The Canon 5D Mark III results are available on DxOMark

[niccon2]

Pretty lazy on Canon behalf that after 4 years they couldn't update the sensor on the 5D3.

may be canon follow nikon, d3 -> d3s 1 year later 5d mk3s :bsmilie:

 

[fotoworx]

may be canon follow nikon, d3 -> d3s 1 year later 5d mk3s :bsmilie:

Well Canon need do something Nikons entry level cameras now thrash the 5D3

 

[Blur Shadow]

Well Canon need do something Nikons entry level cameras now thrash the 5D3

I won't be too concerned.

In mean, the D3200 thrashes every other Nikon dSLR in terms of mega pixels, except for the New D800 and the discontinued D3x. Yet, the D3200 is still an entry level camera for a reason.

 

[ShaneKua]

Well Canon need do something Nikons entry level cameras now thrash the 5D3

I would hardly consider it a trashing as the D3200 uses the same sensor as the NEX-7 which is one noisy sensor, even more so than the 7D’s sensor.

 

[doodah]

I would hardly consider it a trashing as the D3200 uses the same sensor as the NEX-7 which is one noisy sensor, even more so than the 7D’s sensor.

To be fair, Nikon is always able to tame the noise in Sony sensor while Sony themselves do not seem to have the means.

Allow me to quote from Thom Hogan:

"... All else being equal (which isn't always the case) more pixels have some advantages over fewer... I've found less use for the advantages of the extra pixels of the D3x than I originally thought I would.

This was a surprise to me when I recently evaluated my use of the two cameras on assignments where I was carrying both: I shot more with the D3s than the D3x...

The thing I was trying to address in my article was what the camera makers--specifically Nikon and Canon--had concluded about pixels versus target customer. My conclusion: they think that the amateur/enthusiast will respond more to pixels, the professional more to low-level pixel integrity. Thus, we'll get more pixels in the lower cost bodies."

This is why we have the 36 MP D800, and no 36 MP D4X.

 

[kollybie]

sometimes is really hard to conclude. If you want to have less noise in the image... image detail will be compromise. vice versa.

 

[slasher1983]

I won't be too concerned.

In mean, the D3200 thrashes every other Nikon dSLR in terms of mega pixels, except for the New D800 and the discontinued D3x. Yet, the D3200 is still an entry level camera for a reason.

Me too, not concerned with a D3200 thrashes whoever... lolx, i rest my case lar. We are not some Sensor engineers as if we knew how Sensors collect light protons and how ISO noise is added into the sensor. On a hardware perspective, sensors might have reached a certain limit and its more about the CPU in the camera and the processing software in to the camera that makes the difference. The Problem for Megapixels is that the higher that number is, the more likely is that your lens becomes outdated as flaws will start to show. question is, do u need so much megapixels? Do People understand DLA factor when megapixels so up? Comparing D3200 to any camera is more like a numbers game, the next time will be nokia camera thrash nikon, canon and leica.

Seriously, if the 5d3 is not he/she cup of tea, then go get the D3200 lor. No need to say thrash this or thrash that.

 

[kollybie]

it is very unlikely for D3200 , even for D800 is really hard to compare who is the winner .... both got its adv and disadv.... to me i choose 5dm3 is the wide range of lens and i really like the interface of the body.

 

[Nashaz]

The D700 has better high ISO performance and wider dynamic range than 5D2. The difference is not massive. Of course, if one wants details (regardless of high or low ISO), the D700 is totally clobbered. Then again, this is unimportant for DXOMark 'cos they don't care about details. This is also why their lens test results are total garbage:

Based on what the past few have mentioned about
5D2 has higher MP vs D700 which has better noise control - D700 wins (better dynamic range)
and D800 which has higher MP while 5D3 has better noise control - D800 wins (better dynamic range)

Summed up, their final test result relies heavily on dynamic range.
The other variables are contradictory and inconclusive from the way its put across in their testing.

Let's not forget that tests and their resultant scores inherently restrict the conditions and thus the results of the tests. It is a challenge to have a wholly objective test, and one should always keep in mind the methodology to obtain any scores/comparison.

When you take note of that, and understand how the DXOMark site does its tests (I think some people here have detailed how somewhere in the thread), then you won't jump at the results at all. I'd say it's expected. At the end of the day... If you think the 5D Mark III is better for you, doesn't matter if it fails someone else's test. You buy the camera, it has to pass YOUR test. Cheers.

Yes, you have a point. It passes my test as i own one. However, nothing wrong with me querying the methodology of the test and confirming the validity of it no? What if per say the results are true, i could very well consider getting a D800 as well...

 

[ShaneKua]

To be fair, Nikon is always able to tame the noise in Sony sensor while Sony themselves do not seem to have the means.

Allow me to quote from Thom Hogan:

"... All else being equal (which isn't always the case) more pixels have some advantages over fewer... I've found less use for the advantages of the extra pixels of the D3x than I originally thought I would.

This was a surprise to me when I recently evaluated my use of the two cameras on assignments where I was carrying both: I shot more with the D3s than the D3x...

The thing I was trying to address in my article was what the camera makers--specifically Nikon and Canon--had concluded about pixels versus target customer. My conclusion: they think that the amateur/enthusiast will respond more to pixels, the professional more to low-level pixel integrity. Thus, we'll get more pixels in the lower cost bodies."

This is why we have the 36 MP D800, and no 36 MP D4X.

Fair enough - an entry level consumer would more or less not use raw-performance (noisy sensor) but out-of-camera jpegs, which Nikon’s expeed has a good track record of producing. And your points about entry level customers looking only at statistical pixels is pretty valid.

I agree, the D3200 is hardly a threat. We’re grasping at straws here.