks better than the D3x for anything above iso 400 (below that it's more or less a tie)

[jacobsen1]

dxo = don't care.

[Perry Ge]

dxo = don't care.

Ditto. Gimme a D700 with an EF mount anyday, but not because of this dxo crap.

[nphsbuckeye]

My favorites are that the D90 and A900 are better than the 1D Mark III.

[DarthVader]

Don't drink dxo's Kool Aid...remember Canon has its own sensor division.

Seems Canon is no longer top doggie when it comes to RAW image quality, though the 1Ds Mk II and 5D Mk II put in good performances. Top spots go to D3x, D3, D700 Click (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor)

[AdamJL]

Ditto. Gimme a D700 with an EF mount anyday, but not because of this dxo crap.

Where do I send you the bill for my replacement keyboard? I've just ruined mine with all the drool I made thinking about that..

[Poe]

We've discussed this all over before, DxO does not actually rate the sensors based on ISO 12232:2006 standards for outputs in RAW formats. That means you should take it with a bathtub of salt and look at real world examples instead. In real world tests, 1dsmkiii squarely beats all three by a narrow margin, 5dmkII kicks the D3 and D700 out of the arena, and looks better than the D3x for anything above iso 400 (below that it's more or less a tie)

And "real world" examples conform to ISO 12232:2006?

[iqbal624]

Where do I send you the bill for my replacement keyboard? I've just ruined mine with all the drool I made thinking about that..

AGREED!! :)

[static808]

Ditto. Gimme a D700 with an EF mount anyday, but not because of this dxo crap.
hahaha, youre killing me!!

[Croasdail]

Seems Canon is no longer top doggie when it comes to RAW image quality, though the 1Ds Mk II and 5D Mk II put in good performances. Top spots go to D3x, D3, D700 Click (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor)

Why in the world would you waste the time and effort to post this. You know the response your going to get. God could say he uses Nikon, and the same crowd would then cry he is a false god. I am willing to bet in a blind test none of these people could pick out a Nikon or Canon image when printed.

[WGK]

Croasdail - I could not agree more.....

[Ivoryplum]

They also placed the 30D at #35, while the 20D is #26.
They just aren't testing correctly or something.

[Bubble]

Seems Canon is no longer top doggie when it comes to RAW image quality, though the 1Ds Mk II and 5D Mk II put in good performances. Top spots go to D3x, D3, D700 Click (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor)

yayy... at least my investment into D3 pay off due to this test. :)

seriously, who really care? There are plenty photographers that i know in Sol Cal area charging $4000/ wedding and still using D300 or Canon 5D. I guess we just have TOO MUCH time on our hand to do pay attention to this stuff. :)

[Poe]

Why in the world would you waste the time and effort to post this. You know the response your going to get. God could say he uses Nikon, and the same crowd would then cry he is a false god. I am willing to bet in a blind test none of these people could pick out a Nikon or Canon image when printed.

I find the link humorous as I knew the Canon measurebators would be out to defend their cameras since the results from DxO were not in their favor.

[DDCSD]

I find the link humorous as I knew the Canon measurebators would be out to defend their cameras since the results from DxO were not in their favor.

Seriously, have you ever seen an A900 shot at ISO 1600? Try and convince any human being that the A900 shot is better and I will send DxO a check for being so amazingly brilliant!

As for the D3/1D3/D700/5DMkII comparisons, they're all close enough that it really doesn't matter. Especially when printed, as Croasdail pointed out.

[DDCSD]

Oh, and the D3X looks worse than the A900 at ISO 1600.

So I guess the question is, does it matter what the sensor "tests" at if the image that is output looks terrible?

[DDCSD]

Oh wait, I just noticed that the Samsung GX 20 and Pentax K10D outscored the D300. It must be a valid test. ;)

[condyk]

Why in the world would you waste the time and effort to post this. You know the response your going to get. God could say he uses Nikon, and the same crowd would then cry he is a false god. I am willing to bet in a blind test none of these people could pick out a Nikon or Canon image when printed.

I find the link humorous as I knew the Canon measurebators would be out to defend their cameras since the results from DxO were not in their favor.

I agree ... :lol::lol::lol:

[Picture North Carolina]

...5dmkII kicks the D3 and D700 out of the arena,

And to think, I got mine for only $2515 while the Nikon guy paid $8,000 for his! :D Plus, I got Canon glass! (Sorry, dude!)

[nphsbuckeye]

If one defends the "research" the person is a Nikon fanboy, if one criticizes the "research" the person is a Canon fanboy. There is middle ground here.

[condyk]

If one defends the "research" the person is a Nikon fanboy, if one criticizes the "research" the person is a Canon fanboy. There is middle ground here.

Correct ;-) but to be honest I'd rather trust the testing capabilities of DxO, given the excellence of their RAW software and long experience, alongside their independence (they'll sell to anyone, even if their lens and body add ons favour Canon!), than a bunch of geezers here, most of whom only know a single system. Interesting results nevertheless. I guess anyone with sense will drill down below the rankings and look at the factors that matter to them. For example, I am more into B&W these days, so maybe colour is a tad less important that it might have been, but quality of shadow detail I am very keen on.

[Croasdail]

And to think, I got mine for only $2515 while the Nikon guy paid $8,000 for his! :D Plus, I got Canon glass! (Sorry, dude!)

Was going to write something else, but never mind. Yep, lets compare the wrong list price for the wrong camera to the street price you got.... makes sense. Lets completely ignore we are comparing apples and oranges here - unless the only measure you want to look at is mpx. You are obviously looking at this very objectively. Let's make complete judgments on a camera's capability based on images posted by people who we have no idea if they have a clue how to convert raw images correctly. Because I am sure you have seen D3x raw files and compared them to Mk II raw files, right? And this is all relevant because you are going to print 60 x 40 inch prints. Surely you are going to use all the pixels for more than 11x14's or the web...

Still think all this "mine is bigger then yours" is really infantile.

[sjones]

Correct ;-) but to be honest I'd rather trust the testing capabilities of DxO, given the excellence of their RAW software and long experience, alongside their independence (they'll sell to anyone, even if their lens and body add ons favour Canon!), than a bunch of geezers here, most of whom only know a single system...

I'm not remotely qualified to judge the scientific process involved with the DxO ratings or whether they properly used international standards, and given that I only shoot film, much of the matter is largely moot for me personally. Still, it has been interesting to read the reactions on this site, since other sites, with equally knowledgeable photographers, have responded more positively to the rankings---the skepticism and dismissiveness have not been so pervasive. As to why such discrepancies, well, that's obvious.

As others have noted, real world samples and other factors, such as lens selections, costs, and ergonomics, should take precedence in the decision-making process anyway.

In the end, show a collection of 8X10 photographs taken with the upper end Nikons, Canons, and Sony, even at 1600 ISO, and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Take a loupe to them, maybe, but lets keep this pertinent to humans.