5D MKIII vs D800

Everyone keep in mind, when the 5DII was released it received the highest score in DXO history.

From Canon's perspective, the 5DII was the perfect camera, and when they interviewed Canon shooters about improving it they all said the same thing - give us better focus, more ISO, higher frame rate. So that's what Canon did. The new DXO score of the 5DIII reflects this perfectly.

It's been mentioned that at high ISO's the D800 has cleaner RAW files, which is disputable, but I think Canon has done nothing but emphasize Jpeg since announcing the 1DX and 5DIII. The Jpegs coming of these cameras are very clean, and there's a reason, these cameras are designed for sports photographers and journalists who never ever shoot in RAW.

snaphappyphotography wrote in post #14292898
Everyone keep in mind, when the 5DII was released it received the highest score in DXO history.

Hmmm I don't think that's true, is it? You referring to the 1ds3?

woos wrote in post #14292800
Hmmmm, the D800 shot (the one with construction) CLEARLY has motion blur, the huge difference is from that, not from any AA filter stuff... I would say, Ray Charles would have seen the motion blur in that shot and re-taken it (too soon? )

Then again, it's luminous landscape, home of the guy who can't find the mirror lockup button on a Canon DSLR (can't figure out that a single button press gets you both mirror lockup and an extra bonus vibration reduction with electronic first curtian!)....and posts articles by a guy who thinks $5000 power cables make your stereo sound better, then defends that as a valid opinion. They should stick to posting boring tiny shots from their phase one cams, and leave the equipment testing to others. Like people who can figure out if their picture has motion blur.

Too harsh on them? lol

LMAO!! Yep.

Mastamarek wrote in post #14292499
right lets, listen to DXO mark. A website with tests that are completely unscientific and no one knows how they are done and where canon cameras always score 5 spots behind Nikon cameras. lol. I mean ... I have a 1D4 and its high ISO is perfect. It cleans up way better than my MK II but yet DXO "Chinese" engineers say its two times worse than D800. ANything that DXO has ever written or "tested" is a big pile of sh*t. I have these cameras, I use them, I know best. Not "Chinese" engineers in white coats that run some software programs on a windows machine and get erection when they see numbers on their screen.

Chinese engineers !
yes, DXO is a joke, I've seen the evidence with my own eyes comparing Nikon D90 and Rebels - the Rebels win !

woos wrote in post #14292905
Hmmm I don't think that's true, is it? You referring to the 1ds3?

I'm wrong, I took it for fact without looking it up, yeah clearly the 1DSIII is one point ahead the year before the 5DII was announced, my bad.

Judging by the CNET article, it sounds like the higher the resolution the better the DXO score. I also read that the ISO measurement only judges between 100-800... is that true?

Somewhat unrelated, but I looked up the DXO score on several lenses, and they gave the 70-200 IS II an extremely low score. I'm wondering if they got a bad copy or something. In any case, it seems to me that DXO isn't "all that"

snaphappyphotography wrote in post #14293180
I'm wrong, I took it for fact without looking it up, yeah clearly the 1DSIII is one point ahead the year before the 5DII was announced, my bad.

Judging by the CNET article, it sounds like the higher the resolution the better the DXO score. I also read that the ISO measurement only judges between 100-800... is that true?

Somewhat unrelated, but I looked up the DXO score on several lenses, and they gave the 70-200 IS II an extremely low score. I'm wondering if they got a bad copy or something. In any case, it seems to me that DXO isn't "all that"

Yeah, their lens tests are suspect for sure. Their Sigma 12-24mm version 1 versus version 2 test was strange. Didn't show much improvement. Wheras other tests show a massive massive difference in sharpness specially at the edges. I'm curious to know what focus distances and such they test at.

woos wrote in post #14293374
Yeah, their lens tests are suspect for sure. Their Sigma 12-24mm version 1 versus version 2 test was strange. Didn't show much improvement. Wheras other tests show a massive massive difference in sharpness specially at the edges. I'm curious to know what focus distances and such they test at.

The Photozone tests didn't show much improvement either. The corners were soft until F/11 @ 12mm in their tests. And even at f/11 it was just above "fair". I haven't seen any tests that gave a rave review of the 12-24 II.

It wasn't too long ago that people were gloating that the 1Ds3 had the best DxOMark score in a full-frame SLR at the time. But that was pre-Exmor days - these days, Canon is losing badly. The testing method hasn't changed. Now the scores are suddenly irrelevant, and the testing method flawed? Which is it?

[QUOTE=woos;14293374]Y​eah, their lens tests are suspect for sure. Their Sigma 12-24mm version 1 versus version 2 test was strange. Didn't show much improvement. Wheras other tests show a massive massive difference in sharpness specially at the edges. I'm curious to know what focus distances and such they test at.[/quote

snaphappyphotography wrote in post #14293180
Judging by the CNET article, it sounds like the higher the resolution the better the DXO score. I also read that the ISO measurement only judges between 100-800... is that true?

Somewhat unrelated, but I looked up the DXO score on several lenses, and they gave the 70-200 IS II an extremely low score. I'm wondering if they got a bad copy or something. In any case, it seems to me that DXO isn't "all that"

some kinda crazy techniques going on

AngryCorgi wrote in post #14293537
The Photozone tests didn't show much improvement either. The corners were soft until F/11 @ 12mm in their tests. And even at f/11 it was just above "fair". I haven't seen any tests that gave a rave review of the 12-24 II.

Yeah, but the photozone test also said that at 16mm and whatnot it matches the Canon 16-35mm L, so meh. :P

Shadowblade wrote in post #14294205
It wasn't too long ago that people were gloating that the 1Ds3 had the best DxOMark score in a full-frame SLR at the time. But that was pre-Exmor days - these days, Canon is losing badly. The testing method hasn't changed. Now the scores are suddenly irrelevant, and the testing method flawed? Which is it?

I think we're all paying attention now because there's such a huge gap between the two products. I don't really understand their ISO test, but I think their color/DR tests are indisputable.

woos wrote in post #14294243
Yeah, but the photozone test also said that at 16mm and whatnot it matches the Canon 16-35mm L, so meh. :P

Which is ALSO soft in the corners.

snaphappyphotography wrote in post #14294286
I think we're all paying attention now because there's such a huge gap between the two products. I don't really understand their ISO test, but I think their color/DR tests are indisputable.

Their ISO test makes perfect sense - it's the level at which you still retain 9 stops of dynamic range. This provides a level playing field - after all, it's easy enough for any given manufacturer to push 'native' ISO higher and higher, without regard for what sort of IQ this actually gives us. You could potentially push the original 5D to ISO 102400, but you'd get hardly any useable DR. Also, it accounts for differences between the stated ISO and the true, measured ISO - a camera manufacturer may state ISO '6400', when the actual ISO is closer to 4900, for instance, while another manufacturer's ISO '6400' may be really 5800. All else being equal, the former manufacturer's '6400' will look better than the latter's '6400', because one is actually ISO 4900, while the other is ISO 5800.

Canon powershot s100 is very close to 5D3 with DR, based on DxO.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …0e_first_compar​ison.shtml

updated review with d800-d800e comparison