http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?article=012609&op=academy_new Looks like almost everyone is almost equal. Here are the figures that pay (all from DxO): Body Low Light Color Depth Dynamic Range 5DII 1815 23.7 11.9 1DsIII 1663 24 12 D3 2290 23.5 12.2 D3x 1992 24.7 13.7 D700 2303 23.5 12.2 A900 1431 23.7 12.3 Now, this is a preview, so that may explain why 24 beats 24.7 in color depth. It also shows the overall difference between raw sensor data and processing the raw data in the case of the D3x and A900. If we look at the graphs for dynamic range, the D3x crosses EV9 at ISO 1600 where the A900 crosses at ISO 800. Fully acceptable dynamic range for an additional stop has value- the signal to noise plot for high-ISO also starts higher and ends better. The D3/D700 are definitely the high-ISO kings today. The extra pixel density of the 5DII shows up in limiting high-ISO performance enough to make a numerical difference. The numbers between the D3 and D700 are obviously within sample variation. Color Depth and Dynamic Range at optimal ISOs are so close as to not make a difference. The text and numbers for high-ISO don't seem to match well, since the numbers are pure S/N and the ISOs in the text seem to be more subjective (and don't account for shooting in 1/3 stop increments as most digital cameras allow.) If we accept the text, the line-up comes out like this: Pretty-much everything is good up to ISO 1600 D3x and A900 are good up to ISO 800 1DsIII starts to suck before ISO 800 Here's why this part doesn't make a lot of sense to me: If we say that 24db is the cut-off, then the 5DII comes out between 1600 and 3200- but so does the 1DsIII, D3x, and A900 and the D3 between 3200 and 6400- so if we go by the numbers, I think the text is misleading, but if there's a subjective quality to the noise at a particular point, then the numbers become almost meaningless. In any case, the numbers will at least show the potential to use NR software in post.