# Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3



## Lightmaster (Aug 8, 2014)

just for the sake of a civilized discussion... 

Nikon D810 Review (vs 5D Mark III): Landscapes, portraits, sports, studio & night photography



> Will you be switching to Nikon?﻿
> 
> answer Tony Northrup:
> 
> Yeah, totally. I'm sure we'll keep the Canons around until we get some more specialized Nikon lenses, but neither of us want to pick up a Canon after using the D810.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

Someone posted about this guy a few months ago regarding the Tamron 150-600, and my opinion hasn't changed. Look at his work - do you really want to take advice from a guy who is proud of his torso photo that was featured on the Mega-T Weight Loss dietary supplement box? These so-called web gurus seem to be good at one thing - selling you crap.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 8, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> just for the sake of a civilized discussion...



Yeah like that will happen. 

Do you also dangle red capes infront of bulls? ;D

This should be entertaining.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 8, 2014)

> Posted by: AcutancePhotography
> « on: Today at 11:13:30 AM » Insert Quote
> 
> 
> ...



+1, and where's Dilbert?


----------



## CurtL5 (Aug 8, 2014)

Why is he driving around with that thing on his hat...?


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 8, 2014)

At least it's self published and not forced on people by broadcasters.


----------



## SPL (Aug 8, 2014)

nice car....


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> These so-called web gurus seem to be good at one thing - selling you crap.



Any relevant critique of the clip - which I find very informative. Or just flagging your state of denial?


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > These so-called web gurus seem to be good at one thing - selling you crap.
> ...


I'm not sure how what I said has any reflection on the topic of the video (as you stated correctly in your first sentence). I was commenting on the many so-called experts on the web that seem to keep popping up all the time. Yes, you could say that's hypocritical as I often offer advice here on CR, but I don't claim to be an expert, I have examples to support what I say, and most importantly, I'm not selling anything.

Since you asked, however, I'm not in any irrational state of denial and yes, the D810 has a better sensor, I think that's a fact (#1). Despite the fabulous sensor, it didn't sell as well as Nikon had hoped, primarily because of the competition from the 5DIII (fact #2). Nikon upgraded several aspects of the camera to make it more competitive with the 5DIII (fact #3). Some feel they have succeeded, some don't (fact #4).

My opinion: setting aside the 1D III and D600 fiascoes, respectively, I don't think you can go wrong with any recent Canon or Nikon models, and choice should be based on individual budget, needs, and current lens/system investment. If I were a Nikon shooter, I would be elated by the D810 and D4s and would likely own those instead of the 5DIII and 1D X. I have a considerable amount of money in Canon glass, find that Canon meets or exceeds my current needs, and prefer the ergonomics of Canon, so that's what I own (fact #5). If I truly NEEDED, not just DESIRED to have more megapixels and/or DR, I'm sure I would make the switch (fact #6).


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 8, 2014)

Ok now that I've actually watched it...
That, was shameful. They never took the camera off base ISO, it was basically one big landscape shoot.

Tony's videos are interesting. Somewhere in that noggin he has all the right information, but he has this bizarre way of explaining things. All the flak he got for the crop factor video is well deserved, even though he had the technical details right.
I feel like that guy could use a writer.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 8, 2014)

CurtL5 said:


> Why is he driving around with that thing on his hat...?


It's a special hand-me-down. 
froknows got it from Kai but didn't like it passed it to Ken Rockwell. Kenny didn't want it either, now it's Tony's. f-stoppers will soon be reviewing it.


----------



## ecka (Aug 8, 2014)

I thought I was a pixel-peeper (sometimes), but this guy ... he's comparing images at 4:1 magnification ???. How is it even called ? pixel-trolling? ) Everything looks identically awful at 4:1. Other than that, it is a good review .


----------



## bmwzimmer (Aug 8, 2014)

If i had to start over today, i'd go with d810 over the older 5d3. But i don't want to go through the hassel of selling all my lenses so i'll wait to see how Canon responds. Competition is great for all us consumers and Canon could use a hard kick in the butt like this to start stepping up.


----------



## RGF (Aug 8, 2014)

bmwzimmer said:


> If i had to start over today, i'd go with d810 over the older 5d3. But i don't want to go through the hassel of selling all my lenses so i'll wait to see how Canon responds. Competition is great for all us consumers and Canon could use a hard kick in the butt like this to start stepping up.



I agree. I will wait to see if Canon introduces anything with great dynamic range. Hopefully we will see the future of Canon sensor in Sept.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 8, 2014)

I don't blame him for switching and after all he isn't quite switching over yet. I just made a switch too and well, it is what it is.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 8, 2014)

I feel Nikon has positioned D800/E/10 and the D4/s in two distinct categories, with both sharing many of the great pro features and also having distinct areas of strength. On the other hand, 5DIII shared only a few of the 1D X's pro features, and apart from the higher megapixel count there isn't much that's essentially better in a 5DIII. 
Is that an unfair assessment?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 8, 2014)

SPL said:


> nice car....



house and beautiful people and equipment.

Get the feeling it's not easy to make money with photography these days. Those who shoot as their main job seem to drive Yugos from what I see personally and those who shoot AND sell products and build up a giant web presence and following seem to live in nice homes in La Jolla, CA or the fancy part of CT ;D.

Anyway I kinda wish we had a camera that was the D810 but with a couples mods in that it had an overall closer to 5D3 UI and the 5D3 raw 1080p video and the 1DC 4k video (but less plasticky) and took Canon lenses.
;D


----------



## jocau (Aug 8, 2014)

I want to see him perform a *decent* AF comparison and not one where he only uses the center/central AF point(s). Let's say photographing a kid on a swing (in motion) at F/1.4 to F/2 with one of the side AF points located at roughly one third of the image. If you do that, you'll be comparing crosstype AF points (5D3) vs non-crosstype AF points (D810) and will see the D810 getting blown out of the water.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 8, 2014)

Civilized.

Not controlled expeperiment.

D10 in this review edges out 5DIII.

Will I switch? Nope. 

Will I get the 1DX or 1DXII- yep!

sek



AcutancePhotography said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > just for the sake of a civilized discussion...
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Get the feeling it's not easy to make money with photography these days. Those who shoot as their main job seem to drive Yugos from what I see personally and those who shoot AND sell products and build up a giant web presence and following seem to live in nice homes in La Jolla, CA or the fancy part of CT ;D.


It's definitely tough out there for all but the very top photographers, at least in terms of making six figures, plus. I am in awe of people who do nothing but product reviews and seem to live quite well in terms of farms, horses, and trips to tropical islands, not to mention any names...but I guess a percent or two of big white purchases adds up 

The reality is that stock is all but dead and that was a huge source of income in the past. It's been supplanted by workshops, books, videos, and affiliate links. 

They say that if you want to make money from photography, you need to teach photography, not do photography. Scott Kelby has done rather well with this model.


----------



## Quackator (Aug 8, 2014)

Well.....

Last week I swapped D800/D4 for D4s/D810.
Long story short - 5D MkII and 5D MkIII get equal usage as the Nikons do.
They all have their merits and strengths.

Most of the people dissing one or the other can't compare from
first hand experience. That simple.


----------



## drjlo (Aug 8, 2014)

bmwzimmer said:


> If i had to start over today, i'd go with d810 over the older 5d3. But i don't want to go through the hassel of selling all my lenses so i'll wait to see how Canon responds. Competition is great for all us consumers and Canon could use a hard kick in the butt like this to start stepping up.



This is probably how most people feel about D810, myself included. If I did night photography for a living or printed huge landscapes, I might actually switch from 5D III to D810, but otherwise, there really is no pressing need to switch, given how I still prefer the Canon lens lineup and own many.


----------



## SPL (Aug 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Get the feeling it's not easy to make money with photography these days. Those who shoot as their main job seem to drive Yugos from what I see personally and those who shoot AND sell products and build up a giant web presence and following seem to live in nice homes in La Jolla, CA or the fancy part of CT ;D.
> ...


+1
I agree…some of these people do very well financially. I am always amazed at some of the places that people, such as Trey Ratcliff, have been to,…sometimes multiple times…places I will never get to…


----------



## RGF (Aug 8, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I feel Nikon has positioned D800/E/10 and the D4/s in two distinct categories, with both sharing many of the great pro features and also having distinct areas of strength. On the other hand, 5DIII shared only a few of the 1D X's pro features, and apart from the higher megapixel count there isn't much that's essentially better in a 5DIII.
> Is that an unfair assessment?



5D M3 lacks the DR of the Sony sensor. If can addressed that single issue, I would be very happy with the replacement. Of course more FPS, better ISO performance and great MP would be nice but not essential (IMHO) as improved DR.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 8, 2014)

The fact is rising tide lifts all boats. 
I am not concerned one bit about videography for myself, yet the fact that Canon seems to fall behind in prosumer or low end pro videography behind Panasonic and Sony is unfortunately going to affect revenues. If Canon decides not to bring what is now standard or expected to sub-10K cameras it will definitely affect their bottom line. 5DII used to be the definitive line in HDSLR filming, now GH4 and A7s are much better it seems. Even Black Magic was said to be better than the 5DIII.
Similarly, Nikon has brought lots of great new features in the D810. I am not concerned that my 5DIII doesn't have it, but I would like Canon to bring out a camera that does have all those features so they don't lose customers. A high-res high-DR sensor would certainly help. 
I would like Canon to flourish because it will affect me indirectly and allow me to use the great equipment they bring out. I am concerned that Canon's business strategy (which often overrides market surveys for big companies) might be too conservative.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> They say that if you want to make money from photography, you need to teach photography, not do photography. Scott Kelby has done rather well with this model.



Yup.
Fact of the matter is someone can learn in minutes what took days with a film camera.
With the barrier to entry so low, "photographer" now describes a type of consumer more than it does a service provider.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 9, 2014)

9VIII said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > They say that if you want to make money from photography, you need to teach photography, not do photography. Scott Kelby has done rather well with this model.
> ...



I was a victim of this low barrier to entry when we hired a photographer for my wedding who basically took mediocre snapshots all night long. 
We weren't trying to save any money (and the guy wasn't cheap either). He had shot a friend's wedding with a partner and had been recommended by the friend. We weren't aware that the partnership had dissolved and the other guy was really all the goods. 
He took terrible images, missed half of our families (there isn't a picture of my parents with us), had to be threatened with legal action to recover the images, and never delivered the albums. 
If he had needed to go through the effort of learning photography techniques like in the old days, he would have probably learned a bit about shooting weddings and about professionalism on the way. 

Now it's up to the consumers to wise up and realize good things don't come cheap and anyone with a camera is not a photographer.


----------



## tculotta (Aug 9, 2014)

I am hardly an expert, but I feel like Mr. Northrup is being judged quite harshly. Yes, stylistically, his review is not my cup of tea. However, what he did took a not insignificant amount of time and effort, the videos and his books included. I've created and published books, including layout, and it's more than a few hours worth of work. Also, he has several photos on his site that go beyond the efforts of a weekend shooter. He has found a niche and appears to be making a living in it. Touché.

PS - as someone who lives in Connecticut, while there are few inexpensive places here, he does not live in the expensive corner, either, as one posited.

Disagree if you may, but give the man his due.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 9, 2014)

jocau said:


> I want to see him perform a *decent* AF comparison and not one where he only uses the center/central AF point(s). Let's say photographing a kid on a swing (in motion) at F/1.4 to F/2 with one of the side AF points located at roughly one third of the image. If you do that, you'll be comparing crosstype AF points (5D3) vs non-crosstype AF points (D810) and will see the D810 getting blown out of the water.



This was the only part of the review that I had any issue with. I have no trouble believing that the D810 beat the 5D3, but the 60% hit rate on the 5D3 is just much lower than my experience. I'd love to see what tracking settings he used for the test. Based on the RAW files that he posted, we know that he did the AF Servo test on the Canon using Spot AF and didn't use any of the f/2.8 double cross type points, which makes me think he probably didn't tweak the tracking to best suit the situation. The other possibility is that there's a servo tracking issue with the Tamron 24-70 VC, but I've never used one so can't really say.

Edit: Just looked through the RAW files and it appears all of his tracking settings reported in the exif were all reasonable so I'm not really sure what to make of these results; I thought for sure the tracking sensitivity was too high but I guess not. Maybe it's something to do with the lens or the focus point used.


----------



## npherno (Aug 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> The fact is rising tide lifts all boats.
> I am not concerned one bit about videography for myself, yet the fact that Canon seems to fall behind in prosumer or low end pro videography behind Panasonic and Sony is unfortunately going to affect revenues. If Canon decides not to bring what is now standard or expected to sub-10K cameras it will definitely affect their bottom line. 5DII used to be the definitive line in HDSLR filming, now GH4 and A7s are much better it seems. Even Black Magic was said to be better than the 5DIII.
> Similarly, Nikon has brought lots of great new features in the D810. I am not concerned that my 5DIII doesn't have it, but I would like Canon to bring out a camera that does have all those features so they don't lose customers. A high-res high-DR sensor would certainly help.
> I would like Canon to flourish because it will affect me indirectly and allow me to use the great equipment they bring out. I am concerned that Canon's business strategy (which often overrides market surveys for big companies) might be too conservative.



I agree 110%. Sony absolutely has plans to take marketshare from Canon and Nikon. The question is will Canon respond or keep nickel and diming us with incremental updates?

Sony has a lens problem. The other issue with AF and other rough edges would take maybe two or three new generations of cameras to work out. I think we will see Canon and Nikon users switching in big numbers.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Very unfortunate.
I have no doubt that it would be possible for someone to pick up a camera and produce quality work in a short period of time, it's just impossible to tell who has or hasn't done their homework by looking at them (or their equipment).




jrista said:


> There is something about this guy, that makes me unable to watch any of this videos through. I honestly don't know what it is, and it has nothing to do with his brand preferences (the first video of his I watched was entirely Canon related, and I still couldn't get through it)...I think it's the way he talks. I dunno...just can't watch him.



The music in the intro was grating? All style no substance?

I have to say that I like how MichaelTheMentor does things, I don't always agree with him but his videos are like an all night buffet compared to the neon packaged low calorie snacks you get with most reviews.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> There is something about this guy, that makes me unable to watch any of this videos through. I honestly don't know what it is, and it has nothing to do with his brand preferences (the first video of his I watched was entirely Canon related, and I still couldn't get through it)...I think it's the way he talks. I dunno...just can't watch him.



I guess just one of those things. I kinda liked the style.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> Based on the RAW files that he posted, we know that he did the AF Servo test on the Canon using Spot AF...



Interesting. Presumably, he doesn't know that Canon recommends against using Spot AF with moving subjects.


----------



## assassin11 (Aug 9, 2014)

Good review but, wasn't the D810 just released? Will he switch back to Canon when (if) the Mark IV comes out?


----------



## Chisox2335 (Aug 9, 2014)

assassin11 said:


> Good review but, wasn't the D810 just released? Will he switch back to Canon when (if) the Mark IV comes out?



Yes because that will be the new hot item that will create the most income for him. Him saying the 5d3 is better would generate little new income for him. Him recommending ppl go buy the brand new d810 will generate much more income for him.


----------



## JohnUSA (Aug 9, 2014)

Geez there was a real asinine comment made by the wife at the end.... Paraphrasing... "If you have the Canon 5D3 and not a pro... don't switch to the Nikon."

The snobbiness of the video turns me off.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I'm sorry to hear you had that experience. And I don't want to sound like I'm criticising you - but I do wonder if there's a logical link between the technology and practitioners' professionalism.

I have no experience of film photography beyond point-and-shoot family/holiday snapshots from my younger days, so maybe I'm missing a lot. But I don't think good quality digital photography is easy, nor can it be mastered (especially with a DSLR) in minutes. There are cowboys in every field - and I suspect there always have been. And it seems that most of what makes wedding photography challenging is beyond the camera - it's about scouting the location, talking to the clients and understanding their needs, getting to the venue on time, having backup equipment/assistants, and producing a package (nowadays likely in book form) that merits the occasion (thinking about it, I suppose most types of photography rely on a lot more than the camera and strict photographic technique, but anyway). Given how much people spend on weddings, and wedding photographers these days, surely (at the better end) things have improved? Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but my grandparents' expectations were very limited (they were only allowed 6 shots due to rationing, and they were just snaps, nothing fancy) - whereas a recent friend's wedding involved (after much research on the best photographer for their needs) a separate shoot on location, video, a glossy hardback book, etc.

Why would shooting on film make someone more professional? Were film cameras much more expensive? I suppose proper photographers would have a darkroom, but if you were slapdash in those days, maybe you'd get someone else to do it?

Just lots of questions arise when people compare the pre-digital era with today, I hope you don't mind


----------



## Maui5150 (Aug 9, 2014)

YAWN. Gee lets compare a camera that just came out to one that is two years old....

Hmmmm... 

I think overall Canon has been sidetracked the in Cine market and this has hurt there last generation of cameras from not having quite as big jumps as they could. Also feel they have been taking there time with this next set of upgrades which leads me to believe these next releases will be both solid and have substantially more improvement (i.e. from 5DMK II to 5DMK III the 5DMK IV will have much stronger gap of improvements) 

In someways I believe the 7D MKII has been delayed because it might outperform the 5DMKIII and Canon wants to release the 7D MKII and the 3D 5DMK IV what ever it will be which will be a higher pixel with big changes

But comparing a just released camera with larger sensor to an older one? He might as well just compared the 5DMKIII to the 5D MK II


----------



## bholliman (Aug 9, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> YAWN. Gee lets compare a camera that just came out to one that is two years old....
> 
> But comparing a just released camera with larger sensor to an older one? He might as well just compared the 5DMKIII to the 5D MK II



+1 Its a testament to the excellence of the 5D Mk III that it took the competition 2+ years to equal and possibly slightly surpass it!


----------



## M_S (Aug 9, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> YAWN. Gee lets compare a camera that just came out to one that is two years old....
> 
> Hmmmm...



That was exactly what I was thinking, when watching the video. Image quality wise, it was clear from the beginning, what the outcome would be, just my two cents. Taking a 36 MP sensor which came from an already good camera of newer date (D4s, D800) and comparing that to a 22MP sensor, which is around 2-3 years on the market already (but still good) is kind of useless. The ability to recover shadow details in the Canon nowadays isn't on par anymore with the newer A7, A7R, 810, 800. Resolution is also better too in the newer cameras. But is that really news? I don't think so. Coming from a G12, I am just starting to shoot with the 5D3. Perhaps in a few months that IQ dilemma will bug me, but right now, not so much...
So all in all, it was a nice video, but real "news" and insight I didn't get.


----------



## Sunnystate (Aug 9, 2014)

Same here it is a painful chore to go through his videos all the way to the end, in my opinion she does not help much in the over all feel. Its like watching pretentious and annoying cutsy home videos of people we don't know or care about.


jrista said:


> There is something about this guy, that makes me unable to watch any of this videos through. I honestly don't know what it is, and it has nothing to do with his brand preferences (the first video of his I watched was entirely Canon related, and I still couldn't get through it)...I think it's the way he talks. I dunno...just can't watch him.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 14, 2014)

Sunnystate said:


> Same here it is a painful chore to go through his videos all the way to the end, in my opinion she does not help much in the over all feel. Its like watching pretentious and annoying cutsy home videos of people we don't know or care about.
> 
> 
> jrista said:
> ...



I agree i couldn't imagine paying money to watch their 9 hours of video they are peddling at the end!

on the cameras one thing that really interests me is the face detect metering the d810 had man that awesome i seriously hope canon do something similar.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 14, 2014)

scyrene said:


> I'm sorry to hear you had that experience. And I don't want to sound like I'm criticising you - but I do wonder if there's a logical link between the technology and practitioners' professionalism.
> 
> I have no experience of film photography beyond point-and-shoot family/holiday snapshots from my younger days, so maybe I'm missing a lot. But I don't think good quality digital photography is easy, nor can it be mastered (especially with a DSLR) in minutes. There are cowboys in every field - and I suspect there always have been. And it seems that most of what makes wedding photography challenging is beyond the camera - it's about scouting the location, talking to the clients and understanding their needs, getting to the venue on time, having backup equipment/assistants, and producing a package (nowadays likely in book form) that merits the occasion (thinking about it, I suppose most types of photography rely on a lot more than the camera and strict photographic technique, but anyway). Given how much people spend on weddings, and wedding photographers these days, surely (at the better end) things have improved? Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but my grandparents' expectations were very limited (they were only allowed 6 shots due to rationing, and they were just snaps, nothing fancy) - whereas a recent friend's wedding involved (after much research on the best photographer for their needs) a separate shoot on location, video, a glossy hardback book, etc.
> 
> ...




Not at all, I was probably not clear. I have nothing against technology, and more than half of my photography experience happened after the digital era. So I know very little of pre-digital era to be able to compare. All I am saying is that the low barrier to entry into professional photography hurts both the real pros as well as the consumers. Why does digital allow a lower barrier to entry? At least 2 reasons:

1. Availability of preview- my photographer often snapped multiple images with the same setting. It's cheap with digital to shoot multiple shots, and preview allows you to fix mistakes. A film photographer who has to give something to the clients at the end of the job, will have to know what settings work or else he might have a completely useless roll.

2. Option of multiple ISOs and post processing- can you imagine a photographer with little or no idea of lighting (as mine was, sadly) walk in with a roll of film and be confident that it will work? 

As you said- good quality digital photography isn't easy. Good photography will demand the same hard work and talent but produce far better results in the digital age. However, anybody with a dSLR can now start a business and charge pennies to attract customers. Without the tools above, someone would need at least a minimal training to use film SLRs. Along the way, he would hopefully learn something about composition, the necessary shots, the necessary people who you need to take pictures of.

The solution, of course, is for the customers to be more careful of whom they hire.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 14, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I was a victim of this low barrier to entry when we hired a photographer for my wedding who basically took mediocre snapshots all night long.
> ...He took terrible images, missed half of our families (there isn't a picture of my parents with us), had to be threatened with legal action to recover the images, and never delivered the albums.



Made just about the same experience recently at the wedding of my best friend's son. In this case the wedding photographer they hired didn't miss anyone and delivered the young couple thousands of - really bad - snapshots. I already noticed during the wedding that this guy must have no feel for good images. Fortunately my wife grabbed her Nikon and I my 5D3 + 85/1.2 II (only) when we started, so we both filled in a bit. It turned out that the young couple is so happy about having our much better images besides this "pro" 's crab (the bride's parents have paid for), in particular they love the images I shot with the 85. 

Now those are my - of course very personal - 50 cents: I am so much in love with my 5D3+85/1.2 combo (besides other great Canon lenses) that I'd never change systems as long as Sonikon does not offer anything that equals the 85/1.2 king of bokeh. Plus the 5D3's AF system really shines with this superfast lens beast. Btw comparing a 5D3 with the D810's latest features is not really fair, because the 5D3 is a 3 yrs old camera, and technology is rapidly progressing. If you always want the latest camera technology, you'd have to change systems about every six months...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 14, 2014)

tculotta said:


> Disagree if you may, but give the man his due.



No. And here's why.

Again (_Dilbert_), nobody argues that the Noink doesn't have better DR. But - and it's a _big_ "but" - his test has used a single converter (Lightroom) which, good as it is in many respects, does not allow you to pull up Canon shadows _cleanly_ the way that some other converters can.

DPP, for example, has an almost miraculous ability to "add DR" in the shadows compared to Lr; Optics Pro is good too, albeit not as good as it could be in reaching into _just_ the shadows.

Capture One 7 is also vey capable.

The point is that the supposed huge gulf between these cameras can be significantly narrowed _simply an by intelligent choice of converter_.

That this test used a converter which does not favour Canon shadows (at x00% view, anyway - FFS) tells you far more about the converter than it does about the camera, and for a supposedly pro tester/photographer to utterly ignore the significance of choice of converter in getting the best out of a camera's files, is risible.

You _don't_ test well by testing in some supposedly equal playing field (in this case a commonly-used converter); you test in such as way as to get the best out of each camera, and that will often necessitate different converter choices.

Ergo, this "test" proves nothing about what the 5D Mk III _can_ do compared with the D810, just what it _did_ do in a half-arsed effort which seems more intended to bring attention to the testers than to the cameras...


----------



## zim (Aug 14, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> DPP, for example, has an almost miraculous ability to "add DR" in the shadows compared to Lr; Optics Pro is good too, albeit not as good as it could be in reaching into _just_ the shadows.



That's really interesting Keith, I've recently moved from DPP to Optics Pro mainly for Prime which I think is fantastic but I didn't realise I may be losing out on pulling shadows. Admitedly the only time I can think of wanting to pull shadows recently was about a 1-1/2 stops (oops my bad!) so I'm not sure if any differences would show at that? Must give it a try.

Regards


----------



## PhotoCat (Aug 14, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> I agree i couldn't imagine paying money to watch their 9 hours of video they are peddling at the end!
> 
> on the cameras one thing that really interests me is the face detect metering the d810 had man that awesome i seriously hope canon do something similar.



Yup, Face-detect metering in viewfinder mode. It was there in D800 too and that was 2 years ago!


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

PhotoCat said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I agree i couldn't imagine paying money to watch their 9 hours of video they are peddling at the end!
> ...


It's in the 1D X...


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 14, 2014)

npherno said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is rising tide lifts all boats.
> ...



Do people not remember the 5d mkii? The mkiii is a revolution in auto focus and low light performance... nickel and dime in the rebel line... sure... but the 1dx is reportedly amazing and the mkiii is borderline great. How soon we forget.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 14, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> That this test used a converter which does not favour Canon shadows (at x00% view, anyway - FFS) tells you far more about the converter than it does about the camera, and for a supposedly pro tester/photographer to utterly ignore the significance of choice of converter in getting the best out of a camera's files, is risible.
> 
> You _don't_ test well by testing in some supposedly equal playing field (in this case a commonly-used converter); you test in such as way as to get the best out of each camera, and that will often necessitate different converter choices.
> 
> Ergo, this "test" proves nothing about what the 5D Mk III _can_ do compared with the D810, just what it _did_ do in a half-arsed effort which seems more intended to bring attention to the testers than to the cameras...



I just did a comparison between LR5.6 and DPP4 and am not seeing this huge difference in shadow noise that you're describing. Can you show some examples?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2014)

justaCanonuser said:


> Btw comparing a 5D3 with the D810's latest features is not really fair, because the 5D3 is a 3 yrs old camera, and technology is rapidly progressing. If you always want the latest camera technology, you'd have to change systems about every six months...



There have been several comments to that effect in this thread, and I totally disagree. It's perfectly fair to compare Nikon's _current_ high-end FF body to Canon's _current_ high-end FF body. 

The 'unfairness' is the biased comparison in the linked video. Comparing only at ISO 100, that smells like DxO's BS (but then, lots of people – including some pros – seem to like that smell). Someone asked about performance at ISO 12800, he said he'd post samples but that the D810 was better...yet he didn't post samples. No follow through, or he couldn't back up his statement with images? A 63% hit rate with 5DIII Servo tracking of a subject walking slowly toward you in bright light (even his wife knew that wasn't a 'sports/action' test!)? Maybe...if you gimp the test by using an AF mode not recommended for moving subjects. Even then, that seems too low...but maybe that's due to the lens, as I've read that Nikon makes their AF algorithms available to 3rd party lens makers while Canon does not. 

So, while it's fair to compare them, performing a biased comparison doesn't help anyone. Well, that's not true – it helps him earn money...and a reputation worthy of Ken Rockwell. 

The reviewers takeaways on the 5DIII vs D810...the D810 is vastly superior, but: "_If you have a Mark III and you're not a pro, it's probably not worth switching,_" and, "_If you're putting photos on Facebook...it probably won't make much difference._" Sheesh.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> justaCanonuser said:
> 
> 
> > Btw comparing a 5D3 with the D810's latest features is not really fair, because the 5D3 is a 3 yrs old camera, and technology is rapidly progressing. If you always want the latest camera technology, you'd have to change systems about every six months...
> ...


I haven't even watched the video, but I knew the source (and stand by my post at the beginning of this thread), so I'm not surprised to hear my suspicions confirmed.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 14, 2014)

My 5D3 still rocks. Images are great, AF hit rate is high, video is great, all my Canon lenses are rock solid top-notch. Spend many $1000 and lots of time switching to Nikon? You've got to be kidding! It would be quicker and cheaper to buy a 1Dx and blow away the D810 in every way but resolution (but I don't need that either), or wait a few months and blow away the D810 with a shiny new 5DIV. Most professionals will tell you that switching brands is a fools game. Of course there may be exceptions from time to time on specific needs, but not in general all-round use. 

I think Canon will blow away the competition soon, and the leapfrog game will continue. They will answer Sony's A7 line, they will further refine dual pixel AF, they will continue to expand the impressive lens lineup.


----------



## PhotoCat (Aug 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> PhotoCat said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, Face-detect metering in viewfinder mode. It was there in D800 too and that was 2 years ago!
> ...



Cool! In addition to non-flash portraits, does the 1DX face-det metering work with e-TTL flash as well? (just curious, since D800 & D4 claim to do that)


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 14, 2014)

These sort of reviews always follow the same pattern. The Canon is underexposed so the data is a little dense. Then they lift heavy shadow low lights to mid tone. Voila ! Job done. 

Working in the wrong AF mode. ??? or more probably : Or from their point of view :-[

It's all about not working _with_ the 5DIII.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 14, 2014)

Etienne said:


> My 5D3 still rocks. Images are great, AF hit rate is high, video is great, all my Canon lenses are rock solid top-notch. Spend many $1000 and lots of time switching to Nikon? You've got to be kidding! It would be quicker and cheaper to buy a 1Dx and blow away the D810 in every way but resolution (but I don't need that either), or wait a few months and blow away the D810 with a shiny new 5DIV. Most professionals will tell you that switching brands is a fools game. Of course there may be exceptions from time to time on specific needs, but not in general all-round use.
> 
> I think Canon will blow away the competition soon, and the leapfrog game will continue. They will answer Sony's A7 line, they will further refine dual pixel AF, they will continue to expand the impressive lens lineup.



98% of the time when I miss, it is my fault... not the mkiii's. I like that... what I need to do though is improve my practical execution though my practical knowledge is pretty decent. 

I suppose my point is that I'm more than satisfied with the mkiii's performance... so much so that if the mkiv came out tomorrow and I could swap for free... I'm not sure I would bite.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Someone asked about performance at ISO 12800, he said he'd post samples but that the D810 was better...yet he didn't post samples. No follow through, or he couldn't back up his statement with images?



To be fair, the DPReview comparison between the 5D3 and the D810 backs this up. The D810 seems about equal to the 6D in terms of high ISO RAWs.


----------



## Maui5150 (Aug 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 'unfairness' is the biased comparison in the linked video. Comparing only at ISO 100, that smells like DxO's BS (but then, lots of people – including some pros – seem to like that smell).



I think next time you should watch the video more closely - Most of the time Phony was shooting at ISO 64. 

Portrait shots etc Canon and ISO 100 and Nikon at ISO 64.

If he wanted a real honest comparison, having ISO the same might have helped. Never saw any clips of the "Sportrait" shots from the canon side, but notices settings were 1/1000 F/2.8 and Auto ISO. Would have been interesting to see comparison with a PROPER AF set up as well as Shutter Priority mode and ISO 100

But from what I was seeing, a lot of times Nikon was set at ISO 64


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Someone asked about performance at ISO 12800, he said he'd post samples but that the D810 was better...yet he didn't post samples. No follow through, or he couldn't back up his statement with images?
> ...



Except that DPR 'testing' is based on default ACR conversions, and like most 'high ISO tests' they are not 'low light tests' because they're shot in bright light with a very fast shutter, which has significant implications for the relative noise contributions.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

PhotoCat said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > PhotoCat said:
> ...


Not sure, and I don't think it's documented anywhere, but I would imagine so. To be perfectly clear - Canon's documentation on the 1D X feature that does this is extremely limited. All we really know for sure is that it's a 100,000 pixel sensor that detects colors and faces and uses that information for metering and motion in normal viewfinder/ phase-detect AF mode. What I know from actual use is that it works extremely well for portraits and even wildlife.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Good point, I can't speak to the ACR conversion, but if you click on the lightbulb in that comparison they also have a low light version of the test that's a bit more realistic. I'm not sure it changes the conclusion though as the D810 still looks just a little worse than the 6D at print sizes. Obviously 100% is a completely different story with the 5D3 and D810 being pretty much equal and the 6D being ~2/3rd stop better.


----------



## PhotoCat (Aug 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> PhotoCat said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I would really appreciate it if u can test it out mackguyver, since u have the 1DX. 
Just put a ettl flash on and shoot a bride (or anyone in white clothing with white/light background) 
with FEC set to zero with face-det turned on. If 1DX has this feature, it should correctly expo the face while keeping the white gown really bright. 
Test it the other way, hv the model wear black clothing with a dark background. Shoot it again using the
same setting. If 1DX has this feature, it should correctly expo the face while keeping the dark clothing really dark. All done outside of live view.
I am just vy curious. Thanks!


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

PhotoCat said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > PhotoCat said:
> ...


Sure, I can do that. I'll be taking some portraits tomorrow night and will try it with the setting on and off to see if it makes any difference.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 14, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> tculotta said:
> 
> 
> > Disagree if you may, but give the man his due.
> ...



I think it's an illusion. First, it doesn't save highlights as well. Second, maybe it bands a bit less and is a bit less sloppy in shadows but the 'detail' also seems to be very smeary so I don't really see it as a gain compared to the others and it also has a limited slider that can sometimes trick you into thinking you pulled up as much as the others when you didn't.



> Capture One 7 is also vey capable.
> The point is that the supposed huge gulf between these cameras can be significantly narrowed _simply an by intelligent choice of converter_.



Not what I've seen from people comparing having used various converters.



> That this test used a converter which does not favour Canon shadows (at x00% view, anyway - FFS) tells you far more about the converter than it does about the camera, and for a supposedly pro tester/photographer to utterly ignore the significance of choice of converter in getting the best out of a camera's files, is risible.



And what of the DxO test that doesn't use any converter at all but just tests the RAW file for each? It shows the same considerable difference.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 14, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 'unfairness' is the biased comparison in the linked video. Comparing only at ISO 100, that smells like DxO's BS (but then, lots of people – including some pros – seem to like that smell).
> ...



If his goal is to test the best you can do under tripod usage or great lighting why is that not fair? Why would it be fair to penalize the D810 just because the 5D3 doesn't do ISO100?


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 14, 2014)

Can we start doing fun competitions? One raw image... edit using your normal technique and programs.. and we can view on a winner? I'll lose... but someone has to finish in second place.


----------



## PhotoCat (Aug 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> PhotoCat said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Thanks mackguyver!


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Can we start doing fun competitions? One raw image... edit using your normal technique and programs.. and we can view on a winner? I'll lose... but someone has to finish in second place.


That sounds fun to me, but only if we use insanely good or horrendously bad .CR2 files I wonder if a 1D X .CR2 file will zip to 5MB. If not, I'm sure one of my old 450D files might work... Maybe I'll dig up a photo I've never shared later tonight and let everyone loose on it.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 19, 2014)

Eagerly awaiting the pics.


----------



## Maui5150 (Aug 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If his goal is to test the best you can do under tripod usage or great lighting why is that not fair? Why would it be fair to penalize the D810 just because the 5D3 doesn't do ISO100?



Because if you want to compare quality of images, you need to compare at same settings

For one comparing a new camera to a two year old camera, one would hope there were large improvements... I mean quickly... lets takes some bets... Will the 7DMKII out perform the 7D? How about the 5DMKII vs the 5DMKIII

Side by side comparison of a Nikon 8XXD to a Canon 5D MKIII are difficult because of image size, zooming in or compressing, either way the image has changed.

But too my point. If you want to look at image to image, you need to use the same settings. 

If the answer is that at 100 the images have negligible difference, but the 8XXd has Iso 64 and the extra ISO helps with noise and quality, then that says two different things.

As far as tracking, and AF hits in burst.... I would have much preferred to see real action in real environments, such as shooting at F/5.6 or F/8 at ISO 1200 at 1/1000 or faster. This also required that camera is set up properly, which it is clear it was not. 

What I don't know is if Tony Northrup is ignorant or dishonest. Did he not know how to set up the camera to get proper AF tracking, or did he deliberately shoot it at a non-optimal setting.

I believe he made a comment about "If you are a professional..." or something like that... Seems to me a professional would either KNOW, or if they are getting results that are less than they expect, they research


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 19, 2014)

SPL said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


I find Trey Radcliffe amazing. I was fascinated when I first saw his HDR work. Amazed him giving away his secrets for free. He's probably improved it in the meantime but the original tutorial didn't tell all his secrets. When I look at his work now it doesn't seen so good . Often OTT, he often doesn't make the best of the amazing locations. But that's what's still amazing about him. He's been to amazing places on the back of his website. He's also like a sage / guru on all types of subjects like the best camera , mirror less cameras, lecturing at google and other places.
All because he was first and has stayed top of the HDR pile. He tells people how he became successful and to follow their photographic dreams. It's a bit like a pyramid scheme. There is very little room at the top. You can't repeat Treys success as the field is full. You have to find a photography type so far unexplored. I guess 3D photography and physically going to another planet are left. But you never know. I never saw HDR coming. Trey did though and I tip my hat to him. I hope he is enjoying his fame and wealth.
On the subject of D810 and 5D III . I've never used the Nikon but the 5DIII has been a great camera for me. It's a great all rounder. Never let's me down. Very high quality images. Nikon make a great camera too so we are all blessed to live in this era. The gear is no longer the excuse not to take great photos. Maybe it's easier to blame the gear than the technique or imagination.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> PhotoCat said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



More or less from name but you can't compare both AF system one on one.

Auto Area AF on Nikon is the only mode in which face detection is applied. It will recognize if there is a face in the photo, and if that is the case then priority will be applied to that face for auto-focus. So the D800 will decide in that case to follow that face over the 51 AF points. The AF system simply gives priority to faces that it detects within the AF region and selects the closest focus point to the face. There is no indication that the camera is using Face Recognition, it simply does it.

3D tracking AF mode on Nikon from the other hand will measure the colors in the surrounding focus point (start point) so that the AF system can track the movement afterwards. Nikon indicates that this mode is best used for moves erratically from side to side. Also here all the 51 points are used and one start point is fixed.

The iTR AF option on the 1Dx can be used on the 61 point and on the Zone AF selection. Functionality is also based on color and face detection. On 1Dx it is possible to disable the iTr function. The level of erratically moves can be modified.

So, iTr has a lot of resemblance with 3D tracking as they both work on color detection around the area of the first selected AF point. The 1Dx can do this also on zone AF and can switch this option off. The auto area AF of Nikon with the fixed face detection might be beautiful, but as mentioned you have no control on it. 

My 2 most AF modes are spot (portrait) and point expansion with 4 points (sport, wildlife). I only use 61 points when I want to follow a bird in the flight and when I have the sky as background. So even the iTr on a 1Dx is hardly used in my case because of the lower AF speeds of the zone and 61 points AF compared to the other methods. 

It's very difficult to compare total different AF systems with each other. The Canon AF system of the 5D3 and the 1Dx is even now, much more advanced then the Nikon D4s or the D810. What Northrup want to tell us that the D810 has a higher keeper rate compared to the 5D3 is his opinion, but I'm sure he is not really aware then of all the possibilities of the much more advanced AF of the 5D3.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 7, 2014)

FEBS said:


> It's very difficult to compare total different AF systems with each other. The Canon AF system of the 5D3 and the 1Dx is even now, much more advanced then the Nikon D4s or the D810. What Northrup want to tell us that the D810 has a higher keeper rate compared to the 5D3 is his opinion, but I'm sure he is not really aware then of all the possibilities of the much more advanced AF of the 5D3.



It's your _opinion_ that the AF system of the 5D3 is more advanced than what the Nikon D4s & D810 offer.

It's my opinion that Nikon's is far more more advanced _in practice_. Simply b/c of the 91k pixel RGB metering sensor for subject tracking.

Our difference in opinion probably boils down to you not caring about iTR on Canon, or Nikon's analog: 3D tracking. (considering you said: "So even the iTr on a 1Dx is hardly used in my case because of the lower AF speeds of the zone and 61 points AF compared to the other methods.")

Nikon's 3D AF tracking enables me to capture shots I wouldn't have dreamt of catching with my 5D3. Using fast f/1.4 wider primes (24mm and 35mm), I can always use the center point to initiate tracking, and then keep that subject in focus even after recomposition or the subject moving (which babies & running brides tend to do a lot). My hit rate for this type of photography shot up dramatically going from a 5D3 to a D810. And I wonder how many people actually realize that 3D AF tracking can be used for this to such great benefit. The 91k-pixel sensor does remarkably well in this regard of recognizing, say, an eye & sticking with it - it's so good sometimes, and so fast at shifting the AF point, that sometimes it feels like the camera is using the accelerometer data to measure my hand movements in order to shift the AF point (obviously, this isn't actually the case)!

It's funny - the term '3D' here is almost misleading, as it implies depth. Well, AF in general (in AF-C or Servo modes) tracks depth by default. The point of '3D' here is that it also tracks across the two dimensions of the frame; hence 2D + depth = 3D. But, at first, it seems counterintuitive, if you see what I mean - it's the 3D mode that tracks across the 2D plane, and all the other modes that automatically track depth (in AF-C/Servo).

Now, there are some other advanced features Canon offers - 5 high sensitivity dual cross-type points in the center with wider baselines, more cross-type points on the sides, and spot AF. Of these, I miss the cross-type points on the sides the most. I have yet to see benefits of the high sensitivity points, and spot AF, for my work. I'd love to quantify how useful these can be, especially the high sensitive wider baseline points for low light work. Roger Cicala's work showed no real difference in precision between the modern Nikon and Canon AF systems, but I believe that was in good light.

The 1Dx offered *the potential* to combine all those pluses of the Canon AF system with the '3D' tracking capability Nikon's offered for a long time (and Canon did as well, just using only depth information from the AF system - in other words, it didn't do it very well). Unfortunately, I never found it able to keep up, and stick as well to the initial subject, as Nikon's D810 or D4s. No matter what combination of use-cases/settings within those use-cases I tried on the 1Dx. The 1Dx is, however, much more capable than the 5D3 at this type of AF. It approaches the Nikons in this regard, but still has some catching up to do - as you'd expect for a 1st generation tech.

So, for my type of shooting, the AF system on the D810 far outperforms the 5D3 I used extensively for 3 years. And that was like icing on the cake, since I'd been wanting a better sensor for a long time.

YMMV for the type of photography you do, of course. If 3D AF tracking doesn't matter to you, the 5D3/1Dx offer very compelling AF systems.

It's just that when you make blanket systems like 'the much more advanced AF system of the 5D3', I really can't sit silent...


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 7, 2014)

Im not an AF expert as i rarely use anything other then the center AF point in one shot mode.  and 40% of the time i focus manually.

I think the 5D MK3 AF is very capable and i don´t know if the D800 AF is worse.

But i think even when it´s worse, it doesn´t make a big difference for the majority of shooter who lust for a D800 sensor in a Canon body.

As allround camera the Canon 5D MK3 is sure more capable.
But that´s Pickup vs. Sportscar talk again.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The wrong cameras are being compared.
> 
> When Nikon's D750 is released, that will be the camera to compare with the 5D3, not the D810.



Why? The 5D3 and D810 are similarly priced. Just curious as to your logic.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 9, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> Im not an AF expert as i rarely use anything other then the center AF point in one shot mode.  and 40% of the time i focus manually.
> 
> I think the 5D MK3 AF is very capable and i don´t know if the D800 AF is worse.
> 
> ...



Again, that's your _opinion_.

You say the 5D3's AF is very capable, and you don't know if the D800's is worse? I'm telling you that from my perspective, the D800 is not only _not worse_, it's _better_. B/c the 5D3 simply won't track across the frame with anywhere near the accuracy & ability with which the D800, for example, will.

So, why is the 5D3 all-round more capable? 

From my perspective, having used the 5D3 for the past few years (and Canon all my life, so I'm very familiar with their tech), it has a worse sensor than the D800 (_far_ worse for some of my use-cases), and its AF is not nearly as capable for my wedding/shallow DOF (fast prime) work b/c it doesn't track subjects across the frame. Meaning I have to manually select the appropriate AF point when I can't focus & recompose (b/c of the focus plane shift), and I don't have the ability to rely on the camera to stay on what I want focused (the eye of a baby, for example) as my subject moves around or I move/re-compose.

That last bit is relevant to running brides, moving babies, and sports photography where you want to decouple the composition from AF (that is, you don't want to find yourself forced to constrain your composition simply b/c you don't have time to move your AF point - forcing you to keep your framing such that the subject of interest is underneath the selected AF point).

At least the 1D X took a stab at closing the gap between Canon & Nikon in terms of this type of tracking when it introduced iTR which worked in conjunction with the metering sensor. But it's the only Canon - to date - to have this feature, and in my tests it does not keep up as well as the Nikon D800/D4/D810, etc. Which is to be expected for any 1st generation tech.

And for those who talk about high ISO DR, the D800 still doesn't fare *worse*; its DR just falls back down to Canon 5D3 levels. And if you know how to, you can actually have the D800 retain far more DR at higher ISOs by simply underexposing by lowering your ISO, then boosting your exposure selectively in post to get your brightness back up to where it would've been with the proper 'hardware-level' ISO. So even there, it has the potential to have more DR under situations requiring higher ISO shooting - if you shoot Raw.

In fact, really the only thing I miss about the 5D3 are its excellent cross-type AF points all over the frame - which are far less fallible to hunting/failing than non-cross-type.

So before making blanket statements like 'the Canon 5D3 is sure more capable'... perhaps think twice. I guess none of my AF talk matters to you if you focus manually 40% of the time & use the center point the rest of the time. But many professionals stress the camera far more than that, and for them it's going to come down to which camera has the right technologies that allows the camera to 'get out of the way' the most.

And for them, it's not as clear cut as 'the 5D3 is more capable'. I assure you, for my work, it's exactly the opposite. And I didn't even know until I spent enough time with Nikon.

And I'm not blind to Nikon's issues either. Lack of more cross-type AF points and radio-controlled flash are rather egregious, and I'll inevitably have some glass envy. But, in the end, the Nikon D810 'gets out of the way' the most. And its grip is finally beefy enough that I can hold the camera properly


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 9, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> B/c the 5D3 simply won't track across the frame, while the D800 will do so marvelously.



User error.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 9, 2014)

I let Neuro explain why the 5D MK3 AF is better.
As i wrote i can not say if that is true or not, but i believed him on that. 

But there are other things that makes me believe the 5D Mk3 is overall the better camera (by a small margin). For shooters who do all kind stuff it´s imo the better choice. That´s why i wrote "allround" camera.

Unfortunatly i only have 4-5 minutes time when i come here (im at work) so i can´t write novels like most of you guys to explain that more.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 9, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > B/c the 5D3 simply won't track across the frame, while the D800 will do so marvelously.
> ...


+1 pretty much. RTFM.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 9, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > sarangiman said:
> ...



Nope. Not user error.

The 5D3 only has the 'capability' to track across the frame using depth information from the AF sensor, which might work for subjects that don't change depth much (e.g. Birds), but doesn't even remotely work for erratically moving subjects that change significant distance from camera (the case when shooting with wide angle fast primes, for example). In other words: doesn't work AFAIC.

Let me put it this way: if the 5D3 were perfectly capable at this, why would Canon have released iTR in the 1D X? Do any of you understand the idea behind using the metering sensor for subject recognition? Or the entire principle behind Sony SLT?

You know what's better than RTFM? Using the freaking camera. It's quite clear none of you responding have actually compared Nikon's latest 3D AF tracking to Canon's, so the authoritative voices with which you speak are rather comical.

But as someone else stated, perhaps that's exactly what makes CanonRumors so entertaining.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 9, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...


Sounds like your upset for your shortcomings of using the equipment and blaming the camera. The 5D3s AF is superb and there are thousands of users who prove you otherwise.

Please RTFM on how to setup your 5D3.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> Well, the 5D III has a number of settings in it's AF firmware that let you configure how it's AF system responds. Canon cameras are well known, at least have been since the 1D IV and 7D, to track subjects coming right at you. There is also a dedicated AF preset explicitly designed for tracking "erratic" subjects (that's even what it says, it uses that exact word.) I've photographed birds on a few occasions when they were flying right at me, and it has maintained the lock (I think pretty much all of those were 7D...I haven't had the opportunity to try with the 5D III yet.)



Trust me I know this. I've tried all combinations, changing individual settings within certain use-cases.

Here's the thing: I really don't think you're going to get it until you've actually tried 3D tracking on a D800/810 vs 5D3 side-by-side.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding this: the 5D3 literally doesn't have the hardware to accurately follow subjects *around the frame* accurately. Not compared to the competition, anyway. It doesn't have a dedicated RGB sensor (which, btw, is also used for spot-metering linked to AF point anywhere in the frame). It uses depth information from its AF system only, and that just doesn't (and _cannot_, if you think about if for a minute) work as well as dedicated sensor in practice. The 1D X does, although in my experience it doesn't actually perform as well as, say, the D810. It's certainly worlds above the 5D3, though, for subject tracking.



jrista said:


> I don't think you need "3D" metering linked in with the AF unit to achieve this....however Canon does it, they know the boundaries of your subject, where the separation between subject contrast edges are, so they still seem to be able to track subjects that are moving towards you. I also remember reading a couple articles by sports photographers early on after the 1D X and 5D III were released stating how much they loved the 61pt AF system system and it's ability to maintain a lock on say a basket ball or soccer player running down the field towards them.



'However Canon does it' clearly indicates you're not sure what's actually going on.

Furthermore, anecdotes of how well it worked for one use-case doesn't rule out how much better a different system could work for that, or other, use-cases. 



jrista said:


> If you check the Birds in Flight gallery forum here on CR, you'll find quite a number of bird shots where the bird is moving towards the photographer...not necessarily always "down the barrel", which would be the most extreme case of that...but definitely where the subject is moving towards the photographer.
> 
> If you haven't been able to get this to work, then I would first look into how the camera was configured. Because it should most definitely be possible. I was doing it with the rather jittery 7D 19pt AF system years ago...so I know it's possible.



Again, I'm not talking about birds in flight, nor even sports - neither of which stress AF tracking as much as moving babies and running brides while you actively recompose your shot. This essentially entails erratic movement in 3 dimensions. For the last time, I'm specifically talking about _both_ z-depth tracking as well as tracking across the 2D X-Y plane. And specifically with respect to the latter, the 5D3 is significantly behind and/or completely incapable in comparison to a 1D X or any pro-level Nikon.

This shouldn't be difficult to accept. There's a reason it's in the 1D X, and purported to be in the 7D II as well. But if you want to see a great implementation of it - just try a D810. Seriously, just try it. Go to a camera store, and slap some 24/1.4 primes on some bodies. Put a 5D3 in 'auto 65 point selection' mode with AI servo, a 1D X in the same mode but w/ iTR engaged, and a D810 with 3D AF tracking mode engaged. Start on a subject in the center (or whatever focus point you've chosen), then move the camera around wildly (or have the subject dance/run around if you want/can). Be amazed at what how the camera can swiftly move the AF point to stay on the subject. _Or not._ 

I'm clearly not going to get through to you via text, but I guarantee if you pick up a D810 and try it you'll be amazed. Every single person I've showed this to (including Nikon users who just didn't know this mode existed) have looked at me with a 'wow' expression on their faces exclaiming 'I had no idea; this literally changes the way I can shoot and what I can potentially do.'

Actually, this is starting to get strangely reminiscent of the DR debate years ago... where one side just doesn't want to accept that their camera can't possibly not do something another camera can!


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Sounds like your upset for your shortcomings of using the equipment and blaming the camera. The 5D3s AF is superb and there are thousands of users who prove you otherwise.
> 
> Please RTFM on how to setup your 5D3.



Please use iTR on a 1D X or 3D AF tracking on a Nikon, then come back and attempt to imply I don't know what I'm talking about.

This is about you not understanding my point/use-case, not about me not understanding the camera I've owned and used and stressed and tested for years. 

Clearly you don't even understand how subject tracking on the 5D3 vs the 1D X/Nikons work. So who is it again then that needs to be reading manuals/white papers? Or perhaps just UTFC (using the freaking cameras)?

Not that I should even be engaging with someone who used some of the most illogical arguments to counter the reality of the DR differences between Canon & the D800 years ago.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 10, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> B/c the 5D3 simply won't track across the frame, while the D800 will do so marvelously.



What was the subject and shooting condition like? How did set your camera?


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

Also, don't misquote me. I didn't say the 5D3 AF system is incapable - my hit rate went up by a staggering amount when I went from the 5D2 to the 5D3. Simply b/c I could actually use the off-center AF points for my shallow DOF photography. 

What I'm saying is that proper subject tracking with a dedicated hardware RGB sensor leads to a similarly staggering increase in ability to capture certain moments b/c I don't have to manually select the AF point.

I'm telling you the 5D3's subject tracking doesn't work well enough for me, when compared to the alternatives available (dedicated RGB metering sensor, or Sony's SLT system which lets the imaging sensor do the hard work of subject tracking).

What, exactly, are you arguing RLPhoto? That there's no point to having a dedicated sensor for tracking that can take into account more information than just depth + whether or not an object at a certain depth left one AF point and went to another? That just having the latter imperfect & rather convoluted method of subject tracking is good enough? If so, good enough for who? You? 

Certainly not for me, since I'm actually aware of & have used the alternatives extensively (have you?). And not for anyone who values 3D tracking/iTR/SLT systems, nor the guys who designed those systems to begin with.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > B/c the 5D3 simply won't track across the frame, while the D800 will do so marvelously.
> ...


I've already clarified these in my previous posts. This is getting pointless. I'll just have to create videos to demonstrate my point. 

Still not sure why it's so hard to comprehend the 5D3's lack of dedicated subject tracking via a separate image-like sensor. The same sensor that, e.g., does face-detection weighted metering.

That's a spec, not an opinion.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

Perhaps I need to clarify my initial statement:

The 5D3 might_ start off_ OK following a subject, but it quickly gets confused - as it must with so little information - as soon as the subject changes position along 3 axes. How would *you* design an algorithm to track a subject based off only phase information from 61 AF points? And how reliable and tenacious do you think it'd be compared to a system that has ~100,000 pixels of color information to help subject recognition?

That's the whole point of the RGB sensor - to acquire more information to stick to the original subject. And the imaging sensor in Sony SLT designs has even more potential to stick to the subject (whether or not this leads to better actual performance is another story entirely).

Or the imaging sensor in mirrorless ILCs - any of you ever try subject tracking on better, modern mirrorless ILCs? The tracking itself will give almost any DSLR a run for its money - but the reality is the DSLR will often still perform (significantly) better b/c of the dedicated PDAF system (which mirrorless ILCs lack).


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 10, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> Again, I'm not talking about birds in flight, nor even sports - neither of which stress AF tracking as much as moving babies and running brides while you actively recompose your shot.



Haven't had a problem with either since the 7D. Maybe RTFM? ;D


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 10, 2014)

Hmm, my thoughts about how a sensor system should behave is not necessarily about acquiring more information, but about acquiring correct and vital information and then draw the right conclusions from them.

I must have been extremely lucky earlier this year when I did a pray and spray on a Black-crowned Night Heron, directly after it took off from its day quarters. A short burst (2-3 shots), followed by long one. In all 21 shots, of which 18 had the entire bird in frame, 12 with decent focus. The birds course of flight was much like the shape of a question mark while passing me by during this. It even managed to fly behind a few branches on a tree between us. And while I did this tracking of the Heron I turned, dipped down to my knees and leaned back.
I can't possible have done that with my ancient 7D with such an outdated AF tracking system, right? We should praise the Heron for its ability to take off and fly at a constant speed, and at a constant distance while making sure it overlapped perfectly with my focus point in the view finder.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I'm not talking about birds in flight, nor even sports - neither of which stress AF tracking as much as moving babies and running brides while you actively recompose your shot.
> ...



I didn't say it *couldn't* do either. I said there are other cameras that do it _much better_.

Perhaps you'd do wise to UTFC (use those freaking cameras). 

And anyone saying they've never missed an action shot at 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 or 85/1.2 b/c of focus is clearly lying.

Has _anyone_ here making these idiotic comments _actually used_ iTR, or 3D tracking, or the A77 II Lock-on AF? And _then_ found it to offer no benefit over the 5D3/7D AF tracking in a variety of AF tracking scenarios?

Can either of you answer this simple question?

Just b/c _your_ photography doesn't stress _your_ system, doesn't mean that generalizes to all users. And if any of you claim 100% hit-rate with focus and focus tracking, you're flagrantly lying. No camera can claim that.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Hmm, my thoughts about how a sensor system should behave is not necessarily about acquiring more information, but about acquiring correct and vital information and then draw the right conclusions from them.
> 
> I must have been extremely lucky earlier this year when I did a pray and spray on a Black-crowned Night Heron, directly after it took off from its day quarters. A short burst (2-3 shots), followed by long one. In all 21 shots, of which 18 had the entire bird in frame, 12 with decent focus. The birds course of flight was much like the shape of a question mark while passing me by during this. It even managed to fly behind a few branches on a tree between us. And while I did this tracking of the Heron I turned, dipped down to my knees and leaned back.
> I can't possible have done that with my ancient 7D with such an outdated AF tracking system, right? We should praise the Heron for its ability to take off and fly at a constant speed, and at a constant distance while making sure it overlapped perfectly with my focus point in the view finder.



Birds & sports players don't change distance relative to camera as dramatically per unit time as do close-up subjects shot with wide-angle (fast prime) lenses. 

You're still not getting it.

Let me ask you this one simple question: have you tried iTR on a 1D X or 3D tracking on a Nikon D4s/D800? 

Do you understand that these cameras have tech in them aimed at solving a particular problem with AF tracking, or do you think that RGB sensors & SLT for subject tracking is just a bunch of _marketing mumbo jumbo_ or a _conspiracy_ by all these camera manufacturers?


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 10, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, my thoughts about how a sensor system should behave is not necessarily about acquiring more information, but about acquiring correct and vital information and then draw the right conclusions from them.
> ...



You're probably right, I'm not getting it. But at least I got the shots. I must have been lucky. 12 times out of 21. A bird that starts out flying to the right, and ends flying to the left, doesn't have to have a great change of velocity nor distance. And we certainly don't have to dwelve into what an obstacle between me and the target does to the apparent speed for the sensory system.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > DominoDude said:
> ...



Your evasion of my one simple question speaks volumes as to whether or not you're qualified to comment on what advantages all the other systems I mentioned might offer. So thank you for that.

Furthermore, no one would argue that 12 out of 21 is a perfect AF hit rate. Those sort of odds don't always get you the decisive moment. An AF system that helps increase those odds is a noble goal. 

You're not even interested in the idea of AF systems that perform better than your 7D? You don't think they exist? What's your point? That the 7D is 'good enough'? At which point I will once again ask: 'Good enough for who? Everyone'?


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

What all your responses collectively are trying to say are that whatever system you're using is good enough. Be it a 50% hit rate or what have you.

And none of you have indicated you've even tried the tech in the 1D X, the Nikons, or in Sony SLT (Lock-on AF with the A77 II).

Yet I'm the one who should read a manual, despite my actually trying all the above, and concluding the metering/imaging sensors show demonstrable gains in AF tracking performance compared to what the 5D3 offers. In other words, they show - SURPRISE! - benefits in the exact areas they were designed to benefit.

No way that's confirmation bias... _nope, no way at all._


----------



## TeT (Sep 10, 2014)

I would be curious to see what setting he was using on the pics to illustrate noise. Not buying that one on face value.

I did not like the 5 minute money grab in the middle, but I get it....

and I dont think they showed enough side by side pics, and they needed the settings illustrated on the pics.

when comparing pro bodies, you need to put pro info in your comparison , not a bunch of "blew me away"

Lastly this post was originally submitted by a guest, nice successful TROLL.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 10, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> Perhaps you'd do wise to UTFC (use those freaking cameras)...Just b/c _your_ photography doesn't stress _your_ system, doesn't mean that generalizes to all users.



Look at who is a special little snowflake, the only one to ever use these cameras or stress his system, with babies and brides no less :

Canon doesn't dominate pro sports with cameras that can't track. But getting the AF settings right for the subject is critical. Now which is more likely? That you didn't set up your camera correctly? Or that Canon's AF is the worst of all?

Hmmm...


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you'd do wise to UTFC (use those freaking cameras)...Just b/c _your_ photography doesn't stress _your_ system, doesn't mean that generalizes to all users.
> ...



And thank you as well for not answering my simple question of whether or not you've ever used subject tracking using a dedicated sensor.

To (re-)answer your question: I set my camera to AI servo, then to the 61-point automatic selection mode which, in AI servo mode, is indicated by 4 brackets and the selected AF point outlined by an outer square. I selected the center AF point, then depressed the shutter button half-way to initiate focus; from that point on, the camera's AF system takes over in selecting the correct AF point to track that initial subject.

There are a number of use-cases and I tried all of them, but particularly focused on the ones dedicated to erratic movements in both the frame as well as depth. I adjusted all the individual settings to various degrees. They varied performance to certain degrees, but in all cases performance was so much worse than the 1D X or any of the pro-level Nikon bodies that it's not really worth discussing. 

It was far too easy for the system to get confused and lose the subject, requiring re-initiation of focus using the center point.

Let me put it this way:

What's more likely: (1) my settings - which I've outlined above - were wrong, or that (2) maybe, just maybe, all the work put into using dedicated RGB sensors by Nikon for years, Canon playing catch up by putting it in the 1D X, and Sony dedicating themselves to the SLT system to use the image sensor for AF tracking is _actually worth some clear benefit to some types of shooting_ and that you have no idea of this benefit b/c you clearly haven't picked up any of these cameras and used them in these modes?

In other words, what's more likely:

(1) The 1D X offers *no AF advantages* over the 5D3 (what you're saying)
(2) You just *don't know what those advantages are* (what I'm saying)

Hmmm...


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Canon doesn't dominate pro sports with cameras that can't track. But getting the AF settings right for the subject is critical. Now which is more likely? That you didn't set up your camera correctly? Or that Canon's AF is the worst of all?
> 
> Hmmm...



And, er, why do you say 'Canon' above? You mean the 'Canon 5D3, 7D, etc.', *not*, importantly, the '1D X'.

This is an important distinction, b/c *my whole point* in these posts is that *the 1D X* offers something the 5D3 cannot do well.*

I know that's _so hard to believe_, that a camera _twice the price_ is actually _better_, but... well... I've got news for you.

*Amongst others, but let me leave other brands out since apologists take to flames whenever someone mentions another brand can do something better.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 10, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you'd do wise to UTFC (use those freaking cameras)...Just b/c _your_ photography doesn't stress _your_ system, doesn't mean that generalizes to all users.
> ...


+1 He really should RTFM because I tried a d800 for a weekend and it's AF sucked like a vacuum cleaner compared to the 5D3. I don't know about the 810 but it still uses that multicam backbone that was in the d700, which I also used before. Also I remember the G 1.4 primes being a slug compared to my 24L II 50L and 135L. 

He probably didn't RTFM and I haven't seen any photos from him either.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> Chill with the attitude man. ??? What's up with that? Once you get all snarky, no one is going to listen. We both know that all too well.


Sorry, these responses from people who clearly haven't compared the systems side-by-side is just intolerable. At least I can engage in a conversation with you... (well, except that one time years ago  )



jrista said:


> Now, you claim that Canon cameras cannot track in the "Z" axis (which I can only assume means within the depth of the scene, towards or away from the photographer), or track in Z while also tracking in X/Y (vertically and horizontally within the frame).



No no no I don't claim that at all. I would *never* say the 5D3 isn't good at tracking in the Z-axis; in fact, *it's phenomenal at it*. You got my statement priorities completely backwards in your statement. I'm talking about the 5D3's ability to automatically move the AF point in the X-Y planes to stick with your initial subject as you recompose or the subject moves quickly & erratically in the X, Y, and Z planes.



jrista said:


> I disagree that it's _literally impossible_ to do accurately with Canon. It may not be as good. I don't know exactly how good Nikon's 3D AF unit is, I haven't had enough time with a Nikon camera in specific use case scenarios to fully test it out. I am not denying it could be better.



It's not literally impossible. I never said that; at least I hope I didn't. And if I did, I meant that it's so inaccurate compared to what's available in the 1D X and Nikon pro-bodies that - to me - it's almost incapable _in comparison_. My *sincere apologies* if I implied it's _literally_ or _completely_ incapable. But I do believe I've said on many occasions that the 5D3 does have a mode that _attempts_ to do this; it just doesn't do it well.

Please, please do yourself a favor and go to a camera store & plop on a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 and try 3D tracking on the D810. Initiate focus using the center (or whichever) point on the camera salesman's eye (yes, get up that close to him), and then move the camera around wildly recomposing. The camera will 'stick' to the eye so well you'll wonder if there's some trickery going on whereby the camera is using the accelerometer to figure out how to move the focus point (this is obviously not the case).

It'll be so good that your entire perspective on distance + 2D AF tracking across the frame will completely change, and then you might understand why I feel that the 5D3's 'ability' is so poor next to the competition in this regard that you may as well call it 'incapable' _in this respect_. And that it literally doesn't have the hardware necessary to track as accurately as what the other systems offer. The 1D X will do this sort of tracking as well, but is more prone to losing the subject in all my tests than the system Nikon's honed for years and years. And that, of course, shouldn't be surprising as it's 1st-generation tech for Canon.

That's not to say the 5D3's AF system is bad. I started this conversation b/c someone made a blanket comment that the 5D3 clearly has a superior AF system to the D800. And for certain types of shooting, that's just demonstrably wrong. Why that's so hard for people here to believe is astounding. 

And one of the reasons I'm being rather passionate about this discussion is b/c I kept my 5D3 for years b/c I also believed that there wasn't a camera capable of better AF out there. Part of that belief was being mislead by people making erroneous claims just like the one above about Canon AF undoubtedly being better. You might say I'm just allergic to this sort of misinformation.

It's more complicated than what some would lead you to believe. I pointed out where the 5D3 is better (cross-type AF, high sensitivity wider-baseline AF points in the center) and where it's worse (3D AF/iTR). And *boom* that was it. B/c of that one thing that I claimed that Nikon can do better (as well as the 1D X, just not quite as well), I was attacked for obviously being wrong, should RTFM, etc. etc. uninformed opinion, etc. etc. BS from people who - even up until now - haven't even once answered my question 'Have you _used_ iTR or 3D AF tracking, ever, to so authoritatively claim I'm wrong?' Or, for that matter, tried subject tracking on a mirrorless ILC (not overall focus performance, just the ability for that on-screen box to move around & stick to your original subject)? 

Because obviously there's no way any of these guys might have missed something all these years having shot Canon, right? I mean all of us here know everything, right? RIGHT??

Which is why I say that _confirmation bias_ runs rampant on these forms. 



jrista said:


> I am specifically disputing your claim that Canon cameras (with the exception of the 1D X, although you allude even it cannot do it, despite iTR metering) "literally doesn't have the hardware to accurately follow subjects *around the frame* accurately."



No, I _never_ said the 1D X can't do it, despite iTR metering. I said it doesn't do it as well as Nikon's system, which should be no surprise as Nikon has iterated this system through many generations over years and years, and this is 1st generation tech for Canon. And by that I mean the 1D X is more prone to losing the subject or getting confused. It's still very good compared to the 5D3, which itself has iterated its algorithms over years and years to use depth information to stick to a subject as it moves across the frame.

But how good can that possibly be? Think about it: the center point of the AF system detects a subject 10ft away, then you recompose, then the camera notices a subject 10ft away is now over the left-most AF point, and meanwhile there's now nothing at 10ft away at the center point. Therefore, the camera decides your subject has moved (or you've recomposed such that the subject is now at) the left-most AF point. But what if your subject moved to 9ft away during this time as well? Well, with some clever algorithms you could analyze all the focus points and see if there was some progression of a subject like this (I've assigned letters to specific focus points for ease of discussion):

[list type=decimal]
[*]Subject in center point (C) 10ft away
[*]Center point C no longer detects anything at 10ft, but the point just to its right (D) has a subject at 9.8ft
[*] Point D no longer detects a subject at 9.8ft, but the point to its right (E) detects a subject at 9.5ft.
[*] Point E no longer detects a subject at 9.5ft, but a point 6 points to the left (F) now detects a subject at 9.2ft.
[/list]

... and so on and so forth.

Are you starting to see how incredibly complex this can get, and how prone to failure this might be if the subject is moving like this in 3-axes and/or the movement is convoluted with you recomposing? Or another subject entering the frame at a similar depth?

Are you starting to see how using an image sensor (Sony SLT, or all mirrorless ILCs really), or a color sensor with some finite resolution to recognize color patterns (enough to detect a face, which we know RGB sensors can do given their face-detection ability) that communicates with the PDAF sensor might have the potential to perform _significantly_ better?



jrista said:


> Canon cameras ARE capable of tracking in Z, or tracking in Z while the subject is also moving around in the frame. That's what I'm saying, that's what everyone else is saying, and it's been possible since at least the 7D, since I've tracked rather erratic birds flying directly at me (i.e. in the z-axis) with the 7D.



Funny, b/c that's what I've been saying too. Of course it can track in the Z-axis well; that's the whole point of phase detection! At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the 5D3/7D just can't accurately track that subject in the X-Y plane of your frame as well as a camera with an accessory color/image sensor that has the ability to recognize a subject based on an actual, albeit low-resolution, RGB image.



jrista said:


> Now, you have re-qualified you statements to specifically refer to close subjects with wide angle lenses.


I only said that b/c there can be a lot of focus plane shift from recomposing using wide-angle lenses, and subjects can drastically change distance and fall out of the acceptable DOF zone. Combine this with movement across the X-Y plane and you're really, really stressing an AF system that can only track subjects based off of analyzing distance information from 61 (or worse, 19) AF points.

Let me try to explain with some numbers:

Your DOF at 35/1.4 for a subject 1m away is 6.4cm. At 2m it's 26cm. Either way, it's small. Your DOF at 200/2.8 for a football player running towards you from 30m away is nearly 4 meters. Now do my thought experiment above for each of those cases. For one, you have more tolerance for error in tracking b/c your football player is not going to fall out of your DOF zone in a fraction of a second. Second, if others enter the frame near this runner - as is typically the case with sports - even if this subject confuses the AF system, it's quite likely it won't affect the perceived focus (b/c they'll both be in a similar plane within the tolerable DOF). 

Because using AF tracking to allow the camera to automatically select the AF point to stick to my moving subjects at 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 or even 85/1.2 was so unreliable in practice - in critical scenarios like weddings where you can't afford to have the camera wildly missing focus during the action - I'd resort to selecting my AF point, and then allowing the camera to track (AI servo) along the Z-depth axis only - which it does/did remarkably well. But that constrained me to keep the subject under the selected AF point during the action, which constrained my composition. 

My point is that with iTR and 3D AF, you can often actually trust the camera to use the correct AF point after you've initially identified the subject - which allows you to decouple the composition & subject movement from focus.



jrista said:


> I honestly don't think messing around with a camera in a store is going to prove the case either...however renting a D810 would be sufficient to let me explore their 3D AF in totality.



It's actually so obvious that I bet you a nickel a trip to the camera store is all you need to get an initial idea of what I'm talking about.



jrista said:


> On the other hand, full tracking of subjects at longer focal lengths, including those moving at you in the z-axis (as has often been seen with basketball and soccer photos...where the player with the ball is moving down the field, dodging oncoming opponents), has been done quite frequently. And before the 1D X...I remember there being a lot of talk about how much that improved with the 1D IV, and I remember reading a couple of articles comparing the 1D IV to Nikon cameras in exactly that use case scenario (I can go digging for them, but that was a number of years ago now...) Neither camera performed poorly...although I remember the reviewers having specific complaints about BOTH AF systems in those use cases.
> 
> I KNOW that Canon does gather enough information to perform the necessary z-axis tracking analysis.



Again, you have no argument from me here on this. _You seem to have completely misinterpreted what I've been writing!_



jrista said:


> I don't think a full RGB metering sensor is _essential _for z-axis tracking, even of erratic subjects. It's probably BETTER, Canon clearly states that iTR enhances the tracking abilities of the 1D X AF system.



Er, which is essentially what I've been trying to say all this time. I really wish people actually read and digested what others right, rather than just seeing 'Nikon' and being like 'SQUIRREL!' and jumping behind their barracks ready to assume the defensive apologist attitude and the offensive RTFM/user-error/you-can't-possibly-be-right-b/c-that'd-mean-I've-been-wrong-all-this-time attitude.



jrista said:


> And for the record...I always want better. I am very interested in seeing what Canon does when they link their full sized image sensor into the AF system. That could give them the ability to gather pre-frame information via the iTR, as well as full-frame information during the following exposure via DPAF...THAT has me rather intrigued.



Yes, I firmly believe DPAF might revolutionize AF. For reasons that are too lengthy to go into here/now.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Sep 10, 2014)

The ONLY way you can compare these cameras is on price. That's the biggest lowest common denominator between them. Different tools for different work. Action and Low Light: 5D MKIII. Detail: Nikon. But it's not always so clear. Which would you use to get lots of detail of a bird in flight? At that point, it becomes a preference...

I think Tony Northrup and his wife Chelsea are great. He is one of the few highly-marketed photographers I pay any attention to anymore. Several reasons:


Great Gear Reviews. He doesn't pull punches when reviewing gear. But I also think he's fair.
Myth Buster. See his video on FF vs APS-C and what it means for focal length and aperture? I've never seen anyone do a video that shows you what the differences is between the two sensor sizes. This is just one example. Why has it been so difficult for anyone else to show the same thing?

I have great respect for Tony and Chelsea. I don't think they are full-time photographers. I believe he has something to do with computer certification programs. He mentioned something briefly about that. I know Chelsea gives private music lessons. And they still make the time to get enough content in for an hour long, quality youtube video every week. Try doing that yourself and see how much time that takes.... 

And that's another thing about them. They don't oversell themselves or make themselves look like a bigger deal than what they are. They aren't above doing portraits of employees at their local auto dealership. They tell you they don't make that much money on some of their products. They don't follow the common motto: fake it until you make it. They just work hard. Like what these http://ricardogomezphotography.com/successful-photographers-on-making-it-part-ii/ fine photographers have said it takes... Sorry. It's a link to my blog. But it's just easier to find the video because I posted it prominently. Twice ;D This video has gotten me through some difficult times. The interviewees are simply honest. Love it.

And no. I don't know Tony or Chelsea or have ever corresponded with them. Just good peeps working hard to realize their dreams. With integrity. And Chelsea just cracks me up ;D

BTW, Tony and Chelsea aren't switching to Nikon after all. Tony released a video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE Thanks for the video Tony.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> +1 He really should RTFM because I tried a d800 for a weekend and it's AF sucked like a vacuum cleaner compared to the 5D3. I don't know about the 810 but it still uses that multicam backbone that was in the d700, which I also used before. Also I remember the G 1.4 primes being a slug compared to my 24L II 50L and 135L.
> 
> He probably didn't RTFM and I haven't seen any photos from him either.



Thank you for that very mature and descriptive dialogue; it really added to the conversation. And by that I mean it continues to spread the very misinformation that misleads people into buying into, and then themselves propagating, erroneous myths. 

What _about_ the AF? I'm talking about subject tracking in 3D AF vs. Canon's '61-point auto point selection' in AI servo mode.


What AF mode were you in?
Did the D800 you tested have the completely miscalibrated AF sensor (with the left AF problem?)
Were your lenses microadjusted? You don't shoot primes at f/1.4 without 1st checking that they're calibrated to your body properly.

And the D700? The improvements made to that module going to the D800 helped low-light focus significantly, and the dedicated RGB sensor increased 91-fold in resolution going from D700's 1005-pixel sensor to 91,000 pixels.

You think maybe that 100x increase in resolution might, _just might_, have helped the D800 at subject recognition and tracking?

#facepalm


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

RGomezPhotos said:


> The ONLY way you can compare these cameras is on price. That's the biggest lowest common denominator between them. Different tools for different work. Action and Low Light: 5D MKIII. Detail: Nikon. But it's not always so clear. Which would you use to get lots of detail of a bird in flight? At that point, it becomes a preference...
> 
> I think Tony Northrup and his wife Chelsea are great. He is one of the few highly-marketed photographers I pay any attention to anymore. Several reasons:
> 
> ...



He has some good points. One thing that's misleading is his claim that you can compensate for smaller sensors by using brighter lenses. That's only true up to a certain point, b/c pixels have finite well-capacities. So while this will work in low-light (or light-limited) situations, it won't work for, say, landscapes or scenes with appreciable dynamic range where increasing the exposure indiscriminately will simply blow your pixels.

Here, larger sensors will still fare much better (all else held equal).

These are complicated topics so I'm not blaming him. But it's important to understand some of the intricacies/details.

Btw, here's an in-depth look at equivalence as it relates to focal length, aperture, DOF, and noise/ISO:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

The take-home is that 'equivalent aperture' is a nice way to get an idea of total light gathering ability of the lens, resulting DOF, and diffraction.


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Sep 10, 2014)

Man, you're one stressed-out dude.

You need to chill...


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

OK. It's totally reasonable and fair to doubt someone claiming something you haven't seen, or that you feel is contrary to your experience and/or some sort of general consensus. That's fine, and I should expect it. Though, remember, I didn't say that _Canon_ was poor at this, I said that Canons without a dedicated RGB sensor (everything but the 1D X) fare worse in this regard. The 1D X is far more capable at this sort of tracking than the 5D3 - in my hands/my tests - and I attribute this to iTR. Though not quite up to speed with the D4s/D810.

All I'd ask of some of the guys here is that you try & refrain from being absolutely certain that you're right, and that I'm totally wrong - until you've verified this yourself by shooting the cameras - in their proper modes properly calibrated - side-by-side to see what exactly these cameras are capable of when it comes to subject tracking in 3 dimensions. And yeah, I know, I can ask all I want... doesn't mean I'll get it. Certainly not here, from past experience.

In the meantime, I thought I'd search for videos demonstrating Nikon's 3D AF tracking vs. Canon's AI servo with automatic point selection, or iTR. 

While you can find many examples of Nikon's 3D AF tracking on YouTube, I couldn't find anything similar for Canon, save for marketing videos (which only have simulated demonstrations of how auto AF point selection to track a subject _should_ work).

I suppose, in a sense, this is somewhat indicative of how many people actually use automatic AF point selection for subject tracking on Canons. Like I said, I'll just to take my own videos/pics of comparisons to demonstrate the point, short of quoting Ken Rockwell (who actually happens to be right here re: 3D AF tracking's superiority to the analogues in Canon's 7D and 5D3).

For now, in case this adds anything to the conversation, I'll post a couple links demonstrating Nikon's 3D AF tracking. These tests below don't quite stress the AF system as much as some of the things I've been trying, since these examples don't have the subject changing distance very much. But, this is all I could really find in my brief search. Since you all have used the similar mode on Canons, perhaps from memory you can get a rough idea of how this stacks up against what you've seen on your 5D3, 7D, or what have you.

*Here's the Nikon D5200's 3D AF tracking... you know, the Rebel competitor. It uses a 2,016-pixel RGB sensor:*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5J7zALyHic

*And here's the D4s' 3D tracking, which uses its 91,000-pixel RGB sensor:* _Not too much lateral (X-Y plane) movement here, but still gives you an idea of how well the AF system sticks to the initial subject. The 1D X can approach this in my experience, but my 5D3 can't... it often gets confused and the selected AF point(s) hop all over the place. And, yes, I've tried increasing the 'Tracking sensitivity', as well as the 'AF pt auto switching', settings._
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daL-4kTaLuU

Is that the sort of _AF tracking_ and _AF point moving to stay on the subject_ you typically experience with your 5D3 and 7D?

Honest question - I'm curious. 

P.S. The following video is probably irrelevant b/c no one claims the 6D AF system to very good, but I thought I'd post it anyway. This guy in his 6D vs D600 comparison _alludes_ to the 6D not being able to keep up and track as well across the frame, though things are of course made worse by the severe lack of focus points. And it looks like not too much of a stress test b/c of the DOF. But the D600 clearly outperforms the 6D which, of course, isn't surprising given its 2,016-pixel RGB sensor:

http://youtu.be/Dg_6jSaXGgY?t=4m20s

He says: "[The D600] certain seems to track better... the little dot was traveling with her and staying really close on her... I found it was choosing the skin tone."


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 10, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > +1 He really should RTFM because I tried a d800 for a weekend and it's AF sucked like a vacuum cleaner compared to the 5D3. I don't know about the 810 but it still uses that multicam backbone that was in the d700, which I also used before. Also I remember the G 1.4 primes being a slug compared to my 24L II 50L and 135L.
> ...


I think your mesuabating to the point where your blaming gear for your shortcomings. Even if the Nikon is better at tracking, of what good is it if real photographers like jrista or the myriad of others here are already getting the results with the superb 61pt system in the situations you described. That just shows you don't know how to get the frames you want.

Now if you want to complain about something legitimate, then point out the lack of AF point metering because that really does suck at times but saying the 5D3s AF is bad at tracking means that you didn't RTFM.

and yes, the nikkor G primes still AF like a slug and that alone shifts AF speed to canons for weddings. (And I've shot a lot of them only with primes.)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 10, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> This shouldn't be difficult to accept. There's a reason it's in the 1D X, and purported to be in the 7D II as well. But if you want to see a great implementation of it - just try a D810. Seriously, just try it. Go to a camera store, and slap some 24/1.4 primes on some bodies. Put a 5D3 in 'auto 65 point selection' mode with AI servo, a 1D X in the same mode but w/ iTR engaged, and a D810 with 3D AF tracking mode engaged. Start on a subject in the center (or whatever focus point you've chosen), then move the camera around wildly (or have the subject dance/run around if you want/can). Be amazed at what how the camera can swiftly move the AF point to stay on the subject. _Or not._



Are you saying you can slap on a fast prime, focus dead center, and then rotate ("recompose" generally involves much more rotation than translation, obviously) the camera about its own axis so the initial subject as seen by the AF unit goes from one side of the frame to the other (or at least from the borders of the PDAF sensors) and significantly out of the DOF and it will track it?

If so, that's cool and I do not believe my 5D3 could do such.


----------



## tat3406 (Sep 11, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> *Here's the Nikon D5200's 3D AF tracking... you know, the Rebel competitor. It uses a 2,016-pixel RGB sensor:*
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5J7zALyHic
> 
> *And here's the D4s' 3D tracking, which uses its 91,000-pixel RGB sensor:* _Not too much lateral (X-Y plane) movement here, but still gives you an idea of how well the AF system sticks to the initial subject. The 1D X can approach this in my experience, but my 5D3 can't... it often gets confused and the selected AF point(s) hop all over the place. And, yes, I've tried increasing the 'Tracking sensitivity', as well as the 'AF pt auto switching', settings._
> ...



My 6D can do what the sample video show, only not so good when the subject too far from centre. I not sure what wrong with the 5D3.
In the 6D vs D600 video, 6D show it was bad when the subject move from far to near.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 17, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I think your mesuabating to the point where your blaming gear for your shortcomings. Even if the Nikon is better at tracking, of what good is it if real photographers like jrista or the myriad of others here are already getting the results with the superb 61pt system in the situations you described. That just shows you don't know how to get the frames you want.



No, it means that a system without scene recognition for AF doesn't allow _me_ to get the shots _I_ want for _some_ of my photography. Are you suggesting that 'real photographers like jrista or the myriad of others' represent the entire sample pool of photographers & potential types of photography in the entire world? It really takes some perverse logic to think you understand the needs of every photographer out there so well that you can say 'even if Nikon's AF tracking _is_ better... it doesn't matter.' 

Doesn't matter? So the entire focus problem has been completely solved in the industry? Everyone is able to get 100% hit-rate with any prime at f/1.4 under any circumstance? 

And - measurebating? Really there's no winning with you. When we're talking about numbers and equations, we're measurebating. When we're talking about real world experience with fast primes and ability of the camera to keep up as a subject moves around erratically, we're still measurebating! I'm saying that a scene recognition system is so good at tracking a subject accurately in 3 dimensions that after you've used it, you just cannot say the 5D III is good at it. Yes it can do it, but it gets confused very easily. And if you just took a minute to think about _how_ the 5DIII is doing it, vs. _how_ the 1D X and 7D II and Nikons are doing it, you wouldn't be at all surprised either. Go back to my thought experiment I posed to jrista in one of my responses, and see if you can understand why an image sensor is much better at tracking than the algorithm the 5D III uses. For your convenience, I've posted it at the end of this post.** 

Btw, here's the new Samsung NX1 doing it, with PDAF sensors all over the sensor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMYhZ18tKk4

But I suppose that's useless, since the 5DIII is obviously good enough for jrista & a myriad others and therefore _every photographer in the entire world_.

By the way, did you know that _most_ current Nikon DSLR can focus on faces _outside_ of Live View* (using traditional PDAF and OVF viewing)? Down to the D5200, I believe. And any Sony SLT, of course? Meanwhile, up until the release of the 7D II, only the 1D X could. Because it was the only camera with a separate color sensor for scene analysis. If your face happened to be the closest subject, sure a 5D III would focus on it in 'auto AF area' mode. Have a flower, or any other subject in front of the face, and the 5DIII focuses on that instead. Switch to a 1D X with iTR, and it'll focus on the closest (or biggest, I'm not sure) face, and track it as well. Not a big deal for me, but great when I hand off the camera to a family member to take a photo.

So now with the introduction of the 7D Mark II, do you think the inclusion of iTR with the RGB metering sensor is just a bunch of *marketing hype*? A *'me too'* feature? Or do you think perhaps Canon is including it now b/c its *actually of some utility*?

Because, at the crux of it, you're essentially arguing that iTR is completely useless. And I completely, radically disagree.



RLPhoto said:


> Now if you want to complain about something legitimate, then point out the lack of AF point metering because that really does suck at times but saying the 5D3s AF is bad at tracking means that you didn't RTFM.



I _did_ point that out. Almost every Nikon camera, down to the D5200, has spot-metering linked to the AF point. Because that's yet another thing the RGB metering sensor enables.

Just b/c you don't think the metering sensor 'seeing the scene' and providing face-detection & subject tracking isn't useful, doesn't mean it's not, or that I didn't RTFM.

What's your point of repeating the phrase 'RTFM' other than to incite me? Do you think that phrase is conducive to intelligent discussion? 



RLPhoto said:


> and yes, the nikkor G primes still AF like a slug and that alone shifts AF speed to canons for weddings. (And I've shot a lot of them only with primes.)



Demonstrably false, and yet another blanket, unsubstantiatad statement. The Nikkor 24/1.4 keeps up no better than the 24/1.4 on a 5DIII in terms of speed of Z-axis tracking in my limited testing of them side by side. Perhaps a very controlled scientific study might demonstrate otherwise, but like a slug? I don't think so. 

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is even better (and meanwhile retains full 3D focus tracking ability, since it reports distance information).

And why don't we talk about 85mm primes now, a workhorse for weddings? The Canon 85/1.2 is so slow to focus that I've missed many shots, finally opting to go with a 85/1.8, only to find its focus precision was quite poor. The Nikkor 85mm primes, OTOH, are great in terms of focus speed. Why would you leave that out of your 'Canon primes are faster for weddings' blanket statement? 

Not to mention the 85mm f/1.2's enormous CA on the sides such that it doesn't sharpen up until somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4:

Here's the *Canon 85/1.2 vs Nikkor primes wide open*:






Here's the *85/1.2 at f/2.8, where it's still not as sharp/uniform as the Nikon 85 primes at f/2 and f/1.8, respectively.*





If you want to talk about advantages of the 5D Mark III focus system, talk about its cross-type points all over the frame, and its wider baseline diagonal points in the center of the frame.

*But to be fair, it's doubtful the D5200-D7100, with their 2,016-pixel RGB sensors, do it anywhere near as well the more pro-level bodies with their 91,000-pixel sensors. The higher the resolution of the metering sensor, the better. Then again, I was surprised even the 2,016-pixel metering sensor in the D7000 could aid subject tracking well, but it does a reasonably good job. Certainly much better than my 5D Mark III.

**Here's an example of how the 5D Mark III focus system works. Let's say the center point of the AF system detects a subject 10ft away, then you recompose, then the camera notices a subject 10ft away is now over the left-most AF point, and meanwhile there's now nothing at 10ft away at the center point. Therefore, the camera decides your subject has moved (or you've recomposed such that the subject is now at) the left-most AF point. But what if your subject moved to 9ft away during this time as well? Well, with some clever algorithms you could analyze all the focus points and see if there was some progression of a subject like this (I've assigned letters to specific focus points for ease of discussion):

[list type=decimal]
[*]Subject in center point (C) 10ft away
[*]Center point C no longer detects anything at 10ft, but the point just to its right (D) has a subject at 9.8ft
[*]Point D no longer detects a subject at 9.8ft, but the point to its right (E) detects a subject at 9.5ft.
[*]Point E no longer detects a subject at 9.5ft, but a point 6 points to the left (F) now detects a subject at 9.2ft.
[/list]

... and so on and so forth.

Are you starting to see how incredibly complex this can get, and how prone to failure this might be if the subject is moving like this in 3-axes and/or the movement is convoluted with you recomposing? Or another subject entering the frame at a similar depth?

Are you starting to see how using an image sensor (Sony SLT, or all mirrorless ILCs really), or a color sensor with some finite resolution to recognize color patterns (enough to detect a face, which we know RGB sensors can do given their face-detection ability) that communicates with the PDAF sensor might have the potential to perform significantly better?

Incidentally, many types of bird photography are unlikely to stress this type of system much, since you typically have one subject at a very distinctly different depth from everything else (the background or sky). And when the bird moves, its typically going to move along the depth-axis with measurable acceleration or deceleration - which allows the predictive AF to work quite well (and I've already said Canon does this very well). Also, keep in mind the DOF for extreme telephoto lenses at large subject distances. For example, 300mm at f/4 for a subject 30m away has a DOF of 2.3m, giving the AF system more room for error compared to a subject 1m away shot with a 35/1.4 where the DOF is 6.4cm (and where it's very, very easy for the subject to fall out of that DOF or for the photographer to move more than 6cm).


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 17, 2014)

pbr9 said:


> Many thanks for taking your time with this, being in the process of choosing a couple of extra bodies at the moment, this cleared a couple of misconceptions i had, so thanks once again.



You're welcome, and thanks for taking the time to say this.



tat3406 said:


> My 6D can do what the sample video show, only not so good when the subject too far from centre. I not sure what wrong with the 5D3.
> In the 6D vs D600 video, 6D show it was bad when the subject move from far to near.



I didn't say the 5D3 can't do it, I said it can't do it anywhere near as well as a 1D X with iTR, or any modern Nikon with either a 2,016 or 91k-pixel RGB metering sensor (D7000/7100/5300/5200, D800/810, D4/s, D750, etc.).

And with the 6D's paltry 9 AF points... let's not even go there. The chances of there being an AF point where I actually want the focal point of my subject is vanishingly small.



3kramd5 said:


> Are you saying you can slap on a fast prime, focus dead center, and then rotate ("recompose" generally involves much more rotation than translation, obviously) the camera about its own axis so the initial subject as seen by the AF unit goes from one side of the frame to the other (or at least from the borders of the PDAF sensors) and significantly out of the DOF and it will track it?
> 
> If so, that's cool and I do not believe my 5D3 could do such.



LOL, thank you for writing this  And, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Again, just watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5J7zALyHic

It's literally that good, and even better on the DSLRs with the 91k-pixel RGB sensor. 

Importantly, it can still track that well as you're changing distance to the subject, which is exactly where the 5D3 will get confused. That is, the 5D3 will be much more prone to losing the initial subject once you convolute 2D X-Y movement across the frame with distance changes as well. Unless there's only one or two subjects vastly separated from the background moving forward or backward with not too erratic shifts within a small timeframe in the depth/distance axis.

And this should come as no surprise if you follow my thought experiment in my last post in the ** footnote. In fact, once you understand just how the 5D Mark III AF tracking works _(by looking at subject distances across all AF points, but never doing any subject/scene analysis to actually understand what your subject is)_, you'll be able to predict when/where it'll be good, and where a dedicated color/image sensor will be much better.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



jrista: Now _please_ go try it on a Nikon D810, D4s, or D750 or what have you, and you'll be blown away by how 'kick-ass' it is on the Nikon's even without a high-resolution image sensor to do what Sony's doing. 

We've essentially reached an impasse where you're not going to understand me any further until you just go and try it.

Now, while you may find Sony's AF 'kick-ass' in this manner (and it really is, especially coming over from Canon), in practice, it's not actually as good as Nikon. The A77 II can't keep up as quickly and accurately as the D810 can. So if you were impressed with the Sony... you're in for a pleasant surprise when you try Nikon's 3D tracking.

If I were to rate this sort of '3D tracking' ability, it'd go something like this:

*Nikon D810/D750/D4 > Sony A77 II > Canon 1D X >> Canon 5D Mark III*

Since I've tested all of these systems, perhaps you can get some idea of why, in my mind, the 5D Mark III lags so far behind compared to the 3 systems above it in my comparison above that I cannot use any positive descriptor when talking about it.

And - much like you - I want the best of both worlds. So I either want Canon to catch up to Nikon in this regard (b/c it still loses subjects more easily than Nikon and/or Sonly A77 II), or for Nikon to adopt some of Canon's significant benefits: more cross-type AF points, wider baseline sensors, and diagonal sensors, to name a few. So, if the inclusion of the metering sensor* in the 7D II is at all indicative of Canon's intentions to start putting these metering sensors in all their cameras (as Nikon has done for quite some time now), then that's *incredibly* exciting to me. B/c I might actually put up with Canon's sub-par image sensor (in terms of Raw DR) if the 5D Mark III replacement had all cross-type points, those dual cross-type center points, EV -3 focusing, along with a 150,000-pixel RGB metering sensor + iTR. As long as their iTR algorithms caught up to Nikon's 3D focus tracking algorithms, anyway. B/c as much as I love Nikon's huge DR for landscapes, and programmable Auto ISO for more intelligent fast-paced shooting, and EC in M mode with Auto ISO, for that matter, it's _focus_ that remains the largest reason for me having to throw away shots (although, I experienced a huge increase in keepers stepping up from the 5D2 to the 5D3; I just wished I'd gotten either the 1D X or the D800 instead back then... but one was too heavy and the other was plagued by AF sensor miscalibration issues and also didn't really fit in my hand with its poorly designed grip). And therefore I applaud Canon for their focus on focus, if you'll excuse my pun. The 7D Mark II's AF sensor, inclusion of iTR, and dual-pixel AF all indicate Canon cares about AF. And that is, simply put: awesome. Because it's the biggest differentiator between mirrorless ILCs and DSLRs today. 

*I'm not saying all this matters for every type of photography. I'm just saying it can open up huge doors for certain types of photography.* And can even idiot-proof a DSLR once you consider the impact of proper face detection & tracking with a traditional PDAF AF system (which, again, up until the release of the 7D II, _only the 1D X had_ in the Canon line). Or, at the very least, make it easier for pros to focus on more important things, like lighting, composition, capturing the decisive moment, etc. Of course, I won't use face-detection AF for shallow DOF photography b/c you need to nail the eye -- and I'm not yet convinced that Nikon's 3D tracking and/or Canon's iTR are intelligent enough to focus on the eye of the face after detecting the face using the metering sensor.

*Though, I must say, I can't understand why they'd leave out spot-metering linked to the AF point, as it should be easy now that they've got that high-resolution metering sensor in there...


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Maybe a D800 would have nailed every shot...I'm a little skeptical of that, given that I still hear pros complaining about Nikon AF, and have read many reviews comparing the 1D X and D4 that clearly indicated Canon AF tracking was superior (although, possibly not your particular close-subject/thin DOF use case.)



Whoa, let's not conflate the 1D X and the 5D3 in this discussion. iTR on the 1D X makes it significantly better than the 5D3 for the type of focus tracking I'm talking about. Furthermore, yes I doubt sports photography stresses the AF system in the manner I'm talking about (remember what I said about DOF of telephoto lenses with large subject distances, and the _relative_ changes in distances to subjects being smaller than for fast wide-angle primes at close subject distances), so there it's possible that the 1D X's diagonal, wider baseline sensors in the center, as well as more cross-type AF points in general, wins.

Also, there was that whole D800 miscalibration fiasco that sunk the collective opinion of Nikon's AF. And I wonder how much of that persists across other cameras - the factories have to individually calibrate every AF point on the sensor! Who does that better? Who knows? I know there are at least a couple of AF points in my 61 point 5D3 sensor that are out of whack compared to the AF points right around it... indicating a miscalibrated point (and not a general skew). This systems are incredibly complex, so I'm not surprised there are a variety of opinions out there.

Also, someone said earlier how Canon's presence is much more significant at the Olympics. That has changed over the years though...






... and again, I'm not saying one system is better than the other for sports. I am _not at all_ qualified to comment on that, as I haven't tested either system for sports. Actually, my feeling is that you don't strictly need subject recognition and tracking for sports photography, since a lot of the action is happening amongst subjects of similar distances from the camera. So, here, other things might matter more.

I'm _only_ commenting on the type of tracking I've explained previously (and for the sake of my sanity, don't feel like repeating again here!).


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 17, 2014)

Maybe this video released by Sony will help get my point across:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy8TAGFC95o

Note how at 1:33 they stress how the AF system doesn't get 'distracted' - because it understands its subject from scene analysis of the imaging sensor. Same thing with the RGB metering sensors in the 1D X, and in Nikon cameras (albeit with much less resolution). And that has been my point all along. 

Perhaps on-sensor PDAF and/or DPAF will eventually outperform what we see with DSLRs. I'm all for that. But for now, the best subject tracking is available in cameras that *have* a dedicated color sensor for subject tracking. Be it an image sensor, or a dedicated RGB metering sensor. _Not_ a camera like the 5D Mark III that lacks both of these inputs when it comes to subject tracking.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 17, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I think your mesuabating to the point where your blaming gear for your shortcomings. Even if the Nikon is better at tracking, of what good is it if real photographers like jrista or the myriad of others here are already getting the results with the superb 61pt system in the situations you described. That just shows you don't know how to get the frames you want.
> ...


TLDR; 

This post in itself proves my point of your measurbating. Please move along.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 18, 2014)

Bombom said:


> Nikons D8xx (Sonys Exmor sensors) are better for landscape shooter.
> There is nothing to talk about, it´s a fact.



I can agree with you that when you really can go into the pixel itself. Yes, there is more detail because of the higher resolution. However, in our local photo club and in school, when we all take photo's of the same landscape, we all can immediately see the full frame sensors when we compare photos afterwards, and for sure in combination with good lenses. However, no one can see on the difference between the 5D3 and the Nikon D800, D810. The difference can be found back when we compare in LR into deep detail, but in no other way.

If I would only do landscape, and needed to buy a camera, and not having all the Canon gear, I think I also would choose for the D810. However for action my 5D3 is still very great in combination with my lenses. I would not choose on current situation for Nikon if I was mainly shooting action.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 18, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Bombom said:
> 
> 
> > Nikons D8xx (Sonys Exmor sensors) are better for landscape shooter.
> ...



Good to hear from other people who have _practical_ experience between D8xx and 5DIII. This is why so many landscape orientated photographers that use FF ( as opposed to something larger) use Canon.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 18, 2014)

Bombom said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > FEBS said:
> ...



Not for you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.



Are you saying that the 'naturally crisper, sharper images' from the 36 MP D8x0 can be readily and easily distinguished from images taken with a 24, 22, 20, or 18 MP FF sensor when downsampled for small prints or web-sized images? 

Northrup said the 5DIII was ok for Facebook, but you're saying the D810 would be better for Facebook?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 18, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying you can slap on a fast prime, focus dead center, and then rotate ("recompose" generally involves much more rotation than translation, obviously) the camera about its own axis so the initial subject as seen by the AF unit goes from one side of the frame to the other (or at least from the borders of the PDAF sensors) and significantly out of the DOF and it will track it?
> ...



It doesn't look like the camera is rotating much (maybe 5 degrees with a rather wide DOF).

I'll give it a shot this evening with a 5D3 just to satisfy the curiosity.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sorry, but there is a relatively large difference in detail between the two. That has nothing to do with dynamic range, simply the pixel size. The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.



"Large difference in detail" #1

http://s11.postimg.org/kyh7iwp8j/5d3_d810_1.jpg

"Large difference in detail" #2

http://s16.postimg.org/i7ha1whwl/5d3_d810_2.jpg

"Large difference in detail" #2

http://s24.postimg.org/swj8ybket/5d3_d810_3.jpg

All images: left 5D mark III, right Nikon D810, DPReview studio scene RAW files at ISO 100 / NR0 converted using ACR standard settings. 5D3 file was resized to match (Bicubic Sharper) and then had light sharpening applied. I encourage everyone to download test files such as these and try them for yourself.

At best one can say tiny high contrast details are rendered a little better at pixel peeping sizes, and the D810 will sometimes pick up light, small patterns or textures missed on the 5D3. Shown at 50% on a 96 ppi monitor (i.e. 25x40" print) this stuff would be invisible. In print it would be invisible without a loupe.

We are well into diminishing returns for small format. People talk endlessly about AA filters and 22/24 vs. 36 MP yet they hardly matter at all even when pixel peeping tripod mounted shots made with primes at optimum apertures. Subject lighting, lens, technique, post processing, each 1,000x more important to fine detail and sharpness. I hope when Canon releases a high MP body they A) don't charge 1D prices, and B) shoot past 50 MP even if high ISO suffers. Because at this point I'm wondering if even >50 MP would yield truly significant differences in print without also jumping to a MF sized sensor.

This, btw, is why I'm going with the Sony A7 over the A7R. I see the exact same thing there. I would rather have electronic first curtain shutter, the phase detect points, and the extra cash in my pocket for lenses.

*Correction:* this is the *Imaging Resource* studio scene (RAW / ISO 100 / NR0 / converted by me using ACR standard). I had these files on my HD already from when I was comparing 5D3 / A7 / A7R / D8x0. Sorry about that.


----------



## LOALTD (Sep 18, 2014)

bmwzimmer said:


> If i had to start over today, i'd go with d810 over the older 5d3. But i don't want to go through the hassel of selling all my lenses so i'll wait to see how Canon responds. Competition is great for all us consumers and Canon could use a hard kick in the butt like this to start stepping up.



YES!

This is exactly where I am at. I talk a lot of smack about Canon bodies and generally steer people towards Nikon...

And occasionally they'll be all "wait...don't you shoot Canon?" Like I'm trying to hide my secret from them!

It's just...it's too late for me. 

I'm not into losing hundreds of dollars to sell and then re-buy lenses.

I'll just sit tight and hope the next 5D gives us some more dynamic range and some 4k.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you saying that the 'naturally crisper, sharper images' from the 36 MP D8x0 can be readily and easily distinguished from images taken with a 24, 22, 20, or 18 MP FF sensor when downsampled for small prints or web-sized images?



I don't know about him, but I will go on record as saying that anyone who walked into a gallery of 24x36" prints made using both cameras, but by the same photographer, would never know the prints came from two different cameras.

Even at larger sizes I don't think anyone would know unless you showed them identical prints (i.e. same scene and all factors but sensor made equal) and asked them to look for differences. Then a critical reviewer observing very closely (i.e. 6-12" from the print) might pick up a difference here or there.



> Northrup said the 5DIII was ok for Facebook, but you're saying the D810 would be better for Facebook?



The claims just get more and more ridiculous, don't they?


----------



## docsmith (Sep 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sorry, but there is a relatively large difference in detail between the two. That has nothing to do with dynamic range, simply the pixel size. The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.



Maybe with the very best of Nikon's lenses. But for even their very good lenses, there really is not much of a difference. Which may explain the observations made by the photo club.

There are many comparisons, but, a quick one, the new Nikkor 58 mm f/1.4 on the D800 vs the old Canon 50 f/1.4 on the 5DIII result in 18 p-Mpix and 17 p-Mpix, respectively (using DXO data). I doubt anyone would be able to discern a difference between those two systems.

But yes, put the very best of lenses on the D8xx and you have more resolving power.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 18, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> Not to mention the 85mm f/1.2's enormous CA on the sides such that it doesn't sharpen up until somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4:



Oh boy...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=732&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The Nikon is sharper across the frame, but that is some of the most disgusting CA I've ever seen. I've seen Chinese c mount lenses with less CA!

I'm not going to wade into the AF mud fest because without reproducible tests...or a really calm, rational, ego free group of people who also have hundreds of hours of stick time on both...it's pointless.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but there is a relatively large difference in detail between the two. That has nothing to do with dynamic range, simply the pixel size. The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.
> ...



I think this is why we haven't seen a 'very high' mp FF sensor from Canon yet. Once you go beyond a certain level of potential resolution the format becomes the restriction in the sense of the magnification (focal length of lens) that you have to use pro rata, the size of image capture and then the magnification required to view the image. So smaller format equals shorter focal length (less magnification) equals smaller capture equals greater magnification to view. 

This is why the 'large FF mp' camera doesn't excite me very much.

Incidentally this is why ( excluding dof, low light etc etc) you just can't tell the difference in a (moderately enlarged) image from APS against FF when the subject is close to you and filling the frame, but you can when the subject detail is much further away, ie landscapes.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 18, 2014)

docsmith said:


> But yes, put the very best of lenses on the D8xx and you have more resolving power.



Put the same lens on the 5D3 via an adapter and...no, not really. Not what people imagine. There is a difference, it's just incredibly difficult to reveal.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.



Sorry, but this is just crazy talk. Ink is not infinitely scalable. It is a liquid that has to be absorbed into the paper. Which means it must bleed or it wouldn't adhere to the paper. It isn't like pixels, where you can keep getting smaller and smaller and with sufficient magnification still see individual pixels.

And, as far as online publications go, the limiting factor is the resolution of the monitor, which is always way, way less than the resolution of any camera.

The D810 might – emphasis on might – offer some advantage for those making very large prints. But, ordinarily, large prints are viewed at a greater distance, so once viewing distance is taken into account, the difference in resolution is generally negligible.

Tony Northrup made a transparent infomercial. If he isn't yet on Nikon's payroll, it isn't for lack of trying on his part.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 18, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I think this is why we haven't seen a 'very high' mp FF sensor from Canon yet. Once you go beyond a certain level of potential resolution the format becomes the restriction in the sense of the magnification (focal length of lens) that you have to use pro rata, the size of image capture and then the magnification required to view the image. So smaller format equals shorter focal length (less magnification) equals smaller capture equals greater magnification to view.



Yep. Saddens me to say this, but I don't think we are going to get those wall sized detailed prints you see from LF film / MF digital shooters in 35mm format (except for stitching of course). A somewhat affordable Canon MF system with brand new lenses designed to the best of their abilities would excite me much more then a 50 MP Canon DSLR. (But even "somewhat affordable" would probably land in the $20k range for a minimum kit.)



> Incidentally this is why ( excluding dof, low light etc etc) you just can't tell the difference in a (moderately enlarged) image from APS against FF when the subject is close to you and filling the frame, but you can when the subject detail is much further away, ie landscapes.



I would go a step further and say it can be hard to tell even in many landscape shots. But basically we're in agreement here.

We're in a golden age of photography. A relatively poor guy can pick up a Rebel and a decent lens and produce IQ nearly as good as a D810 / A7R with the latest, most expensive lenses. It should be even more about the image content now, but instead we become even more fixated on tiny differences and exaggerate their significance to silly proportions. (Isn't this a known phenomenon in psychology? Where people presented with many very good choices become more stressed and analytical then when they have one good and a few worse choices?)

When I step back and think about how far technology has come, I am completely blown away by what a $300 EOS M + EF-M 18-55 cheapo kit lens + ACR/PS can produce. Jump in a DeLorean and take that thing back to the 1990's and it literally would have been able to hang with medium format film up to 16x24".


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 18, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Tony Northrup made a transparent infomercial. If he isn't yet on Nikon's payroll, it isn't for lack of trying on his part.



Having him on your payroll would backfire. His work is so transparent, late night infomercial that anyone watching it would immediately assume your product was actually the weaker one and you were trying to bash the competition ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> "Large difference in detail" #1
> 
> http://s11.postimg.org/kyh7iwp8j/5d3_d810_1.jpg
> 
> ...



I don't really see significant differences. Since 36 MP >> 22 MP, I must conclude that your test is flawed. 

  Phhhtththhhththththt  

</sardonic trolling>


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't really see significant differences. Since 36 MP >> 22 MP, I must conclude that your test is flawed.



Well...in fairness DPReview did not underexpose a black cat in a coal mine and push 5 stops with all noise reduction turned off. 

If they had done that...game over man.

*Update:* I added this to the original post, but these were from Imaging Resource, not DPReview. I had them on my HD already from a prior comparison and just typed the wrong site.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 18, 2014)

This reminds me of discussions on the maximum resolution that people can see.
People get really confused about that for various reasons, but the crux of the argument always comes down to diminishing returns, or "price to performance".
1080p is great, but 4K is better, how much better? Depends on who you ask, how much it cost, how it affects the surrounding ecosystem, etc...
20MP is great, but 40MP is better. How much better? ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 18, 2014)

9VIII said:


> 1080p is great, but 4K is better, how much better?



It depends on size and viewing distance. Weird.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> Double your resolution from 20mp to 40mp, you could downsample the 40mp image to the 20mp sizes, and have considerably better data that looks sharper, crisper, clearer without any additional sharpening.



What happens when you downsample both to 2 MP for web display, or make an 8x10" print? Do you stand by your earlier claim that a 36 MP image would yield a "naturally crisper, sharper" result than an 18-24 MP image? 




jrista said:


> At some point in the future, you guys are going to be the new generation of "film forever" guys.



No, we're just honest about the relevance and impact of the _comparatively minor_ technological differences of which you're apparently so enamored.


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 19, 2014)

Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 19, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Okay, it's hard to replicate since my camera doesn't illuminate the point it's using during tracking, so I took some snaps at extremes and, looking at them in LR, it did fine. 

However, putting a pronounced object like that on a continuous white background isn't really indicative of real world performance; that's about the easiest scenario imaginable. With a complicated background, I don't know how well it would keep up.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 19, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?



I've lost context -- to whom are you referring?


----------



## lucasjld (Sep 19, 2014)

Isn't comparing a march/2012 camera with a mid/2014 one like comparing the same gap between two macbooks (cpu upgrade/gpu/higher bech scores/etc?)
Two more freaking years, one is an upgrade of the former "rival".

I just think it would just be stupid to sell something two years "younger" with nothing better.


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?
> ...



No way, dude  I was referring to Tony Northrup, the guy whose video this thread was originally about before the discussion got derailed ;D I can see how the tangents that have followed could lead to confusion, though ;D

I don't consider my images to be the best either, far from it in fact, which is why I don't feel the need to create videos stating how useless my current gear is.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 19, 2014)

Since I see mentions of video and watching distances...
I had a great chart showing suitable viewing distance for various resolutions and screen sizes, but it's embedded on a site that is highly linked to very X-rated content, so I think we should skip that URL. However, it showed the farthest distance at which an eye with perfect vision could resolve all the detail. In short, and as an example, it boils down to a 60 inch screen best being viewed from less than 10 feet if you want the eye to resolve all detail in a 1080p movie.

Let's toss in some Wikipedia that is less prone to being X-rated -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance#Human_visual_system_limitation

I'd say that for a family of 4-5 to watch and enjoy every minute detail of a high-res video snippet they better huddle together really close. Thankfully the human brain is supposed to watch and enjoy the *content*, and it won't throw itself on the floor in a temper tantrum just because every single pixel isn't distinguishable.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?
> ...



I think he was referring to northrup.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 19, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?



Hacks need to make money too.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > Bombom said:
> ...



Jrista,

You are right that there is a difference. That's also what I said, BUT when can you see that difference? On a webpage ? No, On a print till 40x60cm? No. On really large prints? Yes, thats possible, but then again you need to pixel peep, just as in LR or PS. I did see a lot of pictures, taken on the same moment from the same scene, but if we mix them, we can't tell from who the picture was (5d3, D800, D810), unless.... we dive into the pixels, and then I agree, but that's not the way we look at a photo?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2014)

FEBS said:


> I did see a lot of pictures, taken on the same moment from the same scene, but if we mix them, we can't tell from who the picture was (5d3, D800, D810), unless.... we dive into the pixels, and then I agree, but that's not the way we look at a photo?



Some people can't see the forest for the trees. A few people can't even see the trees because they prefer to look at pixels instead of pictures.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> I've said this countless times now, but the point of having better data is a reduced workload. Sure, you can work and work and work and work and WORK the data from Canon cameras, with more and more tools, and eventually get a really good result. But, you worked it more, possibly a LOT more, and you spend more money on more tools, to get the same result that you can get from a file that started out being better. You may have even had to do more in-camera, using more IQ-degrading GND filters to balance contrast or what-have-you, to improve the quality of the data.
> 
> It isn't purely about the end results, although that's certainly what we all look to. The purpose of having better data is to minimize the work that occurs between camera and publication/print. According to Neuro, that's just "Missing the forest for the trees because I'm just looking at pixels." To me, it's how long do I have to spend journeying to get to the best spot in the forest. One path is rocky and difficult and takes three times as long going uphill...the other is even and level and winds through a more scenic part of the forest, and is a lot shorter.



You've said it before and it does make sense. It's the same reason we have AF and intelligent metering: less work to get consistently high quality results. I've not experienced the kinds of problems you have, but you're entitled to your experience.

Here's a stupid question for you: if third-parties can make lenses that are compatible with multiple body brands, why can't Nikon make a version of the D810 that's compatible with EF lenses to try to poach some Canon business, such as yourself? The only reason (aside from corporate pride) would be some difficulty with the physical dimensions of the mirror mechanism. If Nikon were smart, they could set up a stealth subsidiary to "modify" D810s for that lucrative Canon market. I'm only half-joking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2014)

Ok, let's review. Your earlier point was quite direct and specific...you stated that the higher resolution of the D800 results in sharper images even at small print and web sizes:



jrista said:


> Sorry, but there is a relatively large difference in detail between the two. That has nothing to do with dynamic range, simply the pixel size. *The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III*. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it *translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication*.



But when called on that claim, you chose to not respond directly, and instead you change your story...



jrista said:


> You guys keep missing the point here. The point of having better data to start with is to reduce the amount of effort required to produce better data in the end. *I don't know if people could actually pick out D800 photos from 5D III photos in a blind test.*



Now you're not sure if there's a visible difference (at any size?), but who cares because it's really about the effort needed. So...which point are we missing? Your original point that you're now waffling on, or your subsequent point after changing your story. 

I asked before...is this 'extra effort' necessary with every shot? Most shots? A few shots? 

As I and others have stated, the differences you're talking about are generally of limited relevance and impact.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I asked before...is this 'extra effort' necessary with every shot? Most shots? A few shots?



No, the question is...is this 'extra effort' necessary for enough of _his_ shots to be important _to him_. There are some posters here whose answers to this question would not affect me. jrista has shown that he knows what he's doing, so I'm inclined to accept his response at face value, even if my answer would be different. _For me_, the answer is probably no.

Neuro, you offer lots of value to this forum, but your questions often sound like a trial attorney badgering a hostile witness. Your questions are valid, your tone is not helpful.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 19, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> The only reason (aside from corporate pride)



Yah, that would be almost as bad as farming out the heart of the camera (the sensor) to another firm!



I think Nikon would rather sell Nikkor lenses than facilitate people using Canon lenses on their bodies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I asked before...is this 'extra effort' necessary with every shot? Most shots? A few shots?
> ...



No doubt...he has stated that his Canon files – at least some unspecified fraction of them – are more work for him to process. He also states he believes, based on his experience with Canon RAW files and Exmor RAW files he's downloaded (I don't recall him stating he's actually _used_ a camera with an Exmor sensor) that those files would require significantly less work for him to process. I take no issue with any of that. 

But...he has extrapolated those personal issues to suggest that Canon is currently being or will soon be negatively impacted by that 'extra work required to achieve a similar result', and I just don't think that's likely. As you state, the answer for you is that there's not a significant impact, and I suspect you're in the solid majority. 

Jrista offers a lot of value to these forums, so it's especially disappointing when he makes claims such as D800 images being noticeably sharper than 5DIII images at small print or web sizes...claims that are so untenable that even he won't stand behind.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> You guys keep missing the point here. The point of having better data to start with is to reduce the amount of effort required to produce better data in the end.





jrista said:


> Your still misunderstanding. You could make the 5D III image as sharp, by sharpening. My point is you wouldn't have to do the extra step of sharpening the 5D III image to achieve the same results. I keep saying it, and you guys keep missing the point. It's about the work between A and B, not simply whether B looks like a B.



Ok, I think I'm starting to understand. I can be a little slow on the uptake, sorry about that. Even if the end result is the same, the extra work required on Canon images (all of them, right?) is a burden. An image taken with a D800 will have that natural clarity and sharpness compared to one from the 5DIII, without the burdensome extra step of sharpening. That holds true even after downsampling for web or small prints. I thought sharpening was recommended after downsampling, usually beyond selecting Bicubic Sharper, and even for D800 images, but I guess D800 images don't need that...like I said, I'm a little slow. I can see where that extra sharpening on the 5DIII images adds extra work, moving a single slider can be difficult and time consuming...I'm sure eliminating that burdensome step would have a substantial impact on what one might consider minimal post processing. Minimal post processing such as...



jrista said:


> I only made a very minor change to sharpness, nr, sat, and clarity. I then spent a couple minutes masking out the subject and running one denoise routine on the background.
> 
> I consider that relatively minimal...
> 
> A couple minor tweaks to a few sliders in LR, and some background NR, are quite minimal as far as my standard editing process goes.



So...thanks again for explaining how the 36 MP of the D800 offers naturally crisper, sharper images at web or small print sizes, or even if it doesn't, how the extra resolution makes such an impact on the post-processing workflow by eliminating the burdensome step of moving one slider. Like I said, I think I'm starting to get it, even if I don't yet fully understand.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sharpening is just an example of _one_ of the extra things you often have to do with Canon files. One of many. In the situations where my 5D III is at it's worst, the workload involves a lot more than just sharpening..........
> 
> 
> 
> You see absolutely no difference between cameras of vastly differing IQ capabilities.



What if the photographer doesn't want 'brittle', 'digital' images ? Many of those pictures you have linked to on 500px will have had, as part of the extensive post processing, a Gaussian blur applied. More workload as you put it. 


In the vast majority of photographic applications there is no case of 'vastly differing IQ capabilities. That's the whole point. 

But for someone who wants to view brittle images which have been under exposed by three stops on a good quality monitor at 100% the D810 fits the bill nicely.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's a cascade...worse data can result in a number of additional things that need to be done, from in-camera work to additional steps in post. Increased workload. No, not for every single shot, but in enough for certain kinds of photography I do. When your already backlogged for editing photos you took months ago...facing even more work every time you go out to do a certain kind of photography is just a little frustrating.



I get that you are frustrated with your Canon RAW files in certain situations. I get that a D8x0 can offer advantages in those situations, resulting in a reduced workload. What I _don't_ understand is how those advantages, or anything else you've stated, in any way support the untenable claim that a 36 MP image will have greater 'natural clarity and sharpness' than a 22 MP image when both are downsized for a small print or online publication.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 19, 2014)

Kinda funny... most my clients complain the 5d 3 images i make have TOO MUCH detail hence most my battle is softening their skin and pores, etc... if the D810 has more detail, that would give me even more work... naw... i'm good... okay, carry on with your arguments, let me go heat up the popcorn.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> Kinda funny... most my clients complain the 5d 3 images i make have TOO MUCH detail hence most my battle is softening their skin and pores, etc... if the D810 has more detail, that would give me even more work... naw... i'm good... okay, carry on with your arguments, let me go heat up the popcorn.



Perhaps if your clients were trees they'd be disappointed and refuse to pay? Just something to consider as you enjoy your snack...


----------



## Khalai (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...One of many. In the situations where my 5D III is at it's worst, the workload involves a lot more than just sharpening, and more than just reducing noise, it also involves HDR blending (and, when there are stronger highlights, often blending of 7 or 9 bracketed shots to prevent posterization), etc. It's a cascade...



Honest question here: If you need to blend exposures from 7-9 photos to get perfect DR using C5D3, is N810 really that superior, that you do not need to blend any bracketed shots and do it all from single RAW file? You talked about burdening workflow, but I just cannot imagine the situation, where N810 will do fine with single RAW file, while C5D3 will need 5, 7 or even 9 shots to get the DR within the brackets.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Thanks for the answer. I myself prefer to use LEE GNDs to avoid the need of too many files. Frankly, I'm quite bad in blending (learning about luminance masks at the moment as well as some other techniques) so I try to do all I can in the field so I can ideally work with single files.

But when I do bracket, I bracket like mad: -3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2,+3 is my usual starting point


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly strange...to the point where I simply don't believe it.



I feel the same way a lot of the time.

In the home theater market, it seems like most of "the experts" have been harping on about black levels and colour density for years, seemingly getting little attention from manufacturers.
When people like me start saying that we need to triple the current pixel density to match the resolution of human vision, flying in the face of "common knowledge", people usually react negatively, but when the manufacturers start improving resolution instead of other things, that changes the situation.
"The experts" then move from promoting their preferences to putting down the ideas of other people, It's pretty sad.
But that's actually fairly normal behaviour, culture changes in generational steps. In many areas of society you literally have to wait for the "old guard" to die off before new ideas can be taken seriously.




DominoDude said:


> Since I see mentions of video and watching distances...
> I had a great chart showing suitable viewing distance for various resolutions and screen sizes, but it's embedded on a site that is highly linked to very X-rated content, so I think we should skip that URL. However, it showed the farthest distance at which an eye with perfect vision could resolve all the detail. In short, and as an example, it boils down to a 60 inch screen best being viewed from less than 10 feet if you want the eye to resolve all detail in a 1080p movie.
> 
> Let's toss in some Wikipedia that is less prone to being X-rated -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance#Human_visual_system_limitation
> ...




Domino, I'm not commenting on you, but the Wikipedia article is a good example.

The first paragraph in the section titled "Human visual system limitation" states confidently, "one arcminute is seen as the threshold beyond which critical detail cannot be identified" and finishes off with "Sitting beyond these distances will result in a loss of detail"
But then you see an entire paragraph below that debating the first.
When I enter debate on this subject, the first response from an "expert" is normally denial that there even is a debate.

When I test my vision using a high frequency grid (it's easy enough to make things like that with a computer) the results I get agree with the "one acrminute" limitation. Which should be expected, It would be extremely hard to make a system correctly interpret an image made up of lines of the same size as the photocells in the system. Naturally all you end up with is noise.
When I test my vision for vernier resolution, using a low frequency grid with a bit of aliasing, the limits are approximately three times higher.
The "one arcminute" limit will still apply to fine, random texture, like the surface of concrete, but human vision is highly tuned to detect high contrast edges and motion, not wide, consistent texture. It's hard to say how much the "one arcminute" limit affects everyday vision.
I suspect part of the problem is that people underestimate the complexity of the human visual system. A while back Neuro recommended this book to me (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Edition-Kandel/dp/0071390111), and it has been nothing but a delight to read (well illustrated).
It has a few chapters that go over the eye in detail.

Then you have to factor in diminishing returns, which seems to be the biggest issue with most people, regardless of whether they agree with you.


----------



## arcanej (Sep 19, 2014)

After reading hundreds of these threads debating so many minutiae in such scientific rigor, I have come to one conclusion: there are a lot of really smart people who've bought Canon gear. I feel smarter by association!

And I don't mean this in a trivial sense. Head over to a Leica forum, for example. Those people may have more money to burn, but they can't hold the same caliber of discussion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2014)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly strange...to the point where I simply don't believe it.
> ...



Can I ask...in the context of this discussion, how does going from ~12 to ~14 stops of DR, or going from 22 to 36 MP, represent 'new ideas' requiring the 'old guard' to die off before they're adopted? If you're talking about the switch from film to digital, or from vinyl to CDs, that's fine...but those are paradigm shifts in technology. To suggest that the differences between current Canon and SoNikon sensors are a paradigm shift is ludicrous. Rather, those differences are minor, incremental improvements. Real improvements, yes...but minor.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



My understanding is that it mostly has to do with diminishing returns.
Right now there's a lot of people who just don't see it being worthwhile to increase pixel density on displays. I read the same sort of comment on sensor density on this forum almost every day.
Wait 10-20 years until a new generation has grown up with the maximum that the old generation would tolerate, and then you get a new maximum. Of course technology progresses too, but with all the arguments that get thrown around to keep things the way they are, it often sounds like it's not a technical issue.
As far as I can see that would only apply to camera sensor resolution though. I don't know of any drastic downsides to increasing DR, except maybe if it requires spending billions of dollars on infrastructure upgrades if you're Canon.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > I did see a lot of pictures, taken on the same moment from the same scene, but if we mix them, we can't tell from who the picture was (5d3, D800, D810), unless.... we dive into the pixels, and then I agree, but that's not the way we look at a photo?
> ...



Some people can't see the trees because they were shot at midnight on a moonless night and haven't been pushed 5 stops yet ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> The point of having better data to start with is to reduce the amount of effort required to produce better data in the end.



Despite having more pixels, the D810 did not "capture better data" in the IR studio scene. So I'm curious as to how it would save any time, especially when it takes your computer longer to process each step with 36 MP.

I'm not against higher resolution when it yields a benefit. But jumping from 22/24 to 36 MP with today's sensor technology seems to yield no real benefit.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> Your still misunderstanding. You could make the 5D III image as sharp, by sharpening. My point is you wouldn't have to do the extra step of sharpening the 5D III image to achieve the same results.



I would mess with sharpening on ANY photo. The two Nikon guys I know pretty well...both of whom have a ton of Nikon pro equipment...sharpen every one of their photos. The D810 doesn't eliminate that step. What step does it eliminate exactly?



> Also, with a more critical eye, I do think that some people could pick out differences between two photos



I would like to see that pair of prints.



> There are certain things about D800 milky way photos that I particularly like...a richness of black background sky levels, that are not just pure flat black but still nuanced with detail, as the sky really is, that I don't see in milky way photos taken with a 5D III. There is also a crisper look to stars in milky way photos taken with D800/D810 that just isn't quite there with the 5D III.



Can you point to a pair shot under similar conditions that illustrate this?


----------



## scarbo (Sep 20, 2014)

Clearly, Sony have the edge when it comes to sensor technology, but that does not mean Canon produce bad sensors. They are just not the current leaders in sensor technology when it comes to image quality. Can they really be blamed for not producing the absolute best sensor, when everyone else comes second to Sony too? 

Watching the link below, it seems that Sony have hit upon some innovations which have made them the world's leading camera sensor manufacturer and, by the looks of it, it will be some time before their competitors discover equally efficient innovations. That's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. Happenstance would have it that one engineer or a group of engineers who discovered these innovations were employed by Sony and not Canon. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXp0u1XsrZw

All it takes is one instance of thinking outside the box and securing that new idea against immitation to change the fortunes of a company for many years to come. It seems that Sony have experienced something like this with camera sensors. Of course other manufacturers may discover better or equally good innovations, but that's easier said than done and becomes progressively more difficult as technology matures. By flipping the switch like this, Sony look odds on to remain ahead of the game despite general advances in technology. Their innovations will simply benefit from more general advances. It will take a new, exclusive and more efficient innovation from another manufacturer to displace them.

It's impossible to predict the future, but in the absense of similar yielding innovations from others, a larger part of Sony's business may morph into a sensor manufacturing business for many of the other camera companies, in the way Intel produce processors for computer companies. Sony already make sensors for Nikon, Hasselblad and Apple. Canon will also have the option to become one of their clients, which might be the right move if their sensor technology is not forthcoming.

In any case, I think it's unfair to compare the 5D III with the D810 given the latter was released 2 years later. Yes, the D800 and D800E were strong offerings too (and so was/is the 5D III), but back then both companies were entering the market blind to what the other would be doing (assuming there were no spies in either camp). Now that they know more about their main competitor's direction, I'm sure their decisions will be more informed going forward. We should see what this yields before we predict doom and gloom. It's only been 2 years.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



You and I both know the difference is actually 3 stops: 11EV vs 14EV. Add FPN to the Canon and the practical DR is even less. 

Why are you down-playing the difference? It actually approaches an order of magnitude, if not more.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I too use Lee's GNDs. I have a bunch of them, in both soft and hard grad. I really love the Lee filter system (although it failed me recently...i had my 2-stop proglass ND in...and when I was photographing rivers it just slipped out and shattered on the rocks...I am not sure why it did, but it was like a $160 filter. ). The thing that set me off not long ago was a bunch of scenes where the skies ended up totally blown out when I exposed to preserve some detail in the shadows...and the skies were patchy...not along a nice horizon where a GND filter could actually be used to fix the problem.
> 
> I've bracketed crazy-wide like that as well, but in my experience, at least when you have bright highlights (like the highlights in water, or bright skies backing a dark foreground, or the sun in the frame), you end up with posterization or haloing if your exposures differ by a stop or more. Getting the exposure differential down to 2/3rds of a stop seems to smooth out the highlight transitions, so you don't end up with posteriation or funky CA or color issues or things like that after merging to HDR.



Yup, I know all too well what you're talking about. It's often very, very difficult to merge vastly different exposures - there are problems at the boundaries of very bright to very dark regions.

I also pretty much refuse to use most HDR merging software, and do most of it by hand using luminosity masks and an Intuos and other tricks.

Actually a much nicer way to do this is to expose for the highlights, let the shadows get buried, then just shoot a bunch of images and average them (using something like PhotoAcute). Then process a single file. This way your shadows clean up from the averaging, and you don't have the artifacts HDR software introduces.

And of course it goes without saying that this technique is much easier with a D800/810 than a Canon DSLR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Call it 4 stops if you like. It doesn't change the main point that we're discussing incremental improvements, not a paradigm shift. Of course, we should also stipulate that were talking about DR at base ISO.


----------



## jrista (Sep 20, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Technically speaking, since stops are base two, it's really more than one order of magnitude.  But, I get what your saying. 

Just going by the difference in DR by decibels, the difference is 16.8dB (assuming the maximum DR is 13.8...as I don't really like DXO's PrintDR. If we go by Print DR, the difference is more like 19.2dB). It's 82.8dB vs. 66dB. At 16.8dB, the difference is more than an order of magnitude, since every 10dB change IS an order of magnitude, and closer to two orders of magnitude. At 19.2dB, the difference is two orders of magnitude. THAT is very truly significant.

It's also a concept no one seems to understand. And I'm tired of trying to explain it...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I could provide evidence. In the past, I have provided evidence.



You provided a long list of links to HDR photographs that you claimed were not HDR photographs. And a sunflower shot with no Exmor version for comparison. The Coke box wasn't yours and while it showed a difference...which everyone acknowledged before the Coke box...it didn't show nearly the difference you claim.



> So, until such time as I have a chance to do that in an effective manner, I will be ignoring all requests from you.



Will you be providing evidence for both the HDR without bracketing claim and the new Milky Way claim?

It was very satisfying to watch you back peddle and re-frame after seeing the IR samples btw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> Just going by the difference in DR by decibels, the difference is 16.8dB (assuming the maximum DR is 13.8...as I don't really like DXO's PrintDR. If we go by Print DR, the difference is more like 19.2dB). It's 82.8dB vs. 66dB. At 16.8dB, the difference is more than an order of magnitude, since every 10dB change IS an order of magnitude, and closer to two orders of magnitude. At 19.2dB, the difference is two orders of magnitude. THAT is very truly significant.



So...are you saying that the difference is a paradigm shift?


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 20, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> You and I both know the difference is actually 3 stops: 11EV vs 14EV. Add FPN to the Canon and the practical DR is even less.



Do you know what a 1 stop difference looks like? Because Fred Miranda's test didn't show even 1 stop difference. Tonal range captured was the same, but with more noise on A vs. B.

Even DxO doesn't claim <11 stops for the 5D mark III


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 20, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Who knew that 12.1 actually rounds down to 11? We learn something every day.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2014)

Quit comparing apples and oranges.

According to DxO, the 5D3 is 10.97EV at the pixel-level. 13.67EV for the D810 at the pixel-level. So 2.7 EV at the pixel level; except that's not a fair comparison with 64% as many pixels on the D810 that can help DR when they're averaged during downsampling.

Normalized difference is 11.7 vs 14.8 for the D810 - that's 3 stops, and possibly more depending on how you account for FPN. 

Also, you can maintain near base ISO levels of DR even at higher ISOs with Nikon/Sony cameras if you know how to use your camera right. So as far as I'm concerned, it's far more DR even at higher ISOs.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 20, 2014)

If you're going to complain about apples to oranges, at least compare Canon's best against Nikon's best. At pixel level, the D810 has a 1.9EV advantage over the 6D and a 2.2 stop advantage when both are downsampled to 8MP. The 6D has a 1 stop advantage at ISOs over 800 at a pixel level and 2/3 stop advantage when downsampled to 8MP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> If you're going to complain about apples to oranges, at least compare Canon's best against Nikon's best. At pixel level, the D810 has a 1.9EV advantage over the 6D and a 2.2 stop advantage when both are downsampled to 8MP. The 6D has a 1 stop advantage at ISOs over 800 at a pixel level and 2/3 stop advantage when downsampled to 8MP.



Are you suggesting that the 6D performs better than the 5DIII in those metrics? Because that would imply that Canon has improved the performance of their sensors...and we all know that's not true.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm saying it's near the beginning of one.
> 
> My real point is I think Canon is missing the paradigm shift that is currently happening, and will continue to happen over the next few years.



Time will tell. But consider some of the sensor technology that Canon has patented, in terms of huge sensors (largest CMOS sensor ever), high pixel density sensors (120 MP APS-H), low light imaging (0.01 lux fireflies), etc. If you're right and there is a paradigm shift underway, it's very likely that Canon is ready, and will jump when it makes financial sense. Given the _documented_ recent sales data and the predictions of the near-term market share from Thom Hogan, it looks like it doesn't make fiscal sense yet.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> If you're going to complain about apples to oranges, at least compare Canon's best against Nikon's best. At pixel level, the D810 has a 1.9EV advantage over the 6D and a 2.2 stop advantage when both are downsampled to 8MP. The 6D has a 1 stop advantage at ISOs over 800 at a pixel level and 2/3 stop advantage when downsampled to 8MP.



OK, that's fair.

The D810 still has higher DR at higher ISOs if you use your camera in a smarter way though, so those DxO higher ISO DR values are meaningless to me.


----------



## arcanej (Sep 20, 2014)

What is the time between design to final product for a CMOS sensor? Or, to ask it a different way, how long after AMD's purchase of Radeon did the first fully AMD designed Radeon graphics card reach the market?

Canon has had patents for designs that could compete with the Sony-Exmor and Samsung-BSI sensors. A product incorporating these patents hasn't released it yet. If the D800 was a shot across the bow for Canon, should we begin to see that next year? That would be three years after Canon saw what Exmor could do. Is that approximately the lead time from the start of a chip design to a product reaching the market?

Taking a step back, what Canon had been doing seemed like a great business plan. It was - and still is - the dominant camera manufacturer. It's nearest peer was trailing in sales and didn't have the capital to sink into a revolutionary, new chip, sink a few hundred million into a new fab and come out with a revolutionary new design. 

I'm sure Canon did the math: what would be the incremental revenue that could be gained from a much higher DR chip design and what were the costs associated with bringing that chip to market. If the up front costs were higher than the discounted future cash flows, the best business decision would be to hold off.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 20, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > If you're going to complain about apples to oranges, at least compare Canon's best against Nikon's best. At pixel level, the D810 has a 1.9EV advantage over the 6D and a 2.2 stop advantage when both are downsampled to 8MP. The 6D has a 1 stop advantage at ISOs over 800 at a pixel level and 2/3 stop advantage when downsampled to 8MP.
> ...



Can you explain this further? I shoot an A7 as well as Canon and in my experience the Canon trounces the A7 at high ISO.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I also wouldn't say Canon "trounces" anything at high ISO. High ISO is primarily limited by physics. Canon has a marginal benefit at high ISO vs. cameras that are now becoming "last" generation, like the D800. The Nikon D810 closes the gap with the 5D III a bit more, and starts to encroach on 1D X territory at really high ISO (I actually think the D810 offers more DR at ultra high ISO than the 5D III...on a normalized basis, the D810 gets 7.7 stops of DR at ISO 51200 to the 5D III's 5.7 stops).



The A7 has quite a nasty quality to the noise at high ISO. I've had both an A7 and A7R as well as the 5D3 and while from a SNR ratio aspect I'd suspect there's not a huge difference, the A7 has a very poor quality to the noise that doesn't clean up with NR very well at all. In practice I'd put the 5D3 ~1 2/3 stops ahead of the A7 and the A7R ~1- 1 1/3 stops ahead.



jrista said:


> The only thing out there right now that is really "trouncing" any other camera at high ISO is the A7s. It actually enjoys a two-stop advantage over the 1D X at ISO 51200, bringing nearly 9 stops (8.8 to be exact) of DR at that level. At lower ISO's it actually normalizes out a bit with the 1D X...the A7s' true advantage is at the ultra high ISO settings, and it does a remarkably good job.



The A7S is certainly a very intersting camera. I was really hoping that the D750 was going to be a D810 with the A7S sensor inside. If they had done that I probably would have picked one up along with a 70-200VRII. As for the D810 at 51200, I'm not sure which numbers you're looking at but I see it about equal to the 5D3 and ~2/3rd stop behind the 6D in dynamic range for the normalized print size on DXO.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I can't speak specifically to the A7. I haven't edited any of it's files. I guess I assumed the A7 had similar quality to the A7s, which doesn't seem to be that bad. I'm not surprised, though. The A7 was the first of the A7 line, and I think Sony rushed it a bit. Hopefully they will get better with successive models...and hopefully, they will stop compressing the raws with a lossy algorithm.



I think it has to be something like that. I bought an A7R when it was first released and the high ISO was surprisingly good when downsampled. I was really surprised at how bad the A7 is at high ISO when I got mine, I expected it to be even better but that's not the case at all. Either that or I've got a bum copy.


----------



## Perio (Sep 20, 2014)

Canon, Nikon, Sony.. come on, new Leica is out


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...some day, not terribly long into the future, we'll look at the kind of IQ that used to be quite normal a couple years ago like we look at 35mm film photos today.



I was considering getting rid of my 5D2, but you've got me thinking.

In not too long, that thing is going to have loads of retro appeal.
Right now it's is a nuisance, but in 2019 "Canon style banding noise" will be a trademark.
Fuji will make a filter effect just to try and capture that "classic Canon" look, but of course, no filter can produce random lines in lifted shadows like the real thing.
Man that sensor is all sorts of new cool now... or, in five years.

(on a serious note, I am looking forward to being able to photograph white things in sunlight)


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> Nikon has actually done a better job managing noise with the Exmor than Sony has. Ironic, but Sony doesn't seem as interested in extracting the maximum potential from their own sensor as Nikon does. Sony has gimped their own cameras in other ways as well, such as by using a lossy-compressed "raw" format instead of actually storing the real original RAW data (which is the only way it could legitimately be called RAW) with some kind of lossless compression.


Yes, the lossy Raw format really perplexes me. It leads to real problems, and is very unfortunate. Nikon offers 14-bit uncompressed 75MB of goodness per Raw file, along with the option for getting every ounce of detail out of the 36MP sensor using electronic 1st curtain. This means there's far more potential for image quality on the D810 than an A7R.



jrista said:


> I also wouldn't say Canon "trounces" anything at high ISO. High ISO is primarily limited by physics. Canon has a marginal benefit at high ISO vs. cameras that are now becoming "last" generation, like the D800. The Nikon D810 closes the gap with the 5D III a bit more, and starts to encroach on 1D X territory at really high ISO (I actually think the D810 offers more DR at ultra high ISO than the 5D III...on a normalized basis, the D810 gets 7.7 stops of DR at ISO 51200 to the 5D III's 5.7 stops).



Glad I finally knocked some sense into your head re: Canon high ISO... but looks like I still haven't finished the task: what do you mean by the D810 'closes the gap with the 5D III a bit more'? The D800 was already neck-to-neck with the 5D3 in...

*SNR:*






*... as well as DR:*







jrista said:


> The only thing out there right now that is really "trouncing" any other camera at high ISO is the A7s. It actually enjoys a two-stop advantage over the 1D X at ISO 51200, bringing nearly 9 stops (8.8 to be exact) of DR at that level. At lower ISO's it actually normalizes out a bit with the 1D X...the A7s' true advantage is at the ultra high ISO settings, and it does a remarkably good job.



Well, as long as we're talking of 'trouncing', Sony's new 50MP MF sensor actually trounces the A7S in ISO performance, so...

And the A7R holds up to the A7S in normalized comparisons quite well at high ISO:
http://bit.ly/1r8ZcGc

But, yeah, at 25.6k and above the A7S will noticeably pull ahead.

Note the (slight) extra detail in the building grills when the A7R's 36MP is downsized to the A7S' 12MP in the link above. In other words, extra resolution can help even when viewed at lower resolutions, though the benefit might be seen as very marginal in most cases.

Also, the noise in the downsampled A7R looks a little less speckled in mid- and brighter-tones - now doubt from the 3x downsampling. This is a tenuous thread to actually push, though, as soon the extra read noise of the A7R is going to lead to more noise in shadows. But I thought it was interesting given LTRLI's earlier comment about noise looking a little smoother when large resolution captures are downsized. Of course, for read noise per unit area to remain the same between two sensors, a n-times higher resolution sensor must have per-pixel read noise of sqrt. Which isn't the case here.

Oh, and yes: it's unfortunate the A7 seems perform worse than the A7R at high ISO (~1/3 EV worse?). Not sure what happened there. Lower effective QE b/c of on-sensor PDAF? If this weren't the case, the A7 would probably be the better camera b/c it has on-sensor PDAF that helps it track (noticeably better than the A7S/R, which just hunt back and forth while trying to track, potentially leading to completely OOF images in AF-C), and EFC which means you can actually use it with telephoto lenses.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the answer. I myself prefer to use LEE GNDs to avoid the need of too many files. Frankly, I'm quite bad in blending (learning about luminance masks at the moment as well as some other techniques) so I try to do all I can in the field so I can ideally work with single files.
> ...



Ouch on that ProGlass ND, those things aren't exactly cheap 

Strange thing about that bracketing range. I can usually push or pull my 6D files +1 2/3 or -1 2/3 w/o any trouble, no posterization or any decay. So one would think, you can easily use whole f-stops for bracketing w/o any detrimental effect on the IQ. Could it be more of a problem in the software? I honestly cannot believe, that one stop difference in editing would somehow crush any file from any recent DSLR. From the sound of it, seems like the problem lies in the software. But since I have only limited experience with Photomatix (can't really start to like this one) and HDRPro from CS6 (still learning to grasp of this one), so I may be wrong, but it just sounds so unlikely...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 20, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> Normalized difference is 11.7 vs 14.8 for the D810...



And that's where any knowledgeable person stops reading. >14 stops...from a linear 14-bit ADC...kind of impossible


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Normalized difference is 11.7 vs 14.8 for the D810...
> ...


Nope, that's where an _unknowledgeable_ person stops reading, one who doesn't understand the math behind resampling.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'd rather have better data to start, that was more workable and flexible, and do what I could with a single file and maybe one single GND.



+1, I, too, want to minimize the time I spend behind my Eizo. Everything above 15 minutes/photo is a drag, unless it's really remarkable image worth tweaking.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I guess I am a bit of a purist as well. I don't like to massively modify my images. I like to take photos that represent reality. I prefer less saturated colors (not dull and overly muted, but not ultra vibrant or saturated either), and I prefer things to appear as they were to my own eyes as much as I can. To that end, getting things done in-camera as best as possible is important to me.
> 
> Banded read noise makes it tough to achieve that goal. Shadows don't have banded noise, and shadows are rarely as dark in real life as they appear on screen. So, better data is of particular importance to me.



I agree. But when you expose for the shadows (maybe a little overexpose and then pull back in PP) and you filter the highlights (LEE has even 1.2 GNDs, I'm really considering the purchase of both hard and soft, but since one of them would cost me around ~225USD, I'm not very eager about it) or bracket and then use luminance masking or whatever, then you won't have this problem. I agree that not all compositions can be solved this way (although soft GNDs are amazing), but many of them can.

I just did a quick dirty check on rather badly exposed file (6D, ISO 800) and overexposed it +2 EV and even added +50 in shadows sliders. Yes, there is noise, but no pattern, no banding. Is 5D3 really worse? Then I'm glad I don't need the AF of the 5D3 and be happy with my 6D


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 20, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> Oh, and yes: it's unfortunate the A7 seems perform worse than the A7R at high ISO (~1/3 EV worse?). Not sure what happened there. Lower effective QE b/c of on-sensor PDAF? If this weren't the case, the A7 would probably be the better camera b/c it has on-sensor PDAF that helps it track (noticeably better than the A7S/R, which just hunt back and forth while trying to track, potentially leading to completely OOF images in AF-C), and EFC which means you can actually use it with telephoto lenses.



In terms of SNR I think the difference between the two is quite small, but something about the quality of the A7 noise doesn't respond well to LR's noise reduction and so in practice the difference is at least a full stop, if not more.

Also, any more detail on how you can get close to base ISO DR when using high ISO on the D810?


----------



## FEBS (Sep 20, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > sarangiman said:
> ...



Or a person who thinks he understands. How could you get more then 14stops out of a 14bit ADC? No math can solve this. Yes you might interpolate, expect what the value might be, but that is not correct. 14 bits means really only 14 bits max theoretical, and practical it will be lower. There is no logic and no math to find the REAL values outside the sampled values.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Or a person who thinks he understands. How could you get more then 14stops out of a 14bit ADC? No math can solve this. Yes you might interpolate, expect what the value might be, but that is not correct. 14 bits means really only 14 bits max theoretical, and practical it will be lower. There is no logic and no math to find the REAL values outside the sampled values.



I'm not arguing that you absolutely have more than 14 bits of data even after normalization. First of all, I personally don't use image data from SNR=1 regions. So in my book the D810 doesn't really even have 14 stops of _usable_ DR per-pixel. I'm just saying that even for an area that has SNR less than 1, the SNR goes up when you average multiple samples. So let's just say that both the 11.7 and 14.8 numbers are inflated, for the sake of argument. They're still _comparable_, b/c SNR goes up by the sqrt of samples averaged. The per-pixel values are _not comparable_, not for any reasonable sort of viewing.


----------



## sb in ak (Oct 5, 2014)

I think for most people, pitting these cameras against each other is sort of a waste of time, though it may be interesting to compare how they compare to each other. I wonder how often users are really trying to decide between a 810 and 5D3. This sort of makes the assumption that they don't have any lens investments or are willing to sell their lens collection (probably at a serious loss) to invest in a new system, when Canon could easily come out with a more compelling camera within a matter of months. The only real advantages I see to the current Nikon system is in landscape photography, where the addition of an A7r + lens adpater could be added.

One of my biggest epiphanies involving gear is that you buy a camera for your lenses, not the other way around.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > sarangiman said:
> ...


Please correct me if I am misunderstanding... 

My first assumption is that the measured value at a pixel is made up of (signal value)+(a multi-component noise value). 

Secondly I don't like the word downsampling. I prefer to use the term downscaling. I also like to distinguish between "downscaling an image" and "oversampling" as done by astrophotographers. 

Downscaling an image averages out the noise and averages out the signal in pixels which are combined. In my limited understanding, the only way that downscaling an image could improving signal to noise ratio is if the signal of the combined pixels coincidentally happens to be the same signal value. (e.g. you are shooting a flat-luminance subject, or you are shooting beyond the diffraction limited aperture...etc)

When oversampling one takes a number of exposures of the same scene and combines (stacks) these images to average out the noise. Pixels are mapped one-to-one and the frames are averaged. When oversampling the pixel signal is assumed to be constant from frame to frame so when these frames are stacked the noise is averaged out but the signal value (being constant) is unaffected.

I get the feeling that DxO uses the term "downsampling" and applies the calculations of "oversampling" to the case of "downscaling of an image". The image is captured at the time the shutter closes with the Dynamic range that the camera can capture it in. No matter how much you "downscale an image" you cannot recover blown highlights (overexposed pixels) or solid black (detail that was never captured).


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 6, 2014)

sb in ak said:


> I think for most people, pitting these cameras against each other is sort of a waste of time, though it may be interesting to compare how they compare to each other. I wonder how often users are really trying to decide between a 810 and 5D3. This sort of makes the assumption that they don't have any lens investments or are willing to sell their lens collection (probably at a serious loss) to invest in a new system, when Canon could easily come out with a more compelling camera within a matter of months. The only real advantages I see to the current Nikon system is in landscape photography, where the addition of an A7r + lens adpater could be added.
> 
> One of my biggest epiphanies involving gear is that you buy a camera for your lenses, not the other way around.



I always find this viewpoint interesting. I sell my lenses all the time. I usually lose something like 10-20% on my lenses, and once even earned 20% b/c the lens had appreciated. 

The bigger issue for me is the time involved in selling lenses. Since I test at least three copies of each lens I buy, the time investment really adds up. 

The other thing is you have to spend a lot of time learning all the quirks of the new system. Sometimes this can be a good thing, but it can also be daunting and, who knows, you may end up finding a particular set of quirks that ends up making the whole switch a wash.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 6, 2014)

I disagree with her statement that New Zealand is a more fun accent. I live in Minnesota (ordinarily). I love how people talk when you're out in the rural parts of Minnesota.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> I too use Lee's GNDs. I have a bunch of them, in both soft and hard grad. I really love the Lee filter system (although it failed me recently...i had my 2-stop proglass ND in...and when I was photographing rivers it just slipped out and shattered on the rocks...I am not sure why it did, but it was like a $160 filter. ).



You're not sure why it slipped out (those shifty filters  ) or why glass shatters on the rocks?
That's why I use resin filters. The Big Stopper is enough of stress for me...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...resin filters. I use them for GNDs as it's the only option...



Actually, it's not. Check out Schneider Optics (B+W's parent company) MPTV line. They have Schott glass grad ND filters.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 7, 2014)

FEBS said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



No, the other guy was right.

(And they are not saying you get more than 14bits when taking full advantage of the resolution the sensor is capable of, just at 8MP of detail equivalent (which is what they use as the standard to compare all cameras at).)


----------



## Etienne (Oct 7, 2014)

sb in ak said:


> .....
> One of my biggest epiphanies involving gear is that you buy a camera for your lenses, not the other way around.



Agreed. You buy a whole system. Lens selection keeps me away from Sony for now. And lenses like the 35 f/2 IS, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mkII, and Canon's two 16-35 lenses keeps me in the Canon camp now. The 5DIII with 35 f/2 IS is a great combo, both for video and photos. For video, the IS is so good that the shots sometimes look like they are on a tripod. Can't do that with Sony or Nikon, and f/2 gives great low light performance as well as shallow DOF.

I think Canon will leap frog Sony and Nikon before too long, and I'll have my great lenses. If Sony gets some great lenses for the A7s, maybe I'll go there in version 2. Even the D750 is not tempting me away from the Canon lenses that I love.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 7, 2014)

Etienne said:


> The 5DIII with 35 f/2 IS is a great combo, both for video and photos. For video, the IS is so good that the shots sometimes look like they are on a tripod. Can't do that with Sony or Nikon, and f/2 gives great low light performance as well as shallow DOF.



Not sure why you say 'can't do that with Sony or Nikon'...

Have you ever tried Sony's 'Active' image stabilization? Granted I believe it only works with certain lenses, but the combination of optical stabilization on the lens with digital image stabilization (from accelerometer data, IIRC) leads to such steady shots you wouldn't believe they were shot on anything other than a Steadicam!

Furthermore, Canon's not alone in getting very well image stabilized lenses in their lineup. Although the 16-35mm f/4L IS is quite stellar (rated to 4 stops IS by CIPA standards, which are pretty stringent, so it really is that good), so's the VR on the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 (also rated to 4 stops CIPA). It's incredibly steady. Oh and the Fuji's 50-140mm has the best IS I've ever seen; rated at 5 stops CIPA, it's so good it's a little unsettling.

Actually, I see IS getting better from generation to generation. Generally, the newer the lens, the better the IS. So with Canon putting out so many stellar lenses of late, yeah there may be an advantage there. And no one will argue that Canon doesn't have an incredible lens family. Just that, e.g., for me that doesn't matter much. B/c there are excellent alternatives in other brands. For example, Sigma now makes the best 35mm and 50mm AF primes, hands down, and is brand agnostic. The Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR is much better than the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, which has serious left/right softness issues that vary from shot to shot b/c of the IS element (even the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 doesn't have this issue). Etc. etc.

And if we're talking about video, the Sony A7S will do far better with those Canon lenses than a 5DIII would... and will still use the IS on those lenses with the Metabones adapter. Btw the VR on the Sony 16-35 is also incredible.

My point being - there are very credible alternatives from other brands that make such generalizations misleading.


----------



## FEBS (Oct 14, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > sarangiman said:
> ...



So the 11.7 and 14.8 are based on the fact that they do recalc the dynamic range into a 8mp detail equivalent? That means, that higher resolution will always have a advantage, just by the fact that the D810 has 36mp and the 5D3 has 22mp. So, even if the sensors are performing the same, only difference of mp, then the highest mp will have the highest normalized figure. 

That does say nothing to my opinion. The highest horsepower/weight does only tell me that they have the best comparision over there, but not that it would be the best engine or car. That's just the same in my opinion for the recalculation to 8mp. 

However, I fully agree that the D810 is a very nice camera that Nikon placed on the market. But please, don't use figures like that to compare those cameras.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 14, 2014)

FEBS said:


> So the 11.7 and 14.8 are based on the fact that they do recalc the dynamic range into a 8mp detail equivalent? That means, that higher resolution will always have a advantage, just by the fact that the D810 has 36mp and the 5D3 has 22mp. So, even if the sensors are performing the same, only difference of mp, then the highest mp will have the highest normalized figure.
> 
> That does say nothing to my opinion. The highest horsepower/weight does only tell me that they have the best comparision over there, but not that it would be the best engine or car. That's just the same in my opinion for the recalculation to 8mp.
> 
> However, I fully agree that the D810 is a very nice camera that Nikon placed on the market. But please, don't use figures like that to compare those cameras.



No, you misunderstand.

You say 'even if the sensors perform the same... then the highest MP sensor will have the highest normalized figure.'

Yes, that's right. And it's absolutely valid.

Think about what it means for a higher resolution sensor - of the same size - to have the 'same (pixel-level) performance' (before normalization). A higher res sensor necessarily has smaller pixels, which means each pixel has a smaller FWC (full-well capacity). For that pixel to have the same pixel-level DR, it'd have to have _lower read noise_ than the lower res sensor's pixels.

Therefore, it's no surprise it also has higher normalized DR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 14, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > So the 11.7 and 14.8 are based on the fact that they do recalc the dynamic range into a 8mp detail equivalent? That means, that higher resolution will always have a advantage, just by the fact that the D810 has 36mp and the 5D3 has 22mp. So, even if the sensors are performing the same, only difference of mp, then the highest mp will have the highest normalized figure.
> ...



But surely, if each pixel has the same well capacity, even though the smaller one performs 'better' for its size, the range of light they can both accurately record is the same, therefore the 'true DR' of the sensor* is the same, for instance the highlights will be blown at the same photon numbers.

*True DR would be the difference in light levels between a pixel that only registers black, to when it is full such that one more photon will not register. 

Normalization is a nice way of comparing different things, but it doesn't reflect true DR recording capacity, and truthfully shouldn't be labeled DR. This is one of the many reasons there is such a difference of opinion between people who love tests and equations, and people who look at the differences in images. 

Noise and banding is what truthfuly diffentiates the current sensors, and that difference is nowhere near this mythical 3.1 stops of "DR". People that regularly use or work files from both know the differences are in the shadows and are closer to two stops, Canon files can be lifted 3 stops in the shadows with very high quality results, Exmor files can be lifted closer to five stops in the shadows but by the intrinsic nature of gamma curves lose a lot of tonality if you need to do that.

As was evident in a recent post here with A7R RAW files available, large areas of 5 stop lifted shadow detail holds almost no tonality which mitigates the usefulness of the capability. That doesn't mean Canon shouldn't have it, it just means that when we do have it don't expect to get the same results from a 'normal' exposure and an underexposed image that is then lifted to 'normal', tonality does not work like that, and that was demonstrated in another thread here recently too.


----------



## msm (Oct 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> But surely, if each pixel has the same well capacity, even though the smaller one performs 'better' for its size, the range of light they can both accurately record is the same, therefore the 'true DR' of the sensor* is the same, for instance the highlights will be blown at the same photon numbers.
> 
> *True DR would be the difference in light levels between a pixel that only registers black, to when it is full such that one more photon will not register.
> ...
> ...



Assuming you view the picture at a normal viewing distance, a normal DSLR will have more pixels than your eye can resolve. So each photo receptor in your eye will receive light from multiple pixels, summed with a weight proportional by how much of their area emits light that reaches that photo receptor. Which is precisely how bilinear downsampling works. So yes you will be able to perceive more DR from the higher MP sensor, unless you pixel peep at 100% which is the only case where per pixel DR is of actual interest in a picture.


----------



## FEBS (Oct 14, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> No, you misunderstand.
> 
> You say 'even if the sensors perform the same... then the highest MP sensor will have the highest normalized figure.'
> 
> ...



I do understand what you mean. However what's the meaning of a higher normalized DR? Where and how can I see that in my photo? It's just the same as having the most horsepower/weight factor, but which doesn't tell me anything of the performance of a car on a track.

That's the reason I have a problem with such a meaningless figure. I do completely follow Privatebydesign his remark for this: "Normalization is a nice way of comparing different things, but it doesn't reflect true DR recording capacity, and truthfully shouldn't be labeled DR."

The DR of a sensor is in basic created by the quantity of bits used in the AD converter. The rest of the camera (optics, light measurement,..) can decrease this max DR of a lower value. But talking about a normalized DR is totally meaningless for the photo.


----------



## FEBS (Oct 14, 2014)

msm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But surely, if each pixel has the same well capacity, even though the smaller one performs 'better' for its size, the range of light they can both accurately record is the same, therefore the 'true DR' of the sensor* is the same, for instance the highlights will be blown at the same photon numbers.
> ...



Are you sure you can see this? It's 2^14 * 2^14 * 2^14 = 16384 * 16384 * 16384 = 4.398.046.511.104 possible combinations over the RGB colors together. You know that printing and showing photo's on monitors has a lot less possible combinations. So theoretical, I can follow you that you can increase the DR by adding multiple pixels together. But how can I see that in my photo?

Pixel peeping, or taking a crop at 100% is frequently done in the practice, and as you mentioned, then we don't see any increase in DR. So why using a normalized value to compare something that can't be seen in the practice?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 14, 2014)

msm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But surely, if each pixel has the same well capacity, even though the smaller one performs 'better' for its size, the range of light they can both accurately record is the same, therefore the 'true DR' of the sensor* is the same, for instance the highlights will be blown at the same photon numbers.
> ...



I, in my ignorance, disagree.

The brightest bright and the darkest dark will have almost identical values (indeed we have to rely on an output medium and in that case they will be identical), where a downsampled image might achieve increased IQ is in tonality because the averaging, assuming the displaying medium can also differentiate and display the subtleties and your eye can perceive them, will have a greater number of possible combinations. 

What it won't do is have a brighter bright or darker dark, and surely that is the measure of DR, not how many divisions that same range is divided into?

To me, in my simple ways, a measure of a cameras DR is the difference in luminosity values between how dark and bright objects can be in the scene and it still record detail in those brights and darks, two pixels with a charge capacity the same have the same DR potential (taking all other things like read noise etc into account) regardless of their size. How is that wrong?


----------



## msm (Oct 14, 2014)

FEBS said:


> ..
> So theoretical, I can follow you that you can increase the DR by adding multiple pixels together. But how can I see that in my photo?



By viewing your image from a greater distance so you no longer can see each individual pixel, then the smallest object your eye can resolve will consist of multiple pixels (and more of them in the case of the higher mp sensor) and the sum of which can hold many more of those RGB combinations than a single pixel can. The normalized DXO DR score is based on an assumption of your eye being able to resolve 8 megapixels.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 14, 2014)

msm said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...



No, DXO DR "score" is based on an 8"x12" print at 300ppi. It has nothing to do with pixel visibility or human acuity. 8MP is an entirely randomly chosen number, because at the time 'all' cameras had 8MP. They could just as easily go up, or down. I can assure you the eye cannot resolve a pixel in an 8"x12" print at normal viewing distance (normally considered to be the diagonal of the print), even before the printer algorithm introduces its dithering. You need a very good magnifying glass to see the micro dots of layered ink on a print.



> "Sensor Overall Score is normalized for a defined printing scenario—8Mpix printed on 8"x12" (20cmx30cm) at 300dpi resolution. Any other normalization, even at a higher resolution, would lead to the same ranking, given that any camera that could not deliver the chosen resolution would be eliminated from the comparison."


----------



## msm (Oct 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > FEBS said:
> ...



At least implicitly they also make assumptions about viewing distance. Viewed from 5m distance the viewed DR would obviously be higher.

Also the apple retina displays are around 300PPI and some are around the size of that print so doubt you need that good magnifying glass.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 14, 2014)

msm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



No it wouldn't. The difference between the lightest light and darkest dark would be identical so the DR would be the same.


> Dynamic range, abbreviated DR or DNR,[1] is the ratio between the largest and smallest possible values of a changeable quantity,



The largest and smallest values are constant, there is, and can be, no change in DR.

The averaging you are talking about does not result in 'more DR' it results in a greater number of values within that same range, or put another way, greater tonality that is so small in increments it is beyond our eyes capacity to differentiate.



> Photographers use "dynamic range" *for the luminance range of a scene being photographed*, or *the limits of luminance range that a given digital camera or film can capture*, [32] or the opacity range of developed film images, or *the "reflectance range" of images on photographic papers*.



You could update that to include the contrast ratios of screens too, but that is still fixed.


----------



## msm (Oct 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The largest and smallest values are constant, there is, and can be, no change in DR.
> 
> The averaging you are talking about does not result in 'more DR' it results in a greater number of values within that same range, or put another way, greater tonality that is so small in increments it is beyond our eyes capacity to differentiate.
> 
> ...



Except in photography there is always noise and the smallest observable quantity depends on the amount of noise you have. DXO uses the following definition of DR:

Dynamic range is defined as the ratio between the highest and lowest gray luminance a sensor can capture. However, the lowest gray luminance makes sense only if it is not drowned by noise, thus this lower boundary is defined as the gray luminance for which the SNR is larger than 1. The dynamic range is a ratio of gray luminance; it has no defined unit per se, but it can be expressed in Ev, or f-stops. 

See more here:
http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Noise

Anyways, I think it is a waste of my time to discuss these things on this forum so I'll leave this discussion now. A quick look at the other countless threads on the subject should give a hint of why.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> What it won't do is have a brighter bright or darker dark, and surely that is the measure of DR, not how many divisions that same range is divided into?



No, sensor DR is the difference between the brightest bright it can record (where it clips) and the darkest dark that is not lost in noise. 



privatebydesign said:


> But surely, if each pixel has the same well capacity, even though the smaller one performs 'better' for its size, the range of light they can both accurately record is the same, therefore the 'true DR' of the sensor* is the same, for instance the highlights will be blown at the same photon numbers.
> 
> *True DR would be the difference in light levels between a pixel that only registers black, to when it is full such that one more photon will not register.



Here you're not considering that when you downsize, you average pixels, which increases SNR for the area of pixels averaged. And you do know that areas with SNR < 1 can reach SNR = 1 with enough averaging, right? Therefore, darker tones can be pulled up to SNR = 1, and therefore calculated DR can increase.



privatebydesign said:


> Normalization is a nice way of comparing different things, but it doesn't reflect true DR recording capacity, and truthfully shouldn't be labeled DR. This is one of the many reasons there is such a difference of opinion between people who love tests and equations, and people who look at the differences in images.



Nonsense. There are those that can do both: love the math, and correlate the science/math to image quality differences. There's a reason for controlled tests - when done right, they reflect real-world differences in actual images.

Those in sensor design know this.



privatebydesign said:


> Noise and banding is what truthfuly diffentiates the current sensors, and that difference is nowhere near this mythical 3.1 stops of "DR". People that regularly use or work files from both know the differences are in the shadows and are closer to two stops, Canon files can be lifted 3 stops in the shadows with very high quality results, Exmor files can be lifted closer to five stops in the shadows but by the intrinsic nature of gamma curves lose a lot of tonality if you need to do that.



Again, no. Do the proper side by side, and it's not a 'mythical' difference. But you have to know how to do the test right. I.e. don't confuse photon shot noise in an exposure 3 EV under for sensor noise.

The respectable Bill Claff's data or a higher SNR cutoff shows a difference of 2.5 EV. So now we're arguing about a half a stop?

The point is that there are almost _no_ tones in the 14-bit D810 file that can't be used b/c of read noise. If you can't use them, it's b/c you didn't collect enough light to begin with down there. That's impressive, b/c it means the only way you can really get anything better is to use a bigger sensor. For the same reason that high ISO performance would increase with a larger sensor - collecting more light.

Furthermore, I've said time and again - it's _not_ about 'how many stops you can push'. It's about what particular tones in the 14-bit file you can and can't work with. You *cannot* simplify it to 'Exmor can pushed X stops and Canon can be pushed Y stops'. That's just *dead wrong*, if you're trying to be rigorous or quantitative, anyway.



privatebydesign said:


> As was evident in a recent post here with A7R RAW files available, large areas of 5 stop lifted shadow detail holds almost no tonality which mitigates the usefulness of the capability. That doesn't mean Canon shouldn't have it, it just means that when we do have it don't expect to get the same results from a 'normal' exposure and an underexposed image that is then lifted to 'normal', tonality does not work like that, and that was demonstrated in another thread here recently too.



Ok, but that has to do with photon shot noise. It's the same reason some people find extremely high ISO shots unacceptable. Because tones are made with too little light. Same with tones down in the depths of the 14-bit file. They're made with too little light.

So basically what you're arguing now is that you want a DR measure with a higher SNR cutoff. That's fine, but just realize what it is you're actually saying.



FEBS said:


> Pixel peeping, or taking a crop at 100% is frequently done in the practice, and as you mentioned, then we don't see any increase in DR. So why using a normalized value to compare something that can't be seen in the practice?



B/c it's not fair to show this:







... when in reality actual visual comparisons of DR will not place the D800 behind the D600, so the following, _normalized_ comparison is more accurate:






Again, not sure how we could make it any clearer - you normalize to simulate a comparison at the same viewing size. Downsampling decreases noise, which increases SNR, which means lower tones make it up to your SNR cutoff for DR, which means DR has to increase.

No one's arguing anything about the _absolute_ number and whether or not it reflects _exactly_ the DR someone may _actually_ find usable. 

But you _have_ to normalize for comparisons.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> No it wouldn't. The difference between the lightest light and darkest dark would be identical so the DR would be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is where you're going wrong.

The 'smallest possible value' is defined by the signal that is just above your SNR threshold (just above the noise floor).

Averaging increases SNR, so darker signals now make it up to your SNR threshold. So you've now increased your range of usable signals or tones, and therefore DR has increased.

Do a side-by-side with the D600 and D800 at equal viewing sizes. Do you really think the D800 has worse DR?

Perhaps a good exercise would be for you to actually measure DR by doing some SNR analyses from wedge shots yourself before you so confidently talk about this stuff? I'm being serious, not trying to be rude. You seem to _almost_ have a grasp of this stuff, and feel you would finally 'get it' if you did some analyses yourself.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2014)

msm said:


> So yes you will be able to perceive more DR from the higher MP sensor, unless you pixel peep at 100% which is the only case where per pixel DR is of actual interest in a picture.



Shoot a transmission step wedge. Note the number of gray squares. Keep down sampling it until a black square turns gray. Or, if you prefer, make a really big print and keep backing away from it until black squares turn gray 

Down sampling does not change the range of tones you have. It allows you to reduce the impact of noise and thereby better detect finer detail that is composed of the lowest tones. In that sense you are extending the usable range a bit. But that is all.

Note: noise can be so severe that it obscures the last patch or two of gray in such a test, whereby downsampling would reveal them. But there's not any where near that much noise at base ISO on any of these cameras.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The brightest bright and the darkest dark will have almost identical values (indeed we have to rely on an output medium and in that case they will be identical), where a downsampled image might achieve increased IQ is in tonality because the averaging, assuming the displaying medium can also differentiate and display the subtleties and your eye can perceive them, will have a greater number of possible combinations.
> 
> What it won't do is have a brighter bright or darker dark, and surely that is the measure of DR, not how many divisions that same range is divided into?



You are correct.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> Here you're not considering that when you downsize, you average pixels, which increases SNR for the area of pixels averaged.
> 
> And you do know that areas with SNR < 1 can reach SNR = 1 with enough averaging, right? Therefore, darker tones can be pulled up to SNR = 1, and therefore calculated DR can increase.



You are confusing signal (tone variations across 2D space) with dynamic range (the brightest and darkest tones that can be recorded). So is DxO.

Down sampling lets you confidently say that yes, in this tiny region of 2D space we really did detect a tone variation and not just noise fluctuations. It does not mean you recorded a lower min tone.

In the transmission step wedge example I always throw out the signal...the squares in the wedge...is so large to begin with that only extreme noise could obscure it. Therefore you get a true idea of the range of tones that can be recorded.



> Furthermore, I've said time and again - it's _not_ about 'how many stops you can push'. It's about what particular tones in the 14-bit file you can and can't work with. You *cannot* simplify it to 'Exmor can pushed X stops and Canon can be pushed Y stops'. That's just *dead wrong*, if you're trying to be rigorous or quantitative, anyway.



It's over simplified, but it works for most people/situations.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> Perhaps a good exercise would be for you to actually measure DR by doing some SNR analyses from wedge shots yourself before you so confidently talk about this stuff? I'm being serious, not trying to be rude. You seem to _almost_ have a grasp of this stuff, and feel you would finally 'get it' if you did some analyses yourself.



I'm being serious when I say that every single person at DxO needs to shoot a transmission step wedge and then print it at different sizes and observe (as opposed to running it through a black box algorithm they designed before trying this test).

It would clarify some things for them, and we might end up with a usable model of DR from their existing database of measurements.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 14, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Shoot a transmission step wedge. Note the number of gray squares. Keep down sampling it until a black square turns gray. Or, if you prefer, make a really big print and keep backing away from it until black squares turn gray
> 
> Down sampling does not change the range of tones you have. It allows you to reduce the impact of noise and thereby better detect finer detail that is composed of the lowest tones. In that sense you are extending the usable range a bit. But that is all.



Yes it does. It changes the range of usable tones by making darker tones more usable.

You yourself said it: 'reduce the impact of noise'. Reducing noise = increase in SNR, which can lead to an increase in DR.

It'd help if you properly understood what dynamic range is, and how it's calculated, before you went around misinforming people here.



dtaylor said:


> Note: noise can be so severe that it obscures the last patch or two of gray in such a test, whereby downsampling would reveal them. But there's not any where near that much noise at base ISO on any of these cameras.



Clearly you've never shot an actual 13 stop wedge with a Canon DSLR, if you haven't seen any unusable patches with so much noise that SNR drops below 1 or 2. It's not even the last one or two patches - *the last ten or so patches* drop below SNR = 2 for a Canon 5D III, at the pixel level. Normalized to 8MP it's a little better.

And that's the whole point of normalization. It even helps your beloved Canon sensors.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 14, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> You are confusing signal (tone variations across 2D space) with dynamic range (the brightest and darkest tones that can be recorded). So is DxO.
> 
> Down sampling lets you confidently say that yes, in this tiny region of 2D space we really did detect a tone variation and not just noise fluctuations. It does not mean you recorded a lower min tone.



No, again, the definition of engineering DR is the range of tones between clipping and where signal is swamped in noise (SNR = 1).

Downsampling increases SNR, which makes darker tones more usable.

Whether or the sensor accurately recorded the tone or not - that's a measure of sensor linearity, which you can also measure in SNR analyses. I do, and so does DxO actually.

If there's enough noise at the lower end, it'll raise your average signal, and your sensor will deviate from linearity. This happens pretty early on (on the low end) for Canon. It's another way you can get an idea of DR, but I haven't found it an acceptable standard for DR measurement yet (i.e. 'where does it deviate from linearity?' as the lower cutoff, as opposed to SNR = 1 as the lower cutoff).



dtaylor said:


> In the transmission step wedge example I always throw out the signal...the squares in the wedge...is so large to begin with that only extreme noise could obscure it. Therefore you get a true idea of the range of tones that can be recorded.



Wait, what? How do you do a SNR analysis - which is the proper way to measure DR quantitatively - if you throw away the signal??

_What are you doing?_


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> Yes it does. It changes the range of usable tones by making darker tones more usable.



No. I'm not sure if...when you wrote this...you needed to read my next post, or simply need to try the test I described.



> It'd help if you properly understood what dynamic range is, and how it's calculated, before you went around misinforming people here.



Kind of bold of you considering you are the one who is misinforming people.



> Clearly you've never shot an actual 13 stop wedge with a Canon DSLR,



Clearly you never have if you think black squares turn gray with downsampling.



> Clearly you've never shot an actual 13 stop wedge with a Canon DSLR, if you haven't seen any unusable patches with so much noise that SNR drops below 1 or 2.



LOL! The patches are patches for a reason, and the test is not subject to your opinion of "pixel level" usability.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> No, again, the definition of engineering DR...



...is not the definition of photographic DR. DxO should not be publishing graphs that are labeled in Ev or stops if they are using a model which is different from the model that predicts what photographers will see with their own two eyes.



> Whether or the sensor accurately recorded the tone or not...



...is a separate question.



> Wait, what? How do you do a SNR analysis - which is the proper way to measure DR quantitatively - if you throw away the signal??



Re-read this until you fully understand the implications: _You are confusing signal (tone variations across 2D space) with dynamic range (the brightest and darkest tones that can be recorded). So is DxO. Down sampling lets you confidently say that yes, in this tiny region of 2D space we really did detect a tone variation and not just noise fluctuations. It does not mean you recorded a lower min tone._


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 14, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> > Clearly you've never shot an actual 13 stop wedge with a Canon DSLR,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



K, I'm with msm. I just give up. It's not about black squares turning grey. DR is measured from statistical analysis.

DxO's definition of DR is correct. Whether or not you agree with their SNR cutoff is a different story.

Your talk of black vs. grey is _completely irrelevant_.

Don't confuse sensor DR with the combined DR of your input + output devices.

Just stop. Stop completely misinforming people.

As long as your sensor has a linear response, DR is the ratio of the brightest tone to the darkest tone above SNR = your cutoff threshold.

That's it. That simple.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 14, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Note: noise can be so severe that it obscures the last patch or two of gray in such a test, whereby downsampling would reveal them. But there's not any where near that much noise at base ISO on any of these cameras.



What's grey? You know it depends on your monitor, right? Or your processing?

If you've actually shot a 42 step 13 stop Stouffer wedge, you'd know that patches 32 - 41 are swamped in noise with a Canon DSLR at base ISO.

So what do you mean there's not much noise at base ISO?

You do realize you have to push the exposure to 'see' those higher number patches, right? That with your limited output device (your monitor), you can't see them until you push them?

Are you not even looking at them pushed? Is that why you think there's no noise?

Are you doing any statistical analyses? If you're not, you're not actually measuring DR. Period.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 14, 2014)

dtaylor: Also, by calling DxO wrong consistently, you're arguing that you're more right than a bunch of image scientists. You have a lot to prove there, my friend.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 15, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> K, I'm with msm. I just give up. It's not about black squares turning grey. DR is measured from statistical analysis.



*Photographers* do not measure it this way. And it's not a simple matter of semantics because your "engineering DR" model fails to predict what photographers observe in the field.



> DxO's definition of DR is correct.



Observation trumps theory. Every. Time.



> Just stop. Stop completely misinforming people.



Were you typing to yourself?


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 15, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > K, I'm with msm. I just give up. It's not about black squares turning grey. DR is measured from statistical analysis.
> ...



Not when you're observing completely wrong.

You're not even looking at the darker patches of the wedge, are you? This is getting comical. What are you looking at? The JPEGs on your monitor? The Raw conversion? Just a straight linear output to your monitor or print? No pushing the shadows? No statistical analyses? And you think this is a measure of DR??

Don't bring Ansel Adams into this. Yes, how you measure DR has changed since the days of film, imagine that!

Many photographers have already observed the stops upon stops of difference in DR. 

How, prey, do *photographers* measure it, then? Please, enlighten us. Like I said, it's *you* who has something to prove, not the image scientists at DxO, and not the countless photographers who've themselves showed (via actual pictures) the drastic differences in DR - exactly as DxO data predicts.

I showed this years ago; some people just didn't want to accept it. I believe you were one of them.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 15, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> What's grey? You know it depends on your monitor, right? Or your processing?



In this context? Recordable tones, which does not depend on a monitor.



> So what do you mean there's not much noise at base ISO?



Noise does not obscure patches that would otherwise be distinguishable.



> Are you doing any statistical analyses? If you're not, you're not actually measuring DR. Period.



Guess Ansel Adams never measured DR :



> dtaylor: Also, by calling DxO wrong consistently, you're arguing that you're more right than a bunch of image scientists. You have a lot to prove there, my friend.



And there it is...an appeal to authority. If you can't grasp logic 101 how can you grasp the difference I am trying to point out to you?


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 15, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > What's grey? You know it depends on your monitor, right? Or your processing?
> ...



How are you judging recordable tones? 

Since you're not doing a statistical analysis, you must be using *something* to judge what you consider 'recordable tones'. How are you doing it? 

Are you using your monitor? In which case it does depend on the monitor. And what you're doing to the Raw file.

Are you using a print? In which case it depends on your entire workflow and a whole bunch of other stuff.

This is why there's an actual, objective way of measuring DR. And you're totally ignoring and knocking it.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 15, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> And there it is...an appeal to authority. If you can't grasp logic 101 how can you grasp the difference I am trying to point out to you?



Oh, I see. I suppose we should appeal to... you?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 15, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Observation trumps theory. Every. Time.
> ...



LOL! That's a new one. "My theory is right if you just observe the way I want you to." ;D



> You're not even looking at the darker patches of the wedge, are you?



Of course I have.



> Many photographers have already observed the stops upon stops of difference in DR.



"Stops upon stops"...kind of like appealing to "scientists upon scientists who do science stuff so you're wrong BECAUSE SCIENCE!"

In all examples to date the actual total DR difference is very small. Noise is very different which of course affects latitude and what is acceptable when exercising said latitude on the shadow side.



> How, prey, do *photographers* measure it, then? Please, enlighten us.



http://www.amazon.com/Negative-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221868



> Like I said, it's *you* who has something to prove, not the image scientists at DxO,



Who? Names? Credentials? Published papers? Who critiqued their papers? Who replicated their experiments? Did they succeed? Does any of that matter if we're talking about two different things?

We have to get past your fallacies before we can make any progress on your misunderstanding of DR as it applies in a photographic context.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 15, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > And there it is...an appeal to authority. If you can't grasp logic 101 how can you grasp the difference I am trying to point out to you?
> ...



I gave you a specific experiment to try. Try it.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 15, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> > You're not even looking at the darker patches of the wedge, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I have.



How? How are you looking at patch 41?



dtaylor said:


> In all examples to date the actual total DR difference is very small. Noise is very different which of course affects latitude and what is acceptable when exercising said latitude on the shadow side.



Very small? Do some digging. Seriously. This is no longer up for debate. Noise is different? You do know that noise is intimately linked to sensor dynamic range...?



dtaylor said:


> > How, prey, do *photographers* measure it, then? Please, enlighten us.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Negative-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221868



Yes, let's refer to Ansel Adams to talk about sensor DR. Because sensors totally existed back then. And by the way, Ansel Adams was a smart dude who did a lot of experimenting ("science") to figure out how to get the most out of his medium. But the reality of it is that you measure dynamic range of sensors in a different way. 

Quoting Ansel Adams is particularly ironic, given how scientific and quantitative he was. 

I think I understand what the actual problem is. You're not actually talking about camera DR. You're talking about output DR - what you finally see on your print or monitor. Which is entirely different.

Until you understand even the basics of what we're talking about though, there's no point in continuing this conversation. 

One thing's clear: it seems you don't understand what sensor dynamic range is, and sensor dynamic range is what dictates how much real world dynamic range a camera can capture. 

Please stop knocking what you clearly don't understand.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 15, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps a good exercise would be for you to actually measure DR by doing some SNR analyses from wedge shots yourself before you so confidently talk about this stuff? I'm being serious, not trying to be rude. You seem to _almost_ have a grasp of this stuff, and feel you would finally 'get it' if you did some analyses yourself.
> ...



Wait, _*what?*_ How do you print it? How do you process the Raw? What's your methodology? How do you fit the enormous capture DR of a modern sensor into the tiny DR of current output media to then get an idea of the capture device's DR?


----------



## BozillaNZ (Oct 15, 2014)

Meh, another DR war...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 15, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> Meh, another DR war...



Well I was hoping somebody would explain to me how making something smaller increases its luminosity recording capacity, which is the common way of determining 'photographic DR' as per my earlier link, it seems all posters seem to want to do is come back with 'sensor DR'.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 15, 2014)

> > In all examples to date the actual total DR difference is very small. Noise is very different which of course affects latitude and what is acceptable when exercising said latitude on the shadow side.
> 
> 
> 
> Very small?



Yes. Canon sensors are not blocking up a lot sooner then an Exmor sensor (though they do block up a little sooner). But the noise makes detail in the lowest tones unacceptable, when pushed higher on the scale, for most photographic purposes.



> Yes, let's refer to Ansel Adams to talk about sensor DR. Because sensors totally existed back then.



They did. They were called "film."



> But the reality of it is that you measure dynamic range of sensors in a different way.



The definition and model of photographic dynamic range does not change based on capture medium.



> Quoting Ansel Adams is particularly ironic, given how scientific and quantitative he was.



I think it's ironic that you praise him in one breath, then use a false statement to hand wave his entire body of work with the very next breath.



> I think I understand what the actual problem is. You're not actually talking about camera DR.



Wrong again.



> Please stop knocking what you clearly don't understand.



Please stop committing fallacy after fallacy after...why even waist the keyboard strokes, you won't.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 15, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> Meh, another DR war...



Best point made so far ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, another DR war...
> ...



Because last Thursday at DxO many scientists did science stuff and proved it with science. So stop misinforming people because clearly you do not understand science like the many scientists...at DxO...who are all about science.

I said SCIENCE! ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 15, 2014)

Sorry, I keep forgetting the science, I really must stop looking at pictures............


----------



## Aglet (Oct 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> What it won't do is have a brighter bright or darker dark, and surely that is the measure of DR, not how many divisions that same range is divided into?



actually, it may be an oversimplification but yes, downsampling will give you darker dark tones as the noise (which lightens them) is averaged out.
Therefor, greater effective DR, when measured as the ratio of light/dark at some SNR limit.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 15, 2014)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > What it won't do is have a brighter bright or darker dark, and surely that is the measure of DR, not how many divisions that same range is divided into?
> ...



Daniel already covered that point, and we all agree, some dark tones are liberated by noise mitigation, but that doesn't alter the fact that black and white still have the same luminance values.

Going back to my initial question, if a single pixel has a well capacity of 14 stops of DR recording capacity how can downsampling that give me a brighter or darker luminescence? If 0 equals black and white is 16,384 where is the extra capacity? What is being said is that a 'noisy' sensor can't record detail below 0-1,000 (for example) by comparison a 'clean' sensor can record greys in the 500-1000 range 'so it has more DR', I say not, I say the total range from black to white is still the same, the clean sensor has more tonality between black and white, but it doesn't have more luminosity range between black and white.

Maybe that is where the difference is, I and everybody since, ever, has equated photographic DR to the range of luminosity values and the sensor geeks insist on referring to it as levels of tonality.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 15, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> > > In all examples to date the actual total DR difference is very small. Noise is very different which of course affects latitude and what is acceptable when exercising said latitude on the shadow side.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



So you'd prefer words like 'little' or 'very small' compared to quantitative numbers like 2.5 EV difference, etc.

Ok, now that was _totally_ worth having a conversation about. I'm glad I now know that when one says that you can pull tones that received 10x less exposure (an 'order of magnitude' to 'scientists', but who understands them anyway), you consider that 'small' or 'little'. That was _so_ worth arguing over.



dtaylor said:


> > Yes, let's refer to Ansel Adams to talk about sensor DR. Because sensors totally existed back then.
> 
> 
> 
> They did. They were called "film."



... which required a slightly different method to analyze DR back then than the best method to measure DR of sensors now. You measured film densities, when and where film could no longer distinguish tones. And that's exactly what SNR analyses do now, even more rigorously. But the techniques are subtly different. As they should be, separated decades apart.

_What's your point?_



dtaylor said:


> > But the reality of it is that you measure dynamic range of sensors in a different way.
> 
> 
> 
> The definition and model of photographic dynamic range does not change based on capture medium.



I agree with your statement here. I also agree with my previous statement you quoted. They're not mutually exclusive. You're still not getting it.

I give up; this is like knocking one's head against the wall. I'm not continuing a conversation with someone who finds it fun to knock science, even though science was used to make his camera, and evaluate it as well.

There are those here _actually_ making valid points and asking valid questions; all you do is _derail_ and _misinform_.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I've already explained it, but it probably got lost in all the noise.

You've got it, pvd: "some dark tones are liberated by noise mitigation" --> *exactly!* 

But then you said "but that doesn't alter the fact that black and white still have the same luminance values." That's where things are falling apart.

What is 'black'? There is no definition of 'black' other than 'signal at the noise floor'. Well if you've just brought signal above the noise floor by 'liberating them by noise mitigation', then they've just become usable tones. To see them, though, you need your output device to bring them up to a usable level. Today's monitors and prints don't generally do that, which is why we push shadows --> essentially tone-mapping.

And I don't know how clearer I could make it than when I showed the D800 vs D600 Screen vs Print DR curves. No sensible person testing the two cameras would give the D600 more DR, which is what the 'screen', pixel-level analysis indicates. The normalized analysis indicates they're pretty much the same - which is exactly what you'll find in the real-world if you try and shoot high DR landscapes or try to do shadow pushing from equally exposed files.

Please tell me it makes sense now?


----------



## Aglet (Oct 15, 2014)

actually, I think I can see PBD's point of view on this - you can't average a bunch of zeros and get a lower zero.
but you can average bunch of slightly above zero shades+noise which has the effect of increasing effective DR because now there's more useable tonality.

I think the difference in arguments is the threshold chosen for the base
numerical 0 = black vs SNR=1 = black.

EDIT: there has to be some intrusive amount of noise in order for the downsampling to actually effect an improvement. If there's insufficient noise then the noise floor ~ 0 and you can't create more total tonal range from that data. (tho you might be able to smoothen it to create more discernable shades/tones)
The DxOmark calculated downsampled effective DR being > than the possible output range is just a mathematical creation useful only as a measure of merit. But that also does not negate the value of a lower read noise sensor as it truly can deliver more accurate tones and smoother shading in the deep shadow areas.


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 15, 2014)

Aglet said:


> actually, I think I can see PBD's point of view on this - you can't average a bunch of zeros and get a lower zero.
> but you can average bunch of slightly above zero shades+noise which has the effect of increasing effective DR because now there's more useable tonality.
> 
> I think the difference in arguments is the threshold chosen for the base
> numerical 0 = black vs SNR=1 = black.



Yes, PBD's question is very valid, and interesting, and I can totally see his confusion. The problems comes in the actual numbers. I'm not absolutely certain I believe the absolute DxO numbers - as in what's actually usable by a photographer. SNR=1 data is not usable by a photographer.

But, I couldn't say it better Aglet - exactly, it's that other (e.g. single digit) tones become more usable upon downsampling.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 15, 2014)

Aglet said:


> actually, I think I can see PBD's point of view on this - you can't average a bunch of zeros and get a lower zero.
> but you can average bunch of slightly above zero shades+noise which has the effect of increasing effective DR because now there's more useable tonality.
> 
> I think the difference in arguments is the threshold chosen for the base
> numerical 0 = black vs SNR=1 = black.



Yes, you guys call 'useable toanlity' 'sensor DR', I have never understood that to be a way of stating 'photographic DR', I only know and understand the difference in recordable luminosity values.

Again, I think this is an area where the technologists have confounded and annoyed the photographers. When I, and millions of others, think of photographic DR we are thinking about the difference in scene luminosity we can actually record, not the point at which the dark tones become noisy. Replicating that capability on devices with a much smaller luminosity range is not and never has been the question.

So who has some RAW step wedge files to upload?


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 15, 2014)

Aglet said:


> actually, I think I can see PBD's point of view on this - you can't average a bunch of zeros and get a lower zero.
> but you can average bunch of slightly above zero shades+noise which has the effect of increasing effective DR because now there's more useable tonality.
> 
> I think the difference in arguments is the threshold chosen for the base
> numerical 0 = black vs SNR=1 = black.



Yes, 'black' is defined by your cutoff. For a more reasonable SNR threshold of 2 or 3 (or corrected for COC as Bill Claff does), 'black' is actually a significantly higher number than 0 or 1. And that's where it's conceptually easier to see what downsampling can do.

So maybe the breakdown in understanding occurs b/c DxO keeps quoting numbers in and around the bit-depth of the ADC.

The principle of downsampling helping tones become usable is not hard to see. Check out the pixel-level noise of the D810 vs the A7s in DPR's studio scene here at ISO 12.8k:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_d810&attr13_1=sony_a7s&attr13_2=sony_a7r&attr13_3=sony_a7s&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.33073366646429747&y=0.23770150083379657

Not very usable, right?

Now look at it normalized:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_d810&attr13_1=sony_a7s&attr13_2=sony_a7r&attr13_3=sony_a7s&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.33073366646429747&y=0.23770150083379657

Look at the stripes in the black jacket? Suddenly you can see them, b/c they're not swamped in noise. Suddenly the become _more usable_. Those were dark tones not very usable at 36MP, but now usable at 8MP. B/c after pixel averaging, the SNR of those tones went up, above the arbitrary threshold I selected when I said that that jacket was 'not usable' at the pixel-level.

Here it is again as screenshots:

*Pixel-level* (not how you can't even make out the vertical stripes in the black jacket on the rightmost Beatle, b/c they're lost in noise):






*Normalized* (you can now make out the stripes, just like you can on the A7S):


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes, you guys call 'useable toanlity' 'sensor DR', I have never understood that to be a way of stating 'photographic DR', I only know and understand the difference in recordable luminosity values.
> 
> Again, I think this is an area where the technologists have confounded and annoyed the photographers. When I, and millions of others, think of photographic DR we are thinking about the difference in scene luminosity we can actually record, not the point at which the dark tones become noisy. Replicating that capability on devices with a much smaller luminosity range is not and never has been the question.
> 
> So who has some RAW step wedge files to upload?



But 'the difference in scene luminosity we can actually record' is _*exactly*_ what DxO is measuring. Because their DR is defined as the brightest bright vs. the darkest dark that is not lost in noise. 'Not lost in noise' is where SNR = 1, according to DxO. This is known as 'engineering dynamic range'.

Would you like DxO's lower cutoff to be higher, since you can't use SNR = 1 (where tones are completely lost to noise)? 

SNR = 1 is used as the lower cutoff b/c different folks could argue till the cows come home what SNR is usable. 

If that's what bugs you, then use Bill Claff's excellent analyses, where he defines a 'photographic DR' using a higher SNR cutoff:

http://cl.ly/Y2gu/D810_vs_A7S-PixelLevel.png

The differences between cameras are still fairly similar to DxO's findings, but the absolute numbers are different. Higher SNR cutoffs on the low end tend to shrink the differences between cameras of the same sensor size. After a certain point, a higher SNR cutoff won't even distinguish between cameras of similar sensor sizes, b/c the lower SNR cutoff will be dominated by the effects of shot noise (which'll be similar between cameras of similar sensor sizes), so that's not helpful either.

But Bill Claff's results vs. DxO's normalized results is just half a stop different (2.5 EV vs 3 EV) for the D810 vs. 5D3 for example. Not exactly earth shattering. 

Is that what this entire debate, and all this arguing, is actually about in the end?


----------

