Nikon D800 versus Canon 5D Mark III - the clear winner is ... [DxO Labs]

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Apr 19, 2012.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    The results speak for themselves. Nikon wins by *miles*.

    Go to:
    http://tinyurl.com/ctfepwr
    or:
    <http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon>

    then click on "Compare up to 3 items" to the right of the thumbnails
    of the two camera bodies.

    Note that the DxO results are independent of the pixel count, so the
    difference between the Nikon's 36 MP and the Canon's 22 MP is not
    taken into account. A fine achievement by Nikon.

    What on earth were Canon thinking of ???
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    Me Guest

    Re: Nikon D800 versus Canon 5D Mark III - the clear winner is ...[DxO Labs]

    On 20/04/2012 10:49 a.m., Bruce wrote:
    > The results speak for themselves.


    Was this posted by the same camera shop assistant "Bruce" who killfiled
    me - because he wouldn't accept my posts showing preliminary data
    (available many weeks ago) from sources such as Marianne Oelund and Bill
    Claff, which is entirely consistent with what DxO are saying now?
    Me, Apr 20, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    Re: Nikon D800 versus Canon 5D Mark III - the clear winner is ...[DxO Labs]

    On Apr 19, 6:49 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > The results speak for themselves. Nikon wins by *miles*.
    >
    > Go to:http://tinyurl.com/ctfepwr
    > or:
    > <http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compa...>
    >
    > then click on "Compare up to 3 items" to the right of the thumbnails
    > of the two camera bodies.
    >
    > Note that the DxO results are independent of the pixel count, so the
    > difference between the Nikon's 36 MP and the Canon's 22 MP is not
    > taken into account.  A fine achievement by Nikon.
    >
    > What on earth were Canon thinking of ???


    The differences would be even more glaring if they included resolution.
    RichA, Apr 20, 2012
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Apr 19, 6:49 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> The results speak for themselves. Nikon wins by *miles*.
    >> Go to:http://tinyurl.com/ctfepwr
    >> or:
    >> <http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compa...>
    >>
    >> then click on "Compare up to 3 items" to the right of the thumbnails
    >> of the two camera bodies.
    >>
    >> Note that the DxO results are independent of the pixel count, so the
    >> difference between the Nikon's 36 MP and the Canon's 22 MP is not
    >> taken into account.  A fine achievement by Nikon.
    >>
    >> What on earth were Canon thinking of ???

    >
    >The differences would be even more glaring if they included resolution.



    Precisely!

    I doubt there has ever before been such a large performance difference
    between two top brand cameras aimed at the same market. Canon had
    field tested cameras with a 34.5 MP sensor, so what on earth made them
    choose a 22 MP sensor that is hardly a sparkling performer?

    Canon is the new Sony. Discuss.
    Bruce, Apr 20, 2012
    #4
  5. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    Re: Nikon D800 versus Canon 5D Mark III - the clear winner is ...[DxO Labs]

    On Apr 20, 5:41 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Apr 19, 6:49 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> The results speak for themselves. Nikon wins by *miles*.
    > >> Go to:http://tinyurl.com/ctfepwr
    > >> or:
    > >> <http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compa....>

    >
    > >> then click on "Compare up to 3 items" to the right of the thumbnails
    > >> of the two camera bodies.

    >
    > >> Note that the DxO results are independent of the pixel count, so the
    > >> difference between the Nikon's 36 MP and the Canon's 22 MP is not
    > >> taken into account.  A fine achievement by Nikon.

    >
    > >> What on earth were Canon thinking of ???

    >
    > >The differences would be even more glaring if they included resolution.

    >
    > Precisely!
    >
    > I doubt there has ever before been such a large performance difference
    > between two top brand cameras aimed at the same market.  Canon had
    > field tested cameras with a 34.5 MP sensor, so what on earth made them
    > choose a 22 MP sensor that is hardly a sparkling performer?
    >
    > Canon is the new Sony.  Discuss.


    I'd like to know how they went from producing clearly the best sensors
    to producing the worst? I'm thinking whatever technology they had has
    hit some kind of ceiling.
    If I had to choose sensors now in the common DSLR ranges it would be:
    Nikon, Pentax, Canon and Sony.
    RichA, Apr 20, 2012
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Helen Guest

    Re: Nikon D800 versus Canon 5D Mark III - the clear winner is ...[DxO Labs]

    On Apr 20, 9:56 am, Bowser <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:49:35 +0100, Bruce <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >The results speak for themselves. Nikon wins by *miles*.

    >
    > >Go to:
    > >http://tinyurl.com/ctfepwr
    > >or:
    > ><http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compa....>

    >
    > >then click on "Compare up to 3 items" to the right of the thumbnails
    > >of the two camera bodies.

    >
    > >Note that the DxO results are independent of the pixel count, so the
    > >difference between the Nikon's 36 MP and the Canon's 22 MP is not
    > >taken into account.  A fine achievement by Nikon.

    >
    > >What on earth were Canon thinking of ???

    >
    > Video. And, like some wedding shooters I've read about who can't
    > handle 100,000 36MP images a year.
    >
    > Honestly, I find Canon's concentration on video disappointing. They
    > seem to have forgotten the still shooter in the last couple of years.


    "Honestly, I find Canon's concentration on video disappointing. They
    seem to have forgotten the still shooter in the last couple of
    years."

    I'm not into video, my focus is still photography. What Canon camera
    would you or anyone else for that matter, recommend?
    Helen, Apr 20, 2012
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Helen <> wrote:
    >I'm not into video, my focus is still photography. What Canon camera
    >would you or anyone else for that matter, recommend?



    The D800.
    Bruce, Apr 20, 2012
    #7
  8. Bruce

    K W Hart Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Helen <> wrote:
    >>I'm not into video, my focus is still photography. What Canon camera
    >>would you or anyone else for that matter, recommend?

    >
    >
    > The D800.
    >


    I find the Canon FX system from the 1960's to be a pretty solid performer. I
    especially like the 1200mm lens; of course a sturdy tripod is essential.
    K W Hart, Apr 20, 2012
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Helen Guest

    Re: Nikon D800 versus Canon 5D Mark III - the clear winner is ...[DxO Labs]

    On Apr 20, 12:27 pm, "K W Hart" <> wrote:
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:p...
    >
    > > Helen <> wrote:
    > >>I'm not into video, my focus is still photography.  What Canon camera
    > >>would you or anyone else for that matter, recommend?

    >
    > > The D800.

    >
    > I find the Canon FX system from the 1960's to be a pretty solid performer.. I
    > especially like the 1200mm lens; of course a sturdy tripod is essential.


    Yes, I agree, but I was talking about Canon's newest line of DSLRs.
    Helen, Apr 20, 2012
    #9
  10. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    Re: Nikon D800 versus Canon 5D Mark III - the clear winner is ...[DxO Labs]

    On Apr 20, 12:27 pm, "K W Hart" <> wrote:
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:p...
    >
    > > Helen <> wrote:
    > >>I'm not into video, my focus is still photography.  What Canon camera
    > >>would you or anyone else for that matter, recommend?

    >
    > > The D800.

    >
    > I find the Canon FX system from the 1960's to be a pretty solid performer.. I
    > especially like the 1200mm lens; of course a sturdy tripod is essential.


    Rather than pay $99,000 for the 1200mm Canon used (last price i saw
    for one), I'd get a top flight apochromat telescope with a field-
    flattener which I'd mount in a hollowed out Canon 300mm f2.8 AF lens.
    The moving field-flattener would serve both as a focal length reducer
    and focusing element. An f5.6 speed should be achievable with near
    zero aberrations. My guess is that it would cost about $15,000 to
    have it put together.
    RichA, Apr 20, 2012
    #10
  11. Bruce

    K W Hart Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Apr 20, 12:27 pm, "K W Hart" <> wrote:
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:p...
    >
    > > Helen <> wrote:
    > >>I'm not into video, my focus is still photography. What Canon camera
    > >>would you or anyone else for that matter, recommend?

    >
    > > The D800.

    >
    > I find the Canon FX system from the 1960's to be a pretty solid performer.
    > I
    > especially like the 1200mm lens; of course a sturdy tripod is essential.


    Rather than pay $99,000 for the 1200mm Canon used (last price i saw
    for one), I'd get a top flight apochromat telescope with a field-
    flattener which I'd mount in a hollowed out Canon 300mm f2.8 AF lens.
    The moving field-flattener would serve both as a focal length reducer
    and focusing element. An f5.6 speed should be achievable with near
    zero aberrations. My guess is that it would cost about $15,000 to
    have it put together.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    "$99,000 for the 1200mm Canon used "
    I have three 1200mm Canon lenses for my 500+ Canon FX cameras, and the most
    I paid for any one was about $3000. About 10% of that was shipping and US
    Customs fees.
    Although if you do have an authoritative valuation of $99K for the lens,
    that would be great, It would more than double the value of my collection.

    --
    Ken Hart
    K W Hart, Apr 21, 2012
    #11
  12. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <jmt7e7$rj1$>, K W Hart
    <> wrote:

    > "$99,000 for the 1200mm Canon used "
    >
    > I have three 1200mm Canon lenses for my 500+ Canon FX cameras, and the most
    > I paid for any one was about $3000. About 10% of that was shipping and US
    > Customs fees.


    bullshit.

    > Although if you do have an authoritative valuation of $99K for the lens,
    > that would be great, It would more than double the value of my collection.


    canon, and it won't.
    nospam, Apr 21, 2012
    #12
  13. Bruce

    K W Hart Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:200420122019439173%...
    > In article <jmt7e7$rj1$>, K W Hart
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> "$99,000 for the 1200mm Canon used "
    >>
    >> I have three 1200mm Canon lenses for my 500+ Canon FX cameras, and the
    >> most
    >> I paid for any one was about $3000. About 10% of that was shipping and US
    >> Customs fees.

    >
    > bullshit.
    >
    >> Although if you do have an authoritative valuation of $99K for the lens,
    >> that would be great, It would more than double the value of my
    >> collection.

    >
    > canon, and it won't.


    "Bullshit"?
    I'm not the one hiding behind a fake email address. You have sufficient
    information to find me on Facebook and read about my Canon FX collection:
    500+ camera bodies and 800+ lenses; one or more of every lens that Canon
    made for the FX back in the late 1960's. (Obviously, the bulk of the lenses
    are the 50mm f/1.8 lens that was normally supplied with the Canon FX.) I
    don't have a personal website because I am a film photographer, and the
    internet does not lend itself to film; I am loathe to digitize my work and
    lose the quality present on the negatives.

    Would you like to provide an actual email address so that I can send you my
    collection inventory list (in OpenOffice format)? Or would you prefer to get
    the inventory from my insurance agent?


    --
    Ken Hart
    K W Hart, Apr 21, 2012
    #13
  14. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <jmt9r7$vus$>, K W Hart
    <> wrote:

    > >> "$99,000 for the 1200mm Canon used "
    > >>
    > >> I have three 1200mm Canon lenses for my 500+ Canon FX cameras, and the
    > >> most I paid for any one was about $3000. About 10% of that was shipping and
    > >> US Customs fees.

    > >
    > > bullshit.
    > >
    > >> Although if you do have an authoritative valuation of $99K for the lens,
    > >> that would be great, It would more than double the value of my
    > >> collection.

    > >
    > > canon, and it won't.

    >
    > "Bullshit"?


    bullshit.

    > I'm not the one hiding behind a fake email address. You have sufficient
    > information to find me on Facebook and read about my Canon FX collection:
    > 500+ camera bodies and 800+ lenses; one or more of every lens that Canon
    > made for the FX back in the late 1960's. (Obviously, the bulk of the lenses
    > are the 50mm f/1.8 lens that was normally supplied with the Canon FX.)


    post a link.

    anyone who collects canon lenses would be *well* aware of the 1200mm
    lens in question, it's original price and what it sells for on the used
    market.

    you must have something else.

    > I don't have a personal website because I am a film photographer, and the
    > internet does not lend itself to film; I am loathe to digitize my work and
    > lose the quality present on the negatives.


    digital is much higher quality than film ever was, so you won't lose
    anything by scanning.

    > Would you like to provide an actual email address so that I can send you my
    > collection inventory list (in OpenOffice format)? Or would you prefer to get
    > the inventory from my insurance agent?


    post a link.
    nospam, Apr 21, 2012
    #14
  15. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Helen <>
    wrote:
    : I'm not into video, my focus is still photography. What Canon camera
    : would you or anyone else for that matter, recommend?

    I'm pretty happy with my 7D's. Right now, the 7D may be the Canon that comes
    the closest to living up to its price. (Maybe the 1DX would; but if the
    release date keeps slipping, how will we ever know?)

    BTW, did I read the other day that the new 24-70 f/2.8 is also still not out?
    If so, what are early adopters using for a walking-around lens on their 5D3's?
    For the 7D we have the excellent 17-55 f/2.8, but many people say that the old
    24-70 is a dog. In any case, nobody is going to buy the old 24-70 for his 5D3
    while waiting for the new lens. (I'm assuming, of course, that for someone who
    actually bought a 5D3, the price of the new lens is no barrier.) If your 5D3
    purchase represents your entry into full-frame, maybe you don't even own any
    FF walker.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Apr 21, 2012
    #15
  16. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >>> "$99,000 for the 1200mm Canon used"
    > >>>
    > >>> I have three 1200mm Canon lenses for my 500+ Canon FX cameras, and the
    > >>> most I paid for any one was about $3000. About 10% of that was shipping
    > >>> and US Customs fees.
    > >>
    > >> bullshit.
    > >>
    > >>> Although if you do have an authoritative valuation of $99K for the lens,
    > >>> that would be great, It would more than double the value of my
    > >>> collection.
    > >>
    > >> canon, and it won't.

    > >
    > > "Bullshit"?
    > > I'm not the one hiding behind a fake email address. You have sufficient
    > > information to find me on Facebook and read about my Canon FX collection:
    > > 500+ camera bodies and 800+ lenses; one or more of every lens that Canon

    >
    > nospam is referring to the Canon 1200mm f/5.6 of which there are less
    > than 20 in the world and most are leased to qualified lessors. The
    > purchase price was about $115,000 last time I looked.
    >
    > If you have one, I'd be quite surprised.


    don't forget he said he had not one, but *three* of them.
    nospam, Apr 21, 2012
    #16
  17. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > > don't forget he said he had not one, but *three* of them.

    >
    > I suspect he's referring to something else. Either that or I want Hart
    > to adopt me.


    it's definitely something else, assuming it's even true.

    i also find his claim of owning 500 cameras and 800 lenses to be a bit
    much.

    he can settle this by taking a photo of the three lenses (and the rest
    of the stuff while he's at it) with a piece of paper that has today's
    date and something referencing this thread to prove it's not faked.
    include closeups of the lens labeling too, then post a link to the
    photos.
    nospam, Apr 21, 2012
    #17
  18. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >>> don't forget he said he had not one, but *three* of them.
    > >>
    > >> I suspect he's referring to something else. Either that or I want Hart
    > >> to adopt me.

    > >
    > > it's definitely something else, assuming it's even true.
    > >
    > > i also find his claim of owning 500 cameras and 800 lenses to be a bit
    > > much.
    > >
    > > he can settle this by taking a photo of the three lenses (and the rest
    > > of the stuff while he's at it) with a piece of paper that has today's
    > > date and something referencing this thread to prove it's not faked.
    > > include closeups of the lens labeling too, then post a link to the
    > > photos.

    >
    > Why would you care that much? Really.


    i don't care what he does and i doubt he'll take that challenge, but he
    can if he really does have it.
    nospam, Apr 21, 2012
    #18
  19. Bruce

    K W Hart Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:210420120935521692%...
    > In article <>, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> > don't forget he said he had not one, but *three* of them.

    >>
    >> I suspect he's referring to something else. Either that or I want Hart
    >> to adopt me.

    >
    > it's definitely something else, assuming it's even true.
    >
    > i also find his claim of owning 500 cameras and 800 lenses to be a bit
    > much.
    >
    > he can settle this by taking a photo of the three lenses (and the rest
    > of the stuff while he's at it) with a piece of paper that has today's
    > date and something referencing this thread to prove it's not faked.
    > include closeups of the lens labeling too, then post a link to the
    > photos.


    You forgot to mention that a US currency bill should be attached to each
    item in the collection with the bill's serial number clearly visible to
    prove that each item is unique. And then there's the notarized statements
    from three different notaries public. Or you could just go to my page on
    Facebook; there are photos of my studios, darkrooms, modeling sessions, and
    stories about my Canon FX camera collection.

    I'm just glad I didn't mention the two all-black Canon FX's in my
    collection. Only five are known to exist and one of those is suspect- where
    the paint is worn, the metal showing is chrome rather than brass.

    --
    Ken Hart
    K W Hart, Apr 21, 2012
    #19
  20. Bruce

    K W Hart Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2012-04-20 22:53 , K W Hart wrote:
    >
    >> I have three 1200mm Canon lenses for my 500+ Canon FX cameras, and the
    >> most
    >> I paid for any one was about $3000. About 10% of that was shipping and US
    >> Customs fees.

    >
    > I doubt what you have is:
    > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/116642-USA/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html
    >
    > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Mother-of-All-L-Lenses.jsp
    >
    >
    >


    You're absolutely correct. The three 1200mm Canon lenses that I own are for
    my Canon FX cameras (as I originally stated); that is they have the FL
    mount. They are part of Canon's "convertible" series, consisting of a
    focusing and aperature unit, on which was attached a head-end section,
    making either a 400mm, 600mm, 800mm, or 1200mm lens. I have the whole
    series, plus one or more of all of the Canon FL-mount lenses that were made
    back in the late 1960's.

    By the way, it is a working collection: I use each camera and lens in turn.


    --
    Ken Hart
    K W Hart, Apr 21, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Patrick B Cox

    Nikon Coolscan III vs Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III

    Patrick B Cox, Feb 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    4,312
    Gordon Moat
    Mar 2, 2004
  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Canon Just announced the EOS-1D Mark III

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 22, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    142
    Views:
    2,138
    nick c
    Mar 2, 2007
  3. Wayne J. Cosshall
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    286
    Annika1980
    Apr 13, 2007
  4. Savant

    Nikon D3 vs Canon Mark III

    Savant, Feb 28, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    350
    Dudley Hanks
    Feb 28, 2008
  5. Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

    Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, May 8, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    671
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    May 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page