Nikon related news/links

  • Nikon NPS "behind the scene coverage" of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics can be found on this website. For some reason they removed the time lapse video.

"Progress is cranking along.  As mentioned before, hardware is ready but the heart of the product is the firmware and that is still in development.  We’ve seen units firing a flash but there is still a ways to go to have enough functionality to bring the product to market.  No, we’re not ready to peg a date just yet."

  • Cool D3s video from Nikon Australia after the break:

This entry was posted in Weekly Nikon News Flash. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Landscapes

    I find it impressive the dynamic range is similar when we are talking different sensor sizes in each camera.

    • PHB

      The DxOMark numbers seem to be normalized for resolution somehow. Take a look at the D3x, D3, D3s. They all have virtually the same dynamic range and color. The D3x has somewhat more dynamic range which would make total sense if the cameras have the same standard cell design but tweaked to optimize low light on the D3/D3s and dynamic range on D3x.

      DxO does not show such a big difference in low light performance between D3/D3s as doubling ISO response might suggest.

      The nugget of comfort Canon Rumors is taking from their camera having higher resolution is rather squashed by the fact that the D3x beats it outright on every single measure – and by quite a way.

      It is a wash between the EOS 1D III and the D700 though, they have that one right.

      • Simon

        That is why D3x cost $8k when it was launched.

        • Global Guy

          A “crushing” defeat.

        • PHB

          The D3x is cheap compared to the cost of going with a ‘blad. If the D3x is good enough for the job it is certainly more convenient to work with.

          That is why I think we are going to see a race to get a 50MP full frame model out. At that point there will be little further point to medium format. Any theoretical advantage they should get from the sensor size is totally lost to the fact that the 35mm format cameras are made on much higher volume processes.

          • trust me, this will never happen. Mainly because we who are able to spend 20k+ on camera usually doing it while evaluating our needs. And if the IQ progresses with same pace as until now, there will never be IQ match between MF and 135 camera. Ever.
            Resolution is not EVERYTHING

          • rhodium

            The thing is, if technology advances to the point where you can make a 50 MP 35mm digital camera for the current price of a D3X, you could make a 200 MP MF digital back for the current price of a ‘blad. Not to mention improved dynamic range, colour fidelity etc.

          • PHB

            IQ isn’t everything either.

            Size and weight matter. And so does cost. The problem that ‘blad faces is that their volume is only just on the brink of being viable. The full frame market only needs to take a small portion of that share and the rest becomes infeasible.

            Same thing happened in auto production. As the cost of engine design went through the roof it was no longer possible for high end marques such as Rolls Royce, Aston Martin, Lamborghini etc to remain independent. They could not fund the whole amount of R&D they required. The only sports car marques to remain independent were the niche marques like Morgan that bought in their engine and Porsche which is deeply integrated into VW.

            Large format photography uses film that is up to ten times the area of medium format. It does not deliver anything like ten times the quality. Companies still make large format lenses (Nikon does) but nobody has designed a new lens for that format for decades.

            A ‘blad rig will easily cost $40K with lenses. A FF body could probably be made to sell for under $10K. I can’t see it being a volume thing, but Nikon has the lenses to support it.

            I don’t think the same is true of Canon. Which is why it makes sense for Nikon to go there.

          • CatSplat

            “Companies still make large format lenses (Nikon does) but nobody has designed a new lens for that format for decades.”

            I would recommend perhaps educating yourself on the subject of LF and its associated lenses before making bogus claims like that. For example, the new Schneider 350mm Apo-Tele-Xenar came out midway through 2009, hardly “decades” ago. While LF makers have never, ever been as quick to produce new gear as SLR ones, LF is still very much alive. New lenses and films are steadily appearing (Kodak Ektar 100 in 4X5 and 8X10 sizes was announced just a few days ago) and the format itself is actually increasing in popularity due to the cheap prices of used gear.

          • theLMAO

            “The D3x is cheap compared to the cost of going with a ‘blad. If the D3x is good enough for the job it is certainly more convenient to work with.”

            So are you saying the 1Ds MKIII and the D3x are comparable to medium format? LMAO… that would be as stupid to say that a 12 megapixel point and shoot is comparable to the D300 or D700…

            What I love from all you people is that you live in your little fantasy world where your wild theories are true… I would recommend you to shoot with a Blad, a Phase one or Leaf medium format back first before you make silly statements… it would be like saying the D90 is comparable to the D700 or that the EOS T2I is comparable to the 5D mark II PLEASE don´t be silly :/

          • PHB

            I really wish some of you photographers would learn something about the economics of VLSI design and production or the physics of optics.

            It is a fairly simple proposition: an advantage worth $40K should show through in tests pretty clearly. And it does not.

            The cost of a fab run on these chips is way above $1 million per design iteration. Nikon and Canon can amortize across millions of bodies, the medium format folk cannot. That is why the ‘blad noise performance is D2X vintage, not D3 vintage.

            AS for getting 200MP out of MF with the same technology. The ‘blad, phase one and so on have the same pixel pitch as the D3x. So if you get a 50MP Nikon you are going to get a 120MP blad with the technology at best.

            But actually you won’t because there really isn’t a proven demand for 100MP as there is for 50MP. 50MP is the upper end of magazine publishing resolution, used for full page shots in large format magazines. There is demand for resolution beyond that, but it is generally met today by people taking multiple shots with FX or DX and tiling them.

      • PHB

        ??? Dxo has the D90 with significantly better ISO performance than the D300s and better overall.

        I somehow doubt that Nikon would have produced a camera with a sensor they considered inferior.

        • rhlpetrus

          Within margin of error of measurements (they state it’s about 5 points).

        • Tomas

          D300s is a tweaked D300 sensor, which is much older than the D90 sensor. Of course it does a bit worse.

      • rhlpetrus


        Yes, they normalize for the final scores. If you check the graphs you have options “Screen” and “Print”. Screen is 100% res, Print is normalized.

        D3x is optimized for low ISO, D3s for high ISO, it shows.

        • when printed D3x looks far better also in high iso then D3s. You get little more noise but also much more data so it balances out in final resolution and dynamic range

          • PHB

            That is what I would expect. The D3x provides a lot more information to work with. Even simple averaging across cells should equal the D3 performance.

            As with the DX/FX issue, a lot of what passes for debate here turns out to be an artifact of how we measure.

            ISO at maximum resolution is not a good measure of noise. What we should use as a noise measure is noise when downsampled to a standard resolution (e.g. 12MP) using a CoDec supplied by the manufacturer.

            If we also switch to using f numbers that are measured as a ratio of equivalent focal length to aperture, the ‘low light advantage’ of FX disappears at the high end. On a DX body a 200mm f/2 turns into a 300mm f/2.8. Which not coincidentally are more or less the same size, weight and cost. Under this scheme the D300s and D3s would both have the same ISO rating – which is what we used to do in the film era.

  • GoWithNikon

    Yay! This is not the first and certainly not the last.

  • Gordon

    Interesting reading the comments on Canonrumors about the DxO comparison, bit of a stirred up hornets next there.

    I love the comments about the look, feel and ergonomics of the D3s as being outdated, ugly and unergonomic. I feel the exact same way whenever I handle a Canon, horrendous to use and just don’t have the polish that Nikon puts into their high-end gear.

    • Adam

      haha, I find the comment outdated funny cause the 1D series also doesn’t actually have a new design for generationssss

      • Gordon

        Quite true. There is just something about the look and feel about Canon bodies that make them seem like they were designed about 15 years ago. They have that molded plastic look about them that little thought has gone into the design of the body.

        • The visible man.

          There is just something about the Nikon users these days that make them seem like they are a bunch of Apple-touting kids. Canons and Nikons single digit cameras are tools, not some fancy designer clothing you’re supposed to look good carrying. Yes, the 1-series design dates back to the 80’s, but why fix it if it just ain’t broken?

          • Gustav

            To make it better.

            Contrary to popular belief, design is not completely about aesthetics. Design is about ease of use too. Apple’s computers aren’t successful because they look good; they’re successful because they let you get the job done in less time and less frustration.

            So, while you may think Canon reached the pinnacle of the usability factor of design 15 years go, I would say that there’s always room for improvement. This goes for Nikon, Canon, Apple, and anyone else who manufactures tools.

            Even hammers are still being improved upon, even though some people say it’s been perfect for 100 years, and claim there’s no point in changing it.

          • Gordon

            I agree that cameras are tools and not fashion statements, however a large part of the enjoyment of using a camera is how it feels and uses in your hands, aesthetics and ergonomics are part of this equation.

    • nick

      When you don’t have substance, you gotta turn to shallow arguments.

      “Well…you look stupid! nya nya”

  • Simon

    DXO mark does not take MP size into consideration and the 1DMk4 is 50% bigger sensor than D3s. There are more to IQ than DXO.
    NR is fast losing my respect with its fanboy talks.

    • nick

      its just for fun, relax.

      you’re losing my respect for taking the “defeat” comment so seriously

      • PHB

        I think Simon is learning the fine art of ‘projection’.

    • low

      simon – relax, take the stick up your butt and at least be thankful for NR’s sleepless nights bringing us rumors/news…..

      and dont worry, nikon is totally stickin it canon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Uh, speaking of fanboy talk…50%bigger?! By what measure? The 1dmkiv sensor has 640 more pixels horizontally and 432 more vertically. That’s hardly a difference of 50%. In terms of resolution, 50% more actual resolving power is only attained by 100% more pixels. 24mp is actually 50% more resolution.

      And you didn’t even say resolution, you said bigger. The 1dmkiv sensor is actually less than 77% the size of the D3 sensor.

      Actually, the 1dmkiv is only really 15.98 megapixels nominally, and the D3/D3s is 12 megapixels–Canon’s rounding is more generous than Nikons.

      Having now used the 1dmkiv, I’ll stick with my d700 with grip. Or a d3s. The 1dmkiv isn’t a slouch…but it and everything else in Canon’s line under-impress me. Except the 17mm TS-E–THAT’S tasty lookin. A gimmick, but interesting.

      • Papa Razzee

        I’m still waiting for the day when Nikon actually starts thinking about us who really do shoot professionally and dont compare pictures on pixel level as hobbyists on internet forums. Once each and every one of these pixelbashing Nikonians actually get a job in the photo industry they will learn that there is some sacrifices that needs to be done just to get the shot. I love the fact that instead of carrying around a (riciously priced by Nikon) 500mm lens i can actually take just a 300 millimeter one with 1.3x body and even crop the 16 megapixel images without hurting my god damn back while doing it for two days straight.

        • PHB

          You need not wait. Nikon takes no notice of these boards at all.

          That is why you can buy the D300 or D300s which sport a 1.5x crop factor and give you a 450mm equivalent length on a 300.

          It has the same software as the D700/D3/D3s and a mag body. Add a grip and you have almost all the features of the D3/D3s. All you lose is a slightly slower frame rate, the audio comment feature and some low light noise performance.

          • The visible man.

            Canon will be better in that category too with the EOS 7D with similiar kind of reach advantage as the pro cameras and better low-light performance.

          • The 7d makes better jpegs at 6400. It’s about on par with the d300 for iso when you shoot raw. So in either camp you have a crop sensor body that’ll run at 8fps and give you about the same low light performance. Shooting raw it’s all pretty much the same. I feel that the Nikon’s are built more robustly in general, but that’s just my experience, have beat up several gens of both brand in the field.

  • Simon

    Where is Nikon’s 2 new dSLRs that is gonna trump1DsMk4 that you have been predicting?
    No point digging out last week’s old news about some questionable DXO charts to console yourself, eh? I don’t see professional sport photographers getting rid of their Canon gears and buying D3s rather it is the other way because the 1DMk4 i s selling out while D3s is sitting on the shelf gathering dust on the shelves at stores. Don’t believe you can go and see for yourself.

    • low

      omg, relax he went on his own prrediction!!! hes not always right….

      do you shoot canon or something???

    • I think I explained already why I wrote what I wrote – I got info hat there will be a Nikon press event today about 2 new DSLR. This was all true, the only problem was that those were not new DSLR, but the D3s and the D3000 – Nikon just decided to re-announce them. I did not know that “little” detail.
      I was also influenced by the expected press event in Japan next week.
      Now you know what made me write this post.
      Regarding the DXO results, if you compare the numbers Nikon is better and this is what I wrote. I was specifically referring to DXO test results and nothing else.

    • nick

      What is your problem?

      It’s amazing how much those test results have upset you. Your identity is too wrapped up in your Canon camera…

      its as if the test was a personal attack on you…and now you’ve resorted to personally insulting the admin – who has been nothing but great

      If you like Canon so much, go out and shoot some pictures. And by the way, popularity never proves superiority

    • LOL

      Photojournalist only use Canon because Canon gave them free cameras to swap over and a massive discount to stick with them, this includes sports photographers. On the other hand, NASA and the Military use Nikon….

      • Bob

        Police use mostly Nikon too. I do know photojournalist that use Nikon.

      • johansson

        military and police!?!
        should be good reason not use nikon then …
        he he

  • Simon

    The same reason why some high quality medium format cameras with superior IQ don’t do as well as D3s. I don’t see top fashion photographers dumping their expensive MF cameras and buy D3s because DXO chart says the Nikon score better. Fools.

    • Simon Canon Fanboy

      Wow, three straight comments trying to talk down the DxO results. I wonder what this guy shoots, lol.

      • low

        probably a 1DIV which was totally obliterated by the D3S so i understand his frustration spending that much money and not to have the best camera, lol. jk simon….;)

      • ArtTwisted

        He does have a point though. But its still interesting to see, people need to calm down though. Use what you have, focus on the lenses and when you are able to upgrade your body do it, till then just shoot.

      • rhodium

        What he shoots isn’t important… it’s what he’s smoking that really worries me…

    • Jesus_sti

      I love putting oil on fire …. Nikon is just better YOU (simon) make the wrong choice!
      ( I know he will answer me back )

      So good result for Nikon but now you have to know how to use that camera !

    • PHB

      Well Annie Leibovitz hasn’t switched from film yet.

      Top photographers get there slowly. Everyone who is at or near the top today started at least a decade before digital was a match for 35mm film, let alone MF.

      There are plenty of top fashion photographers who use MF in the studio but switch to FF when they go in the field. Lens size and weight matters a lot less in the studio. And the distance to the model is pretty much constant so not a lot of lens changes required.

      Nothing is going to displace MF entirely, just as digital will never replace film completely. But it can and has replaced film for 98% of applications that matter and 35mm frame format will do that to the MF backs.

  • le_eiji

    As far as I know, majority of professional photographers use Canon in olympic games, not D3s. Nikon propaganda won’t work in professional domain.

    • low

      which probably explains all these blurry photos im seeing from the olympics??

    • denz

      @le_eili – and not to mention nikon brought hundreds of D3s in olympics just to look like many Pros were using it. Nikon NPS… by the way have you seen the 60D and 5D MK III in Vancouver? some says they saw a 1ds MK IV but i doubt that,

      @low – yes, that explains why many blurry photos of olympics your seeing because Nikon brought their D3s with some fanboys to shoot with it. All blurry photos your seeing is from Nikon, while the rest is from Canon. sorry fanboys, need some practice.

      about DXO marks “Every 50 point is just equal to 1 stop” always remember that, read thier TEXT post not just the graph.

      • denz

        wrong typo, 15 not 50

      • Gustav

        Wow, are you a child?

        Seriously, so much rhetoric. The fact remains that I’ve seen brilliant photos come out of Canon and Nikon. This blog just happens to be about enthusiasts of one brand of tool vs. another. If you like Canon better, I couldn’t care less. I’m happy with the camera I bought because it lets me take pictures I like. You don’t sound very happy.

        The only real reason to put down someone or something else is over insecurity. Otherwise, why waste your time if you have the tool that your are happy with? It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself that you made the right choice. If you were already convinced, then what are you doing here?

  • Meh

    DXO is a quack…much like your prediction of 2 new Nikon DSLRs LOL

  • Jay

    Oh great a big circle jerk fest

    • If you can’t beat em, join–wait, lemme rephrase…

  • enesunkie

    Not for all the Nikon stuff in the world could you hang me from a rope a thousand feet in the air and expect a picture. They don’t make a VR that could compensate for how much I’d be shaking!

  • Meh

    Don’t try to divert your failed prediction… was way OFF….

    • of course I screwed up, I admitted it and I said I am sorry, I was just trying to explain how this post same to life

    • nick

      So what? this blog is still great!

    • Ubiquitous

      What is your problem? Remember the site’s name? Nikon Rumors. According to Webster, a rumor is a statement or report current without known authority for its truth or talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source. If you want certainty, just visit this site:

  • santela

    Wow, all of a sudden all the Canon fanboys are popping up to defend their cameras…
    Look, no one said D3s is an overall better camera, and sure the 1D4 has more reach and MPs, do you see any Nikon fanboys arguing against that? Same goes for low ISO performance, Nikon is simply better in that area, so shut up and accept it like a man, stop whining.

  • dude

    biased test. popular photography mag tested 1d mk4 better than d3s @ iso3200 till 12800

  • Here is another one: Nikon D3S vs. Canon EOS 1D Mark IV – Which one’s better?

    Canon does have the better video – nobody is arguing that, but the DXO results were not about video.

    • Jay

      you do know kai is biased towards nikons rofl bad example.

    • Petr Pechman

      I guess better is the one with the two buttons :o) lets say the mid one :o)

    • theLMAO

      While I´m a rabid fan of Nikon and I love my D3s and my D3x… dude what the bleep? hahaha chill down… in reality I am a bit concerned about how this is measured because their data doesn´t always stack up with reality (not saying the 1d MKIV is better than the D3s).. also for what they are the cameras are an overkill for magazines and newspapers at the reduced sizes for magazines and the low dpi in newspapers you wouldn´t be able to differentiate one photo from the 1D MKIV from the D3s at all.

      A friend of mine is working with a newspaper and all their MKIII´s are gone replaced by MKIV´s and I have seen his BKB and Soccer shots and to tell you the truth the camera does as well as my D3s. Of course IT people, geeks, measurbators get excited with the little numbers, charts with tiny colored dots and colored bars of DXO but again in reality you won´t be able to tell which camera took which photo when you open your sport newspaper, sports illustrated, or any other sport magazine you read.

      So LMAO dude… 😛

  • Jay

    rofl who cares they both are great cameras… fap fap fap fap fap

  • nick

    The funny thing is…most of us don’t even own the flagship cameras (D3s or the 1d Mark IV). Everyone defending these cameras probably shoots with cheap cropped sensor and this entire debate has no real effect on any of our lives

    • T140Rider

      Since I got a D700, I’ve hardly used my D2x/D200. It has really opened my eyes to what is possible from a Digital Camera especially without having to resort to flash.
      I was on a shoot in a very historic building (A world heritage site) the weekend before last. Getting the tripod into many places was just not possible so it was down to handholding. There was not real time to setup flash properly.
      So I wound the ISO up to 3200 and was able to handhold virtually every shot.
      There is no way I could have done that with a DX sized sensor body.

      • nick

        No doubt its amazing. I just don’t think most people can afford the D700 or D3

  • I love it when it’s obvious that people are insecure about their system, or a reccent purchase… I’ll be the first to admit that Nikon’s system has many problems. But I discuss things in a civilized manner. FAIL, Canon fanboys…


    • santela

      I’ll 2nd that. No system is perfect, you just have to make your decisions…

    • Gordon

      Reading the Canon rumours discussion it seems quite a few are upset. I think the problem with the Canon fanbase is that alot of them are bandwagoners, only gravitating to Canon because the perception is that Canon is superior to everything else. Anything that brings into question this positioning is then treated as suspect and bias as it’s not possible Canon could ‘fail’.

      • Gordon

        I was going to add too that Nikon have their own problems which doesn’t help the community, such as slow to market, expensive pricing and MP bound. If Nikon had the same resources available as what Canon does then they would be able to address all those issues.

        • I agree on both items. And that’s exactly the reason I first bought a Nikon – I hate bandwagons. I like underdogs. From the onset, Canon has struck me as the choice of the masses, for reasons often involving popularity, pride, etc…

          As I said, I’ll be the quickest Nikon user to admit that Canon does have advantages, and Nikon does have problems. I’ve shot extensively with the 7D, 5D mk2, 1-series flagships, and most every Canon DSLR back to the 10D. It’s not a bad system. For many years it was a superior system in certain respects. Canon has always led the way in resolution. However now that Nikon has adopted FX, the lower resolution became an advantage in low-light, and that’s a fact.

          Nikon and Canon will always leapfrog each other. I simply prefer the Nikon system because of how the controls are laid out, and how certain features are trickled down to the masses much sooner. 🙂


  • NikonSucks

    Civilized what…Nikon fanboy.

  • Digitalux

    NR and its admin are doing a great job! I think many people got it wrong … an may be a last minute postponement occurred. Who knows but Nikon.

    Regarding DXOMark, it is the “rawest” sensor analysis. Period. Higher MP is is for output size which doesn’t matter for sensor analysis results. It does for overall use of the camera though.
    In the case of the 1DMkIV, it clearly shows the trade-off: slightly higher resolution at a significant sensor underperformance compared to Nikon D3(s). Furthermore, the test by French magazine Chasseur d’Images concludes that the AF somehow still has some slight issues (despite overall excellent performance). The 1DMkIV missed the 5 stars rating if I remember well.

  • Tobi

    So funny !! look guys .. sensor performance does not have a great impact on camera performance.. just look at the D5000, d90 and d300S, all have very similar sensor performance but I will take the D300S over the D5000 any day…
    So the D3S sensor beats the pants off the Canon sensor for today. Tomorrow it may be the other way around. Just go take pictures … !!

    • denz

      yes and D5000 beats 7D and 550D according to DXOmark, in real world, what will you choose, D5000, 550D, or 7D?

  • Zograf

    Ive looked at test samples of both on
    The high-ISO advantage of D3s was to be expected but i was surprised by how much better D3s is, though I have to admit resolution wise bellow ISO 12800 1DMk4 is quite impressive.

    Another thing, 1DMk4 couldn’t resolve the red napkin patterns even at ISO 1600 — strange…

  • tim

    Cant wait to see for how much that 13mm sells!

    • WoutK89

      Hey, stay on topic 😀 whow as talking about other news, lol

      You are right though, lens and rare dont match, it’ll probably be too much to ever see the light of day with a camera attached. Nikon, bring out the AF-s version, and prices will drop significantly (look at 28/1.4).

      • tim

        hehe your right im off topic here 🙂

        But it does not come much rarer than this. Its also a gem of a lens. Have you seen the distortion on this? Its like a 50mm 🙂 Too bad its probably destined for a collector safe probably. 🙁

  • Berger

    Its not only the high iso or resolution, but the autofocus as well. I sold my Canon 5D mark II due to worthless autofocus. 2 out of 3 pictures were blurred. My D100 can do that better not to mention my D700 :-p

  • Petr Pechman

    As i wrote already somewhere here, check this video its not like regular test but its nice to look at it :o)

  • Anonymous

    I heard a D3S a few days ago , just the smooth noise of it worth it !!!!

    • WoutK89

      Great noise performance given an old meaning 😛

  • Anonymous

    A Canon would wake up a bear in hibernation , not goood!!!!!!!!

  • AS

    I wander how is it possible that D3x is still better than the new D3s, even D3s has twice the pixel size of the D3x.

    If man reads the full comparison made by those on dxcomark then you’ll see that Canon is better than Nikon for it’s pixel size (there must be a difference of 10 points between FF and APS-H, and in this case is not). So the comparison is meaningless as it is (canon offers more zoom on the same lens).

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Nikon fan, but the facts are the facts.

    • WoutK89

      “canon offers more zoom on the same lens”
      Since when does crop adjust zoom range? 😉 5x zoom, stays 5x zoom.

      • AS

        Since ever! A 200 mm zoom lens becomes a 260 mm on APS-H winch is great for sport shooting. A Nikon 300 mm costs a lot more then a 200 mm lens.

        • WoutK89

          Look at the D3x, it features the same pixel density as a D80 😉
          You dont gain that much! It is only a little cheaper to produce a DX sensor

          • AS

            Man, I was speaking about apples and you about oranges…Please tray to understand what I wrote in the lines above 🙂 and then speak your mind.

          • WoutK89

            I am only saying, the advantages of “more reach” will soon be gone. The D3x is already a FX and DX camera in one resolution wise. Try and read into what I wrote too 😉 I understand what you try to say, but it is not holding true for 100% 😉

          • WoutK89

            Oh yes, to add, a zoom lens might become xxx * 1.5 in the tele end, but that also happens in the “wide” end of the lens. The zoom doesnt become only visible in the tele end of the lens. 5x zoom ratio, stays 5x zoom ratio

  • rhlpetrus

    DxO Mark has shown Nikon/Sony sensors consistently at the top for dslrs. And for those that say it doesn’t take res into account, yes it does, the final scores and the Print option for the graphs is just that, they normalize to a common resolution value (8MP).

    The main issue with the latest Canon sensors has been color separation. Canon seem to have weakened the CFA to gain some extra light to the sensels. Read it here:

    Same is going on with 1D4:

    That has some impact for color reproduction and noise, as they explain.

  • rhodium

    I think what a lot of people are missing here is that DxOMark only measures one aspect of a camera’s performance – the sensor performance. Many other factors come into play when it comes down to how good a camera is, and even then, one must consider what he or she will use the camera for before judging it good or bad (for one’s purposes).

    It’s funny to think how 99% of those bashing DxOMark for their “flawed” results do not even own either of the two cameras. I’ve been using a D3s for just over a month now, and I am nothing short of amazed at the kind of images it can produce when pushed to the limits. I think people need to pull a stick out of their asses and just go out and shoot with whatever camera they have.

    • David

      14 months since I bought the D300, I am still loving it and getting more out of the camera.

    • Anonymous

      You can think something is flawed even though you don’t own it. Perhaps you meant to say that in a different way?

  • Adam

    No what I think a lot of people are missing is that people who feel good/bad about some online test are sad, pathetic, couch potato gear heads. The rest of us are out using our cameras. And some guys are out-shooting me with entry level cameras. It matters not what your camera can do for you, but what you can do for your camera!

    Most online measurebaters wouldn’t know where to look if you gave them a DSLR. They’d look through the lens into the mirror box.

    • WoutK89

      “They’d look through the lens into the mirror box.”
      with a flashlight 😛

  • mikey

    dont get me wrong, im a nikon user, but doesn’t the d3s run at almost double the price of the 5d?

    • mikey

      wakey wake, mybad its the 1d..

      • Tobi

        They are about the same price. and I would say about the same functionality if every thing is taken into consideration.

        • AS

          Totally Agree! With Nikon you have one stop better Hi ISO, and with Canon extra zoom for the same focal length.

          • WoutK89

            Extra zoom and loss of depth of field 😛 which is important for portraiture

    • Tobi


  • Jabs

    Actually, I posted a link to these results a few days ago on another thread here and glad to see that the Administrator has taken it up.
    I respect DX0 as they seem to be one of the only sources for ‘Scientific Evaluation’ without the ad-driven hoopla or madness of blogomania – LOL!
    The tests that they do are very good and show the weakness of many cameras as well as their strengths.
    When one points these FACTS out to many, they often cannot comprehend what is being said or touted and then they go into brand shock or denial.
    If you look at the chart, you will see a constant of FX beating DX handily and when you look at the Nikon results, you see how the D3s has improved upon the already fantastic D3 and that seems to drive Canon users or fans nuts.
    The 5DMK5 is way better than the IDMK4 and if you look at the pictures from BOTH, this is borne out quite easily. One has better focusing as it is a new update but the older 5DMK2 has a better full frame or FX sensor.
    The D3X is the best 35mm sensor and even better than most of the medium format DSLR sensors – FACT!
    I can’t wait to see what the D3Xs and D700s both do.

    AND for the Canon fanboys and fangirls – The D700 handily beats the new 1DMK4 and it is the D90 or D5000 that you need to worry about, as they are about the same in picture quality PERFORMANCE of the new 1DMK4 while the entire D3 series (old and new) are in a league beyond ANYTHING so far from Canon.
    Perhaps things will change when Canon brings out a new full frame sensor soon.
    The Canon 1DMK4 has higher resolution BUT it is an unusable advantage as the focusing is NOT in the league of either the D3 series or the D700 nor is the performance at anything above about ISO 800 to 1600 that great to my eyes. It is better in focusing than almost anything that Canon has produced so far, but that does not say much to me.
    Enjoy your day!

    • low

      what good is a camera if the focus isnt up to par. in the end it comes down to the skill of the photog, but what tools will be able to confidently get them that shot?
      be it that it is a nikon or canon…nikon, ime, provides this comfort for me.

  • Jabs
  • ad

    How can you compare 18mp against 12 mp FF.

    If you look again at those figures and take these things into regard, Canon wins…..
    But hey this is Nikon Rumors, so Nikon rules?

    • LOL

      Why would we take it into regard? “Canon wins if you think of it like this” Well.. they didn’t build it like that so no… it doesn’t “win”.

      Canon fanboi fail

    • Jabs

      Greetings AD,
      In what manner did you see Canon winning?

      Perhaps you compared it to a D5000 or D90?

      The D90 and D5000 have a BETTER sensor than the D300 and D300s – FACT!

      Canon was aiming for the D3 apparently and Nikon seems to have BLOWN them out with the D3s.

      Perhaps you wait until Canon introduces a $10,000 US dollar 30+megapixel monster, eh?
      Sorry, but Canon is NOT in the league of Nikon D3 series or even D700 currently and for that matter NO other camera manufacturer can touch the D3 series.

    • WoutK89

      “How can you compare 18mp against 12 mp FF”
      You can’t yet, lol, there is only 16MP against 12MP FX 😉

    • Gustav

      What if I don’t need more than 12MP? The MP then becomes irrelevant.

      If you like the quality of pictures coming out of your camera, then why do you care what some web site decides what they want to focus on. (no pun intended)

    • Jabs

      Greetings AD,
      If you are referring to the MK4, it is actually 16 megapixels and not 18 megapixels, as that is the resolution of the 7D.
      Full frame or FX is way beyond any cropped sensor or DX camera in picture quality and the MK4 is NOT Canon’s top of the line camera, though it is supposed to be a D3s competitor – dream on!
      The MK4 is a good camera with bragging rights but NOT picture quality rights even amongst Canon shooters.
      BOTH 21 megapixel Canon bodies blow away the Mk4 in picture quality and the MK4 and 7D have the latest Canon focus modules and though they are a huge improvement from the other Canon cameras, they still are NOT D3/D700 or even D300 quality.
      Canon’s focus is off, perhaps as they focus on marketing hype and video – instead of quality photographic results.
      Nikon caught Canon napping again, just like when they introduced the F3 series – akin to the D3 series now in 2010 – LOL!
      Let us see what Canon releases next and how they fix their focusing issues and megapixel mess.
      Have you ever seen the files from a Nikon D3X?

  • Bob

    If Nikon doesn’t do anything next week I might get the D300s which is a near perfect camera. I want the video end too. There are ways to work around it to make it better. To many problems with the 7D to switch just for video Overheating. Banding in pictures to name a couple.

    Really Nikon has a pretty good line of cameras out now.

  • Andrew

    Canon had the upper hand because of the price of their glass, but has anyone seen the the price of the new Canon 70-200mm IS USM II?

  • Jabs

    Dpreview has a review of the MK4 plus one of the D3s.

  • low

    canon fanbois, you win in video ok? leave us photographers alone, rofl.

    • Jay

      nikon fanbois, you win in ISO noise with NR REDUCTION leave us real (leica,hasselblad) photographers alone, rofl.

      • WoutK89

        “NR REDUCTION”
        NikonRumors Reduction? Or NReduction? 😉

      • low

        lol you think youre the only one with a leica eh???? sadly youre mistaken.

  • Jay

    dont reply, to busy beating off to reviews cus actual picture taking is crap lol.

  • papadope

    WOW,this site has become a kindergarden.i mean..FFS!

  • Jason

    You misquoted Canon Rumors in the post, they said it was a wash OUTSIDE of ISO. You should probably clarify that.

    I’ve used both cameras, the Canon is better under ISO 1600. colour, pop, contrast, neutrality. The AF system also appears quicker.

    Everyone puts so much stock into ISO performance that it’s almost laughable. I’m willing to wager if you know what you’re doing with NR, you can get equal detail and noise performance from the 1d4.

    DXO is a load of rubbish though, the 1D Mark III produced better files under ISO 1600 than the D3 did. Pro photographers put up with the AF performance because the IQ was better.

    This place has become quite silly.

    • Jabs

      Hey Jason,
      WAKE UP!

      Look here



      The place has NOT become silly, but many Nikon shooters are defending their chosen camera brand from Canon shooters and many Canon shooters are dreaming that they have a camera to finally BEAT Nikon.
      Actually, the 5DMK2 beats both the 7D and MK4 in picture quality and the MK4 does worse than the MK3 in LOW LIGHT autofocusing.
      Canon needs a new direction as in pushing LOWER megaixels and cleaner files. They need to make a full frame camera PLUS they need a much better RGB meter similar to what Nikon has. Right now, Nikon is TWO generations beyond Canon.
      D3, D3s and D3x have shaken up Canon and caught them napping. Perhaps they will come back with a new camera and then Nikon will introduce a D4.

      • Jay

        meanwhile jabs plays with his d3000 lol.

        • denz


        • Jabs

          Hey Jay,
          Actually, the D3000 is quite a good camera. Why thank you – LOL!
          Back at you for your attempted put down of me.

          WHAT do you shoot?

          • Jay

            ar15 carbine rifle and a m16 at work lol

    • Jay

      nikon fanatics are obsessed with iso because until the d3 age their cameras sucked ass lol.

      • Really? I still feel my old D2x wiped the floor with the 1ds mkii. At low ISO the mkii still had horrible noise in the shadows and had horrible color accuracy at any ISO. My old D2x had files at least as detailed and much cleaner. And focused and shot much faster/more precisely. And had a proper lithium ion battery. And let’s not even get into the horrid ass backwards menu system and image review on the mkiii.

        Ok, with all your shit talking, what do you shoot? I mean equipment and what do you do professionally with photography? Where’s your site?

        • Jay

          wow now your making it personal lol, dude I shoot with both canon and nikon. I just comment cus I cant stand fanbois on either site. That and im bored lol. I am not going to get trolled by the crazies however so I will keep my privacy. Nice site you have however keep up the good work. So the thread is about DXO marks correct? Take a look at how the d2x matched against other cameras at that time. Now I know the d2x takes splendid pictures, but I just lol at people who get all hyped up over either brand. I mean its like they think they are winning a battle lol.


          • I don’t agree with DXO 100%, since I think their system misses some details like noise quality and such. But in this case I think their data bears out my experience. I’ve now worked with raw files from both cameras (d3s/1dmkiv) and I have to say there’s about a two stop advantage for the d3s when you’re shooting raw.

            Canon’s IQ has come a long way. They used to be horrible at reds at every ISO. They seem to be a bit better than they used to be. But Nikon has not stood still.

            I’ve shot extensively with all three of those cameras and from an image quality standpoint alone, I’d take the D2x any day. Oh, correction, I shot with the 1dsmkii, not the 1d. I can’t say anything about the 1dmkii having never used it. But the 1dsmkii and the 20D make files that look like garbage when compared to what I pulled out of my d2x. Even at higher ISO.

            I had the option to go with either, and I still will use either and sometimes have to. But I really prefer Nikon’s interface, build, speed, and image quality.

            Comparing the D3s and 1Dmkiv is, to me, like comparing a 2010 Corvette ZR1 to a Bugatti Veyron. They’re both incredible pieces of gear. I’d never turn down a Corvette–they’re pretty and fast.

            But objectively, the Bugatti is in a whole other world. That’s the D3s. Sure it needs 100 octane (good lenses) and room to stretch it’s legs (light you can barely see to walk in) but the difference is real and measurable. It’s so significant that even DXO’s stats, which turn meaningful information into numeric porridge show that.

            I did things with my D700 last week that the 1dmkiv can only JUST do (great IQ at 25600). Not do better, but only as well. Maybe it can do it at two more frames a second, but damn, Nikon is just doing some amazing stuff. Canon too. But I’m just thrilled at where the technical boundaries are these days.

  • Jabs

    A Small comment here perhaps in retrospect.
    Many computer users probably use LCD’s for viewing their photo files and looking at online content.
    I have BOTH CRT’s and LCD’s and the CRT’s of choice for me are Sony Trinitron tubes. I have a HD 1920X1080 LCD and it runs under Win7 Ultimate as the primary monitor and a Trinitron tubed CRT as the secondary monitor on that computer. On another, I use a Trinitron tubed CRT only, as I got sick of the LCD and its’ lousy color quality and lack of true black (sort of dark grey).
    For CRITICAL photography and movie viewing I don’t like the LCD as it has a very bad BLACK LEVEL compared to CRT’s, so when I view photographs on a CRT, compared to an LCD,so the results are quite different (YES, the LCD is using a digital DVI interface), as LCD’s are horrible in color reproduction with most of them only able to show perhaps less than 90 percentage of the color gamut of a CRT.
    Yes, they have 10bit LCD’s used on Workstations with workstation graphics cards but I still prefer a Trinitron tubed CRT for its’ much better black level retention which really impacts my viewing of HIGH ISO files or critical color analysis of black and white as well as color low ISO files.
    In technology, we often go forward two steps and then backwards a step.
    Perhaps, this might explain why some posters here do not see the differences in posted pictures at many photographic web sites.
    One other thing – IF you use Firefox 3.5.8 – please install this Add-on – Color Management 0..5.3. It makes a world of a difference to me.
    ALSO calibrate your monitor with the built in Win7, Apple or Linux tools.
    Have good one!

    • Huh? Calibrating your monitor with a software only solution isn’t calibrating. Are you using a hardware tool like a Spyder or an EyeOne? If not you really can’t even begin to talk about the color accuracy/palette/highlight/shadow of your monitors.

      This isn’t an insult, this is just a professional heads up. Get a calibration tool. It’s worth every penny if you actually print, and even if you’re only going to web, it helps get your images within tolerances so your stuff looks best on the widest array of monitors.

      • Jabs

        Actually to go deeper into the subject, there are TWO distinct monitor calibrations.
        Calibration 1 = calibrating the monitor itself for the BEST frequency and color response.
        Calibration 2 = calibrating the monitor and your WORKFLOW for a consistent COLOR response from monitor to printer and that is ARBITRARY or subjective.

        Calibration 1 is the response of YOUR monitor and calibration 2 is the response to YOUR workflow as in making all items displayed EQUAL in color reproduction.
        The BEST way found so far to calibrate a monitor is a SCOPE, as Engineering is my background.
        I have scopes on Linux plus you have ICC profiles in Windows and probably Apple also – FACTS.
        Did you understand any of what you posted or did you read a web site?
        A calibrated monitor loses its’ calibration WHEN viewed in the wrong light in a STUDIO, so the lighting in its’ environment is also important.
        You are balancing YOUR workflow for consistency and NOT calibrating your monitor with those so-called monitor calibration systems.
        I can calibrate my monitor easily under Linux using various software charts as that is what is done in the Broadcast Industry.
        Too many people do not understand what monitor calibration really is and assume that workflow equalization means calibration.
        If you equalize your workflow that everything looks the same from input to output, then YOU have made your own standadrs and NOT calibrated the monitor.
        There are SMPTE standards used in Video and Broadcast –

        A Trinitron tube is recognized for its color purity and accuracy from pure white to deep blacks and NO LCD has equaled that so far – FACTS!
        It is not about being old-fashioned but about being technically adept, which you seem to be clueless about.
        Have you ever seen the color response and color fidelity of a $20, 000.00 Sony Trinitron Broiadcast or Studio monitor?
        Apparently NOT!
        I have been shooting for over 30 years and I started in computers with the Commodore Amiga, so get real bub!
        My first camera was a Nikon F3HP, my second was an F3AF with the 80 F2.8 and the 200 F3.5 ED-IF, my third was a F3Tc and my fourth was an FAb and all had motor drives. I also had Nikon lens from 28mm to 500mm and a total of 30+ lens with all Nikon, Tiffen, Hoya and B+W filters including normal polarizers and circular polarizers. I also used Gitzo tripods!

        BEEN there and done that, bud!
        I used a MacBeth light table with color corrected lights and I shot in New York City and all over America, Canada, Mexico and other places plus often developed at the famous Lab on I think 23rd Street when in town. I shot Fujichrome Velvia 50 and 100 plus 64T and Neopan 100, 400, 1600 Plus Ilford HP5, Delta 400 and Agfapan 25 – hated T-Max, tried Tri-X and despised it. I also shot Ektachrome and Kodachrome but I did not like them as much!

        NOW, do you have anything else to say now?

        • Lol

          All your lengthy appeal to authority is fallacious and misguided.

          Your described calibration ignores the reality that even with perfect control of input to a monitor one can not predict the output from the screen.

          THIS is why a hardware calibration tool is needed to evaluate objectively the delivered image and correct for inevitable failings of the predictive techniques you describe.

          Not to mention that far from being ARBITRARY and subjective, one should strive for OBJECTIVE results. Who gives a fuck if your monitor matches your printer if they are both WRONG? You might be able to print what you see, but if nobody else can reproduce said vision you’re worthless.

          The ONLY way to be correct is to calibrate to a known OBJECTIVE standard. Pick one and use it and ensure your entire workflow does.

          • Jabs

            Another uninformed person who does not have much English READING comprehension nor much Technical knowledge, it seems.
            We are both saying the same basic thing you dolt but what I posted is obviously above your head.
            I was trying to explain the TWO types of calibration needed.
            1. MONITOR calibration or called initially setting YOUR own monitor to the best it can deliver!
            2. NEXT, you calibrate your WHOLE entire workflow from MONITOR to PRINTER to a KNOWN standard such as Adobe sRGB or whatever you strive for.
            The calibration is when the CALIBRATION equipment takes a PROFILE of BOTH your monitor and your printer and then CORRECTS both of them to be close to whatever standard it deems correct for YOUR workflow!
            You failed to understand what is going on or you would not have responded like you did.
            A properly calibrated INFERIOR or wretched monitor and when MATCHED to a lousy printer will give you perfect CRAP!
            A great monitor and a great printer perfectly SYNCED in whatever colorspace YOU prefer, means same colors from SCREEN to PRINT.
            Learn that Sherlock!

          • Jabs

            Reply #2 –
            Did you understand the horse manure you posted?
            You said nothing really!
            I explained that calibration CAN BE arbitrary or subjective.
            Arbitrary means as you wish and subjective refers to attempting to attain a KNOWN standard.
            I know of the various calibration units and then YOU fail to realize that they DO NOT often take into account the ROOM that you are in.
            Ever heard of COLOR temperature of the lights in your work room affecting the perception of the image on your screen?
            Ever heard of monitors with AMBIENT light compensators?
            Why don;t you try and LEARN your subject first or you would not give such a BOGUS reply that actually said NOTHING!

            Get real bud!
            Monitors BUILT to known standards are calibrated differently from many COMPUTER screens and thus wake up!
            Show me TWO computer screens that have the same COLOR profile?
            Name them!

            Fools post here and tell us nonsense while I just continue with my work and leave you dolts alone.
            Engineering is NOT mere opinion – it is BASED upon facts and not your dribble.

            Do you KNOW that most Studios have calibrated lights?
            You EYES is what we are dealing with as in PERCEPTION!
            Ever heard of color correct fluorescents and WHY they are needed?
            It is truly difficult to teach a fool anything, so I leave you alone to your own ego!

          • No

            Don’t confuse what you meant to say with what you did say.

          • Actually, you’re still off. Start off by picking Adobe 1998, since it’s the common ground for software and hardware–it’s the most complete color space that both have access to.

            Then realize that you can’t calibrate output sources. They do what they do and are pretty fixed in their capabilities. (Well, ok light on RA4 paper printers take calibration, but they do so as part of their own set up and you’d be an idiot to mess with that).

            You DO absolutetly need to calibrate your monitor. This is because it has a lot of color that it can’t display and you need a profile that’s going to help your computer display the colors it CAN produce at the proper luminance levels adjusted to an objectively correct hue.

            You can’t calibrate your inkjet–don’t bother. You can’t change the calibration on your laser printer. You better not try to screw with your RA4 printer…is there an output format you’re using that I’m missing? Do you have a USB loom or something?

            If you’re screwing with anything besides your monitor, you’re either clueless, or you’re working on broken/inferior equipment. Or you’re trying to get it to do something it just won’t do (produce out of gamut colors?)

            If you want to email me at my website, I’d be happy to explain. But you’re really just embarrassing yourself right now, since you obviously have only read about these things.

          • Actually, all the “pro” calibration tools will take an ambient reading, either through the backside or you flip them over. And nobody in their right mind works in a brightly lit room to prep images for print. Dim light has a negligible effect.

            “I’ve already pissed myself!” isn’t a good enough excuse to avoid the bathroom. You NEED to calibrate your monitor with a hardware tool to get consistent results. Can you get ok results without doing so? Just as well as you can hit the center of a dart board with lots of practice. But you’re not shooting darts, your making pictures!

            Get a freakin calibration tool and fix your monitor, so you can spend less time HERE and more time out shooting. Which is where I’m off to!

        • Jabs

          Hey Micah,
          Glad to see that you are reading up on the subject and actually posting better and more cohesive information – LOL!
          You can calibrate your Inkjet printer and it is called using ICC profiles.
          It is in the Operating System, the manufacturer’s drivers/workflow packages or in your chosen graphic programs – look it up!
          In many programs, you can easily adjust the color gamut of the printed photograph also.

          Anyhow, this is getting tired and boring – do as you wish and no ill feelings towards you or anyone here BUT quit jiving us here.
          I have been in computers and using plus making graphics and photographs for too long to argue with people.
          Adobe 98 is the older standard and sRGB is the newer – simple as that. Some prefer one, others prefer the other – so no arguments here. I actually prefer CYMK for printing and RGB for displaying something.
          They BOTH (Adobe 98 and sRGB) need to be replaced though and all the calibration in the world will not fix a lousy LCD monitor if it cannot display the complete color spectrum.

          After you calibrate your monitor and your workflow, you still have ambient light to deal with unless you work in a pitch black room – LOL!
          Calibration is an overstated and misused item, so not hung up on it.
          I prefer consistency to calibration often, providing the output is accurate and repeatable.
          To get the calibration based upon the limitations of your monitor, means that you have choked the width and breadth of the color spectrum to the least common denominator (your lousy monitor) – figure that out now.
          Have a great day in new thought!

  • Tomas

    Canon users capable of taking good pics wouldn’t waste their time flaming numbers on a Nikon board. Same the other way around.

    Tells you a bit about the posters here eh.

  • Jule

    Dxo is a joke, jest, funny tale

    it put d40 ahead the canon 1d mark2 and canon 5d
    come on , do you belive in this bullshits?

    • Mat

      yeh, too bad it’s true. Just because you paid more for your 5d doesn’t make a scientific test of the sensors invalid. your $ bought more smaller pixels, is it hard to believe there are real tradeoffs? didn’t you even realize why no other brands bought into the MP race?

      the CPU makers gave up on the Mhz game a decade ago. So have the camera makers on MP, except for Canon’s fanboys.

    • Jabs

      The DX0 Mark is a Scientific and specific unbiased analysis of digital camera sensors and many do not like it when it shows the truth about their beloved or chosen cameras.
      In reality, it is uncannily accurate and most people complain because Nikon is at the top of the charts in 35mm digital and not their favorite brands including Leica.
      The photographs from a D40 are actually better than many costlier cameras – FACTS!
      Nikon delivers superior real world files plus lower noise at higher ISO’s and people have to deal with that. themselves
      If you look over the whole chart, you will see a distinct correlation between what photographers complain about and their results there.
      Individual web sites do NOT have the Engineering, Scientific background or capabilities to do as precise a job as DX0 Labs and thus people deride it.
      Perhaps you learn why people complained about the Canon 40D beating the 50D and then look at their charts and see WHY, they are justified.
      I started shooting slides years ago and thus had to learn proper exposure and critical slide shooting and viewing which has trained my eye now translated to the digital era.
      Perhaps you stop posting and learn some things yourself.
      Educate yourself, perhaps!

      • Jule

        i have a nikon D700 and a D200
        i have a canon 5d mark 2 and a 5D(the old)

        with great lenses

        what’s you gear?
        the dxo makes me laughing

  • Torshon

    I have a theory on 1st time DSLR buyers, which plays out so far in my group of only 10.

    Canon DSLR users bought Canon mainly due to:
    1) had a Canon P&S
    2) everyone else has Canon
    3) more shops have more Canon more prominently displayed

    While Nikon DSLR bought Nikon by comparing different models and choosing the best price/value combo.

    That is, most Nikon users more likely have touched many brands before coming to a conclusion, while many (80%?) Canon users never considered other brands at all. Nikon newbies can say why they chose one model over the Canon one, while the reverse is not true.

    This of course doesn’t include FX buyers whom are either pros what just kept whatever DX brand they bought, or newbies with rich uncles (who most likely got them a 5d2)

    What have others seen?

  • Jabs

    There are a lot of very ignorant posters here who spout web site related things like they know about it – duh!
    Calibration MEANS in English to sync or set to a KNOWN standard or an accepted standard or COMPARED to what – in simple English!
    There are several accepted colorspaces and people differ about which one to use, so I leave that alone.
    There are also several MONITOR RGB colors (Movies, Broadcast, Text, Print – for example) and some are standardized while others are NOT.
    It is a fact of life that LCD’s do NOT have the color GAMUT of a great CRT – known FACTS and thus nothing to argue or debate about.
    Most LCD manufacturers PUT in their literature the PERCENTAGE of the color gamut that they can display which is COMPARED to a CRT – fact!
    People spout off about what they remotely DO NOT understand and then try and teach others what the person already knows!
    Denseness is your lack of an education or a lack of Technical knowledge and thus YOUR problem. No one is looking down at you but don’t try and teach those who already know – GROW UP!
    You see all these stupid explanations here about sensor types and shoddy BOGUS explanations which those who KNOW just overlook as people try and pontificate from reading WEB SITES!
    Get an Engineering DEGREE in that field or SHUT UP!
    The Internet is filled with a lot of blowhards and when you try and correct them, they try and teach you WHAT they themselves DO NOT obviously know.

    Hence, I don’t argue with people here much – too much .SAP. dripping out of their heads in their zeal to defend a stupid camera.

  • Jabs

    I just looked these up as a way to educate the ignorant posters here, perhaps!



    I don’t have the time nor the inclination to argue with people, so perhaps you look at these two web sites and learn a thing or two from them.
    There are several web sites that discuss the subject but most posters here obviously do not get it.
    You cannot understand something when the information flies over your head or you are clueless about certain things.
    Educate yourself before you make a fool of yourself!

  • Jabs

    The Internet and Ignorance?
    Greetings all,
    The Internet is a great resource and also a great source for the equivalent of ‘talking heads’ or people who are clueless as to what they read on blogs or web sites as they try and explain to others that which they THINK about a certain concept.
    Details without a proper working KNOWLEDGE of what you are dealing with relegates you to being an uninformed or even worse an INFORMED fool.
    Knowledge is NOT only facts but a working understanding of these facts also.

    Posters love to go to web sites or blogs and tell us all types of crap and YES, this includes many of the persons who manage or run the very blogs (and NO, I am not referring to nikonrumors or its’ Administrator – as that person is a humble straight shooter who does not pretend about having some ‘special knowledge’ or such – LOL).
    It is idiotic trolls who run from area to area spreading their ignorant drivel like others do not know that their attempts to seem educated on almost ANY subject is a game to them. There is NO ONE who understands all of technology or about sensors, marketing or even cameras and thus much here rightly is OPINION but an opinion should be based upon at least some facts and a demonstrated knowledge of the basics of what you are posting about or explaining/defending.
    The Internet has dropped the technical education level of much, as many think that they can basically ‘look up’ a subject and then pretend to be instant experts.
    Dream on!
    How do YOU know that what you quoted or even read is by someone who knows what they heck they are saying?

    The Internet is NOT a substitute for education, experience or knowledge!
    It is an INFORMATIONAL pipeline with lots of details and also lots of pretenders trying to drive traffic to their web sites and they sucker idiots with elaborate sounding things while the ones who know, just overlook them.

    They remind me of ‘edumacated’ STOOGES!

    Post whatever you wish BUT don’t try and convince someone who knows a subject that you know it WHEN it is quite obvious you do not!

    Freedom to be a jackass or a butthead indeed – LOL!

  • Digited

    The main difference between the two in the DXOmark tests is in the low light-ISO number. This can almost entirely be accounted for by difference in pixel pitch. 5.7uM in the canon is pixel are of 25.5 square uM. 8.4uM in the Nikon is a pixel area of 55.5 square uM. The low-light ISO test essentially is a test of a single pixel’s performance.

    The Nikon pixels are over twice the size. This means twice the equivalent ISO.

    So for an equivalent chunk of sensor area (containing different pixel counts for each), the Canon would have to have a low-light ISO measurement of 1497 to exactly match the D3s. It has 1320. This is less than a 1/3 stop advantage to Nikon. The Canon with its higher pixel count gives you the option to later reduce resolution and proportionally noise to be within 1/3 stop.

    Having the increased resolution in the canon for low-ISO is a significant advantage as evidenced by Nikon’s recent statement that they intend to increase resolution (and therefore lower high ISO performance) to be more competitive.

    Having the D3s’ larger sensor is an advantage if you you are not focal length limited, which you often are with sports and wildlife. If you can use the entire sensor area, you will have a big advantage to Nikon. But if you can’t it is a disadvantage because the wasted space slows down the camera and increases file sizes. Canon settled on the APS-H’s 1.3 crop factor as a compromise.

    So as far as a sports/wildlife camera goes, they are basically a wash in comparison. The decision would have to be based on something other than the DXOmark tests.

    More interesting to me is a comparison to the Canon 5D2. Doing the pixel size math on that shows that the 5d2 would have to have a high ISO rating of 1888 to exactly match the D3s. It has 1815, a negligible difference, worth giving up for nearly twice the higher resolution at lower ISO and less than half the cost, if your application can handle the relatively glacial speed of the 5D2.

    DXOMark is really doing a disservice to the public by not taking pixel pitch into account in the high-ISO test. It leads to a lot of confusion.

    • Jabs

      Another ignorant diatribe by a Canon fanatic.
      The DXO Mark is comparing cameras, their IMAGE pipeline regardless of sensor size, dimensions, pitch or such.
      It is a quantitative analysis of CAMERA output performance.
      Actually, REAL WORLD results show that the MK4 is almost equal to the D3s at ISO’s BELOW say 400 in PICTURE quality and then above that it falls significantly behind and is unusable at ISO 102,400.
      The next problem that MOST do not see, as they look or view on LCD screens with LOW black level response is the lack of RED channel or color response of the MK4.
      The simple fact of the matter is that Canon CHOSE to use a sensor that allowed them to KEEP a framing RATE of 10fps and thus top the Nikon D3 plus they tacked on an extended ISO claim due to perceived BRAGGING rights and Nikon actually delivered at that ISO while Canon DID NOT.

      What you said is idle and even IGNORANT ‘guesstimations’ bud!
      It is NOT about sensor area, pitch density or such BUT about MEASURED OUTPUT and thus most of you here are clueless.
      Reread the charts IF you have any type of an Engineering background or capability and it will clearly SHOW you the differences even when you compare Canon to Canon.

      Canon focused on ‘specmanship’ and Nikon DELIVERED on usability, increased DYNAMIC range, better color PURITY and quality at a wider RANGE of ISO’s.

      ALL the shots from the MK4 show a BLUE tint or cast – thus RED channel problems – R-G-B – sensor remember.
      Blue tint usually refers to a lower RED response or often called a COOLER response curve.

      The Nikon results are WARMER as in more the color of REALITY or R-G-B equal curves or response.

      Go back to school!
      That is not hard to understand and you are clueless at to how Nikon did this as Nikon NEVER said how they did it – TRADE SECRET perhaps.

      I happened to LOOK at the D3s -vs- MK4 files from on several of MY monitors including several Trinitron and LCD monitors and I noted the differences MAINLY on the Trinitron that is calibrated.
      Get over it – Canon LOST!

      … and the 5D Mark 2 does NOT have the same COLOR response of the MK4, as the older 21meg FULL FRAME sensor is superior to all of their smaller sensored cameras including the 7D and the MK4.

      Now, explain why Sherlock?

      • Digited

        If you read what I said, you will see I am not recommending one camera over another. In fact I gave points for both. I merely was discussing the headline numbers that DXOMark uses to distinguish cameras. As I point out, you would have to compare the cameras on merits other than these to make a decision. And in fact, nearly everything you compared them on in your response is something not discussed by DXOmark and very valid reasons for coming to a decision.

        My simple analysis applies and holds for every camera comparison including Canon to Canon. The DXmark high-ISO test is a pixel level noise test. And bigger pixels get better results. But as any photographer who has had to get the most detail out of a shot knows, detail is a balance between resolution and noise. And if you don’t take both into account, your results will be skewed. Do you really think that the D3s with its high-ISO score of 3253 is really that much better than the Nikon’s D3x at 1992? It’s all about pixel size!

        As far as your other erudite points on color, the Canon 5D2 beats the D3s on the DXOmark color depth test. Does that mean that all your points on color are invalid? Of course not. It just points out that the DXOmark tests are very specific tests which don’t give you a very accurate “picture” of the cameras. This is my basic point.

        For me, I buy Canon for only one reason, price. I can’t afford Nikon gear. Paying $6100 for a canon 500mm birding lens is bad enough. But paying $8100 for the Nikon equivalent is just not worth the slightly better performance for me. If I had a federal budget or was independently wealthy, I would have the complete Nikon lineup. I would still have Canon because they still have a few things that are better, like the TS-E 17L and the 24L II. But Nikon is catching up everyday. It wasn’t but a couple years ago you couldn’t even buy a Nikon FF digital. Canon has sold them with a full complement of lenses continuously since the 1D.

        So go ahead and do your victory dance around some unbalanced isolated test number if it makes you feel good. If it helps you feel better about your purchase, then maybe it will give you the confidence you seem to so desperately need to go out and make good photography. Because everyone knows, the only good photos ever taken were with Nikons, right. Yea, they use them on CSI Miami and everything.

        • Jabs

          It is NOT about a stupid camera BUT about the accurate tests done by DXO Labs and how they correlate to REAL world use and observable scenarios.
          I really don’t care WHAT you shoot with or use personally as that is YOUR prerogative or choice and no one can take that from you.
          The facts point to Nikon beating Canon clearly on almost all fronts and that is what I am defending from IDIOTS here who cannot comprehend what the charts CLEARLY state as they DO NOT have any demonstrable ability to comprehend the results.
          THAT was and still is my point.
          I actually LIKE the Canon 5DMK2 though I think it sucks as a camera because of its’ build quality and antiquated focus system – at LEAST if takes great still pictures.
          The new stuff from Canon GOES backwards compared to the 5DMK2 – is also one of my points and thus the Canon fanboys and fangirls here SHOULD be concerned about that, perhaps.
          That Nikon WENT forward with the new D3s is obvious and the level of improvement is revolutionary plus simply amazing, and Canon fans KNOW this, yet fail to admit it or even try and bury this fact in their absurd posts or claims here including yours!
          I am no idiot and thus don’t blow smoke at me and then one can have a simple discussion.
          NO ONE here knows how Nikon achieves their results and thus nothing but jokers or frauds here pretending to know how or why – FACTS!
          Instead of us celebrating the achievements of BOTH Nikon and Canon, we have digressed to child-like bantering of nonsensical items few know how to explain or even KNOW anything much about.
          TRAINED Engineer here PLUS experienced photographer and computer expert, so don’t try and CON me.

          Have a good day!

          • Uh, dude, lay off the caffeine. Seriously. Way too aggressive.

            You still don’t sound like you grok color calibration in the real world. I’d be happy to explain.

            And DXO is an interesting tool and their current numbers match my real world experience. But on the older cameras I think their numbers don’t correlate to the output I’ve seen. Their methodology seems sound, but their results don’t seem to bear up to prints in the real world. Just like prints from an uncalibrated space sometimes look right, and sometimes don’t.

            Seriously lay off the coffee and check your attitude.

  • Jabs

    Hey Micah,
    Last comment perhaps to you.
    1. I don’t really drink coffee.
    2. When one has no answers one then perhaps makes false assumptions about another?
    3. Grow up!

    It is a test that favors Nikon and you cannot deal with that.
    Nothing more to say then.

    Prints have NOTHING to do with DXO results as they are measuring SENSORS and factors dealing with that.
    Printing is a FUNCTION of your printer, the ink, the paper and the resolution of your printer plus the color accuracy and tonality of your workflow and the original subject matter plus the image photographed.
    Go find another sucker to teach.
    Digressing to name calling perhaps is a sign that you never really understood the factors being discussed or even the graphs and data presented by DXO.
    Perhaps if you did, you would understand why full frame or FX – EVEN at a lower megapixel beats a cropped sensor or DX at a higher megapixel.
    That is borne out in the tests even within the Canon ranks and thus you are blowing smoke.
    Printing is a SUBJECTIVE evaluation while DXO is a Scientific measurement – perhaps YOU learn the difference of that yourself.

    • Huh? It favors Nikon today and didn’t yesterday. So it goes. My point about DXO is only that it’s missing some factors and as such is not as objective as it could be.

      Uh, I shoot Nikon and prefer it on all fronts. Why wouldn’t I be able to “deal with that”?

      My comments weren’t to insult you. They were to point out that you come off like an argumentative jerk. I was hoping you would get that, but you don’t. Much like most of the one way argument you’ve been having. Unfortunately, you’re subjecting the rest of us to it.

      But…not anymore.

    • And also “blowing smoke” comes from “blowing some up [someones] ass” and isn’t a relevant idiom in any of the cases you’ve used it. Unless you’ve made your own unrelated expression up, that coincidentally resembles a common expression.

      No one is blowing smoke. They’re giving it to you straight, at least as they see it. And you appear to be horribly misguided. The kind folks who’ve commented only tried to put you back on track.

      Some of what they said is completely opinion. But you’re insisting your opinion is right when you’ve got some technically bad info, and a bad attitude. Seriously, check your damn attitude or take it someplace else if you can’t. Like biker bar or something. The internet is a cowardly place to be a jerk.

  • Back to top