![[News] Nikon D800 Stomps Canon 5DM3 In DxO Test](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/large-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5d3dxotest_jpg.webp)
The Nikon Vs Canon war rages on, this time Nikon fan boys will gain a little ammunition. As you may have heard, the 36mp sensor inside the Nikon D800 is the highest rated sensor of all time (a 95), beating even medium format cameras that cost over $50,000.00. DxO Mark recently released their reviews of the Canon 5D Mark III sensor and it received a score of 81 that puts the camera in 10th place. Whether you are a Nikon or Canon fan, remember that we are giving both of these cameras away in our current Facebook contest so everyone wins right?
Related Articles
![[Editorial] Why Nikon Built the D3200](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Nikond3200oped.jpg)
Touchy subject. I'm a Canon user and yes, I think that this site sometimes sides favorably toward Nikon .... With that said, I think that this site features some of the best and most helpful posts about photography around. I mean, they introduced Peter freakin' Hurley to us for crying out loud. Like most things in life, I just weed out what I consider the bad / irrelevant or sometimes "the bitter truth", and just absorb the good.
I'm a Canon user and an fstoppers follower.
It does sometimes feel a little one sides here sometimes, I gotta say.... I like my Mamiya gear more than my Canon gear, and I've shot Nikon too. Just as a neutral consumer it feels a little weird coming here sometimes and reading how some of this stuff is written. Honestly.
Besides, it's paraded around by folks, but none of this mess, Canon or Nikon, will make your photos any better. I think these tests are more for people who love talking about #s, as opposed to taking photos every day for a living. Lame.
And yes, it would come off just as weird to me if the results were the other way around. The wording reads like a tabloid.
The purpose of purchasing a full frame camera is largely resolution and high-ISO picture quality. If a canon full frame performs no better in either areas compared to a crop-sensor Nikon, then why buy a full-frame at all?
picture quality matters, but when you mention the 7D et al and questioning why bother changing, yoiu have to realize that the score is not a camera score, and the fact that the 95 v.81 score is great for sensor tech talk, you CANNOT see that difference out i the field. . . . where is the better AF!? better noise when viewd at full res is betyter on the mkIII or slight difference . . video belongs to Canon too.
The mkIII just feels solid and fits your hand so beauitifully. All these things matter . . not a DR range difference of 25.5 v. 24, etc etc etc. That is even a number that would not matter within the MF range of systems. Just look at the images compared to the D800, and although the D800 has a "highest score ever" . .
tell me what that actually means when you have a MF camera image in fron of you on the screen and printed (price notwithstanding ;) ). . . . Then take a look at the 5DmkIII . . take both cameras out and shoot at dusk or dawn, or at mid day . . what can yu tell?? Then test out the AF . . . . no contest there, though, as the Canon is better (wasn't expecting that one haha ).
I hope everyone understands what I am trying to say here. . . . . . About the only thing I find wrong with the Canon (after all the little firmware upodates, and light leak issue that means nothing unless you have the cap on or lens off), is the price! But the best AF with 6fps, and amoung class leading ISO, and amazing video - even compared to D800 - sometimes simply pay anyway, I guess *gulp.
When I see lots of bickering of this thing being better than that thing a certain phrase comes to mind 'shut up and shoot'.
I just bought a Rolleiflex MF camera. It's had 40 years of heavy use and looks well worn in but I can tell you that I had more fun shooting the first roll of film through it than I ever did with my D700 in the past 3 years. How many D800's do you think will be in use 40 years from now? Just shut up and shoot and have some fun with it.
I'm a professional photographer and I still use the 5D MK I exclusively. For those that have invested in glass, these reviews are unlikely to make them switch brand but rather inform whether to upgrade or not. Honestly i'm still waiting for a body that will convince me to upgrade, because in real-world situations and in terms of customer satisfaction, my MK I continues to deliver the goods
hahahaha... so touchy people geez... relax.. this is our love and passion not something to argue about. Who cares bout brand really, an amazing picture is still heavily reliant on the hands of the talented photographer behind the lens. Gear is gear, although let's face it, I'd give my left nut for a Hasselblad. I shoot Canon personally and I prefer the glass, but thats just me. I figure it this way, if commercial photogs and haute couture/fashion world use Canon's/Hasselblads/Nikon, its good enough for me and then some.
After shooting for over 30 years, I get better images now with a D2xs than I ever did with film.
This thing where people clammer on about the NEW ISO, THE NEW REZ.. ,Wireless
Seriously? Has everything turned into a who's got a bigger one? Aside from the way cool video that some of the newer models turn out. Why bother?
If you don't shoot sport and you're canon shooter the winner is canon 5d mark ii....No good AF but now incredible price!!!
So far as I can see, no one has offered a link for these :)
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=11004924
Well, now you found them, you can finally order one for yourself . .and nobody as to offer you anything anymore :)
picture quality matters, but when you mention the 7D et al and questioning why bother changing, yoiu have to realize that the score is not a camera score, and the fact that the 95 v.81 score is great for sensor tech talk, you CANNOT see that difference out i the field. . . . where is the better AF!? better noise when viewed at full res is better on the mkIII or slight difference . . video belongs to Canon too.
The mkIII just feels solid and fits your hand so beauitifully. All these things matter . . not a DR range difference of 25.5 v. 24, etc etc etc. That is even a number that would not matter within the MF range of systems. Just look at the images compared to the D800, and although the D800 has a "highest score ever" . .
tell me what that actually means when you have a MF camera image in fron of you on the screen and printed (price notwithstanding ;) ). . . . Then take a look at the 5DmkIII . . take both cameras out and shoot at dusk or dawn, or at mid day . . what can yu tell?? Then test out the AF . . . . no contest there, though, as the Canon is better (wasn't expecting that one haha ).
I hope everyone understands what I am trying to say here. . . . . . About the only thing I find wrong with the Canon (after all the little firmware upodates, and light leak issue that means nothing unless you have the cap on or lens off), is the price! But the best AF with 6fps, and amoung class leading ISO, and amazing video - even compared to D800 - sometimes simply pay anyway, I guess *gulp.
(side note: there is some talk that Canon keeps the performance of the sensor down for other reasons, but I am looking into that.)
Canon-peeps, just take this loss and hold it in your chest. Move on, kiddies. WE ALL DON'T WIN EVERYTHINGGGGGGGGGG
The fact that the D800 beat Medium Format on DxO is a complete joke. C'mon, do you really believe that crap?
It's all in thier methods: they compare the sensor's ability in higher ISO v MF which does not go further than 800-1600 (no need since it is a studio camera, or a camera that needs the cleanest image possible with high dynamic range and insane MP). It's like calling a tomatoe a vegetable, instead of a fruit . . even though it is a fruit. With these tests, they sometimies missinterprret or force scenarios that some camsreas were not meant for. . . that is why they downsample to 8MP. . . . even though you get finer iso grain with more res, what wil happen when you make a 36mp image down to 8MP (4.5x) v a 22 MP image down to 8MP (2.8x). . . . has that got something to do with why in the field we SEE that the mkIII is better in ISO v the D800,yet the DxO scores using thier methoidoligies make a complete turnaround due to those manipulations.
I have a Sony A77. I value high ISO low noise applications (sports, weddings, concerts ,...) with good AF and high frame rate also major consieraions. I've been considering a D700 Nikon and wondered if D800 may be superior. After reviewing DXO results, & various D800 & 5DMkIII comparisons, D700 still seems a very good choice and I'd rate 5DMkII next best, with DxO results considered. I'm surprised to see how large a disconnect they show from overall reakl world low light / high ISO usability.