# 5D MK3 vs. D800 - fredmiranda



## Gothmoth (Apr 27, 2012)

both tests are interesting i think.
as a guy who always goes for best image quality the D800 looks incredible.
im not so much a high iso shooter. 

i have to give it to sony... the sensor is fantastic!
the 5D MK2 was a game changer in video.. the D800 is nearly as impressive for stills i think.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/




> There is no question that the D800 does not disappoint in signal to noise ratio (SNR) at low ISO and has higher dynamic range. I'm still shocked by the differences.
> 
> I know this is disappointing for Canon shooters but on the bright side, there is a workaround if you shoot RAW. Start by overexposing (up to 1 stop) above the correct exposure before taking your shot and then normalize the exposure later in software. This gives you the correct exposure but the shadow detail is much cleaner, just in case you need to push it a stop or two. Alternatively you could use ISO L (50) for low contrast situations whenever lighting and wind conditions allow. However, make sure that there is no clipping in the highlights (blinkies) because essentially when you are using ISO 50, you are already compromising highlight detail by about one stop. I've used this workaround for many years and have been happy with the results.
> 
> In regards to the Nikon D800 handing of noise in the shadow areas, I have to say it's nothing short of amazing! Kudos to Sony and Nikon for the new sensor partnership. The Exmor sensor is exceptional and there is so much detail in the shadows. I can push the shadows more than 4 stops without any hint of color noise. WOW! Let's just say the D800 sensor is a breakthrough in sensor technology.





here are some more examples of what the D800 can do.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800__e_initial_impressions.shtml

canon has to move into faster gear and work on it´s sensors.
low iso quality is as important as high iso quality.

i have not thought it.. but i will not deny it.... i realy like the D800 for it´s image quality.

that said, privatly i will stay with canon.


----------



## Razor2012 (Apr 27, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> both tests are interesting i think.
> as a guy who always goes for best image quality the D800 looks incredible.
> im not so much a low light shooter.
> 
> ...



Not enough to make you cross over though?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11676-12544


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 28, 2012)

I have one coming, and I do low light photography, but not at huge print sizes. I'm keeping my Canon lenses, but i'd like to find out just how good the images are. i've never been happy with my landscape photography, so I'll give it a try.

If I don't like it, I can always sell it, likely for more than it cost.


----------



## Gothmoth (Apr 28, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Not enough to make you cross over though?



i have the luck that i sell them both.
but for private use im a canon guy since my childhood.

so i hope canon will release something as impressive for low iso.


----------



## cpsico (Apr 28, 2012)

We have all seen how well the d800 handles shadow detail, and I am impressed. I just wonder is it done at the expense of high lights? Has anyone done any comparisons in that area? I do a lot of landscapes and was considering the new 5d, but at 500 less and the price of a great zoom for a d800 i have much to think about!!


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 28, 2012)

i was shooting a commercial on a lit stage with the epic, but i brought my 5Dmk3 to do some tests, there happen to be a stills guy doing behind the scenes photos with a d800, so at lunch we put them to the test. 
so, two things; honestly, no one could tell the difference btwn the pictures, we brought them up on true waveform monitors and probably the most expensive monitors that youd ever view anything on...we took a poll, no one could tell the difference of the final results. neither could i.
though there was one thing that did occur that was huge for me, when shooting the tests, we had to slow down the nikons shutter to 1/200th to get the exact same stop as the 5Dmk3 at a shutter speed of 1/500th.
but again the final result was indistinguishable.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 28, 2012)

Dammit, so that means I cannot take good photos now?


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 28, 2012)

Yes, I always push my shadows 5 stops so that would really be noticeable.


----------



## azizjhn (Apr 28, 2012)

Hi guys it is just products no need to be loyal to any one of them because they always loyal to your money, beside this is the best thing in competition so every company will fight to provide the best product for us the consumers.

Second thing we should not care about sensor, processor, web site reviews, Etc...
It is not about technology it is about the final result you get from your camera is it good for you or not. Doesn't matter what is better at what, you can just take what you need or what is more valuable for you.

Sorry my English is not very good cause it's not my native language.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 28, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Yes, I always push my shadows 5 stops so that would really be noticeable.



sorry but you react like stupid fanboy.

the fact that you can push the shadows 4-5 stops does not mean you have to.
but it´s fantastic that you can do it.

only a fanboy or blind can be unimpressed by the sony sensor at low iso.

seeing the results from fredmiranda and LL i have to say the D800 has an incredible sensor.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/t/canon-mk3-2b.jpg

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/t/nikon2b.jpg

with 36 MP... and that shadow noise.. just WOW.
something i would not have believed 3 month ago.

canon can have all video improvements in the world.. i care about image quality.
for landscape or studio i also don´t care much about AF performance.

in fact i would be 100% fine with the 5D MK2 and just a sensor like the D800.
it doesn´t need to be 36 MP for me. but with that perfromance.. i can only say ..why not?


----------



## cpsico (Apr 28, 2012)

dilbert said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > We have all seen how well the d800 handles shadow detail, and I am impressed. I just wonder is it done at the expense of high lights? Has anyone done any comparisons in that area? I do a lot of landscapes and was considering the new 5d, but at 500 less and the price of a great zoom for a d800 i have much to think about!!
> ...


With all the know it all's in this forum surely some one must know with out having to go to another forum


----------



## Hathaway (Apr 28, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I always push my shadows 5 stops so that would really be noticeable.
> ...



I continue to find it interesting that the technical people of these forums (Canon Rumors, DPReview, FM, etc.) only focus on Fred's pictures of the shadows from the buildings. I will be the first to say it is extremely impressive what Sony/Nikon has done with the sensor, but if you continue to read Fred's review and look at all of the pictures he takes for the articles, he points out some serious flaws in focus with the Nikon. So much so that he quit using it for the rest of his trip and mainly stuck with the Canon. In addition, he uses the TS-E lenses and indicates that nothing Nikon has can match that glass. 

If you also slow down and look at the photos Fred took for the article, they are fantastic and would look good printed to pretty nice sizes. Bottom line, as someone that does not make a living in photography but was looking to upgrade to the 5d3 for landscapes, I was extremely encouraged. Landscape photography is about maximizing the capabilities of your equipment in often challenging conditions (light, location, perspective, etc.). All in all the photographer (in this case Fred) managed to use the tool (the 5d3) to create fantastic images. 

It was actually quite encouraging article for me and now has me looking for the 17 and 24 TSEs!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 28, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I always push my shadows 5 stops so that would really be noticeable.
> ...



I read Davids response as an attempt at humour 8) 8) 8) as no sensible person pushes shadows by 5 stops


----------



## cpsico (Apr 29, 2012)

This may be considered insanity by some here but how about comparing a perfectly exposed 5dIII image to a perfectly exposed D800 image with the same contrast,color temperature, and color saturation settings?

I realize there are a lot of people that struggle with exposure and may need to nuke the heck out of there files in photoshop. I could see an advantage for the d800 in a program like topaz adjust that really pushes an image but not so much for normal shots without high contrast. 

Not to mention one other item, how much is nikon cooking there raw files vs canon? Is some sort of noise reduction being done to the file even as a raw?


----------



## risc32 (Apr 29, 2012)

From nearly every test i've seen anywhere, the sony sensor is amazing. But I have to ask, are many of you guys boosting shadows by these amounts? Maybe it's just me, but I've never come anywhere near doing this stuff. Let me repeat, the sony sensor is amazing, but isn't this just silly?


----------



## JR (Apr 29, 2012)

risc32 said:


> From nearly every test i've seen anywhere, the sony sensor is amazing. But I have to ask, are many of you guys boosting shadows by these amounts? Maybe it's just me, but I've never come anywhere near doing this stuff. Let me repeat, the sony sensor is amazing, but isn't this just silly?



The most i would push shadows for my type of pictures would be two stops max. That said i agree the new sony sensor seem really great.


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 29, 2012)

I have both. Initially I liked the 5D3 more, but I think that had to do more with familiarity than anything else. Don't get me wrong, I like the 5D3 plenty but as I'm learning more and more about the d800 I'm liking it more. What I'm constantly amazed by is being able to take images with things in dark shadow and extract amazing detail and beautiful color from it. Stunned is more like it. I'm finding myself drifting more and more away from my Canon gear. Sad. I've been a Canon shooter for a very long time.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 29, 2012)

risc32 said:


> From nearly every test i've seen anywhere, the sony sensor is amazing. But I have to ask, are many of you guys boosting shadows by these amounts? Maybe it's just me, but I've never come anywhere near doing this stuff. Let me repeat, the sony sensor is amazing, but isn't this just silly?



It's not necessarily silly at all, it depends upon what you shoot. Tons of my shots have no need for that at all, many even need shadows crushed, and yet I all the same I constantly run into DR limitations all the time too, it's not that hard to do unless you only stick to the straight and narrow of one single style/type of shooting that happens to never need it.

What is silly is that if it were the 5D3 with the better sensor everyone here would be going on about how the D800 is 100% useless for ANY type of photos. 

Nikon people generally admitted our sensors trounced their sensors to pieces back in say 20D/5D days.


----------



## sarangiman (Apr 29, 2012)

I shot a Stouffer Transmission Wedge (13.2 stops DR total) with a 5DII, 5DIII, & a D7000.

The 5DIII required 1/3EV less exposure than 5DII to keep any channel (meaning: green, since that blows first) from blowing out in the brightest patch of the wedge. The D7000 needed 2/3EV less exposure than 5DII (i.e. 1/3EV less exposure than 5DIII) to keep any channel from blowing out.

But regardless of the highlight handling, the D7000 retained a SNR>1 down to the darkest patch, giving it ~13EV DR if your lower limit is SNR of 1. The 5DIII was stuck somewhere around 11.3EV DR (again, assuming lowest acceptable SNR is 1), b/c its SNR went to 1 at patch #35 (whereas D7000 maintained SNR>1 down to patch 42). These patches are 0.1 density increments, so you can calculate the DR by doing the following calculation:

DR = log2[(10^#of patches for which SNR>1)/10)

So that pretty much debunks the whole theory that the Canon sensors might still have really good DR b/c of how they handle highlights.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 29, 2012)

I would quite happily accept more dr. It'd allow me to do single frame HDR at weddings. That would give me some me options. 

Can I live without it? Yep. Would I prefer to have the option? Yep.


----------



## Astro (Apr 29, 2012)

Hathaway said:


> I continue to find it interesting that the technical people of these forums (Canon Rumors, DPReview, FM, etc.) only focus on Fred's pictures of the shadows from the buildings. I will be the first to say it is extremely impressive what Sony/Nikon has done with the sensor, but if you continue to read Fred's review and look at all of the pictures he takes for the articles, he points out some serious flaws in focus with the Nikon.



well this thread is about 5D MK3 sensor vs. D800 sensor so it should not suprise you.

we are not talking about the cameras in general here.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 29, 2012)

When will this debate go away? The D800 has one heck of a sensor that can pull a staggering amount of shadow detail. Canon boys need to accept this and move along  If it makes you feel bad, buy a D800.

Personally, I very rarely have the need to push the shadows that much, and the 5DIII is a better balanced machine for my needs. I just don't see why I should get upset about one aspect of camera performance (DR) that doesn't affect what I shoot all that much. Sure, more DR would be nice, but I can work around my Canon's limitations and the areas in which the 5DIII excels outweighs its DR disadvantage for my usage. 

I understand that landscape photogs need all the DR they can get. I also understand that all of a sudden everyone seems to be a landscape photographer. Many of these self-proclaimed landscape photogs don't have portfolios or sample images that show how much their images would benefit from improved DR, but what do you expect on the internet ;D? 

So if DR is that important to you - whether it's for practical reasons or just to placate your ego - admit that Canon is inferior at the moment, and buy yourself a D800


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 29, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> So if DR is that important to you - whether it's for practical reasons or just to placate your ego - admit that Canon is inferior at the moment, and buy yourself a D800


I think it's important that we all bitch a bitch so that Canon hears loud and clear. DR is very important to me. I shoot people wearing helmets with brims during the mid-day sun. High DR means being able to turn dark shadows into colorful, natural-looking faces. Hell, just today I sold three photos where I pushed the hell out of the shadows and got really nice looking outdoor event shots that looked like portraits. This is actual money in my pocket that I would not have had shooting with a Canon, and I charge a bit for my photos. Unless you can control the light, there will always be situations where you need to bring color out of shadows.

I didn't even realize how important the extended DR was until just this week. Right now it's like a secret weapon for me. Don't kid yourself, this stuff is very important and Canon needs to wake up or more and more photographers will come to have the same epiphany I recently had.

I am now seriously considering selling all of my Canon gear.


----------



## hyles (Apr 29, 2012)

I think that the 2 camera are really different and aimed at different market. Canon probably was thinking that DR of 5DII was OK and looked for improvement in other areas.
It is allway been like that, with nikon having more DR and canon more suited for Hight ISO. Maybe increasing low ISO DR would lead to loss something sowhere else and they just designed theire camera this way. They wanted their camera behave this way. If you really need LOW ISO DR... go for nikon, if you shoot always 800ISO and more go for canon. If you have a system... keep with wour brand.
Diego


----------



## CANONPRO123 (Apr 29, 2012)

just got home from shooting with a buddy who uses a d800, i have a 5d3... after looking through the features of both, ive concluded that both are absolutely unbelievable cameras... the d800 crop mode is amazing, i wish canon would implement a similar offering. whereas the 5d3 high iso is just so much better.. maybe its because im a canon guys so im used to them, but the 5d3 ergonomics are so much better. so confused with the layout of the d800.. also the extra fps really made a huge difference.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 30, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> I shot a Stouffer Transmission Wedge (13.2 stops DR total) with a 5DII, 5DIII, & a D7000.
> 
> The 5DIII required 1/3EV less exposure than 5DII to keep any channel (meaning: green, since that blows first) from blowing out in the brightest patch of the wedge. The D7000 needed 2/3EV less exposure than 5DII (i.e. 1/3EV less exposure than 5DIII) to keep any channel from blowing out.
> 
> ...



In fact the whole talk abut cameras handling highlight better is kind of a false premise to begin with for the most part (perhaps the way the color filter array is designed might be a real world difference if it had some weird balance for typical lighting or something). Any standard digital camera handles them the same way (if you compared to one of those dual fuji sensors it might be a more complex story) for any one given channel certainly, the channels goes from unblown to blown, instantly. Differences are never in the highlights, any that seem to be there are just because the standard tone curve chosen was set higher or lower for middle gray. But the sensor capture linearly so what you do is expose so that whatever the brightest thing you want to preserve gets preserved and then dynamic range depends only on dark tone retention.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 30, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I think it's important that we all bitch a bitch so that Canon hears loud and clear. .
> 
> I am now seriously considering selling all of my Canon gear.



Money speaks louder than words. You make money with your images, and the D800 allows you to capture and sell images that you couldn't get with the 5DIII. From a business perspective, you absolutely made the right move. If there are enough disgruntled Canon users that jump ship to Nikon because they find the DR of Canon sensors inadequate, they will get the message loud and clear and address the situation. 

Until then, in Canon's eyes people on message boards are just a bunch of fanatics that enjoy debating about how sensors perform in a lab, and how those test results might impact their photography if they had the talent to utilize their gear. You have a very impressive portfolio and obviously have the skill set necessary to benefit from the D800's DR advantage over any Canon body on the market. Surely, you must realize that for every pro photog like you, there are many more tech geeks either praising or lamenting about the D800's DR that haven't a clue how to shoot anything beyond a snap shot 

My point is that the D800's has a clear advantage in DR, so there's no sense for Canon guys to cry about. Admit it and move on, and if DR is that important to you, switch systems. No need to be in denial, or get so emotional about it  If Canon loses enough business over this, they will get the message.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> You misunderstand. The clean shadows means very low (almost non-existent) read noise on the sensor.
> 
> That read noise is going to be in every capture, it is only in shadows where it can be most easily demonstrated.
> 
> In effect, what this means that even a photo of a blue sky and beach (no shadows or anything) is going to be cleaner on the D800 than the 5D3, even if the signal drowns it out.



So does this mean the D800 is going to make me any more money? I have a pretty good handle on the strengths and weakness of my gear for my type of shooting, and I can emphatically answer no. I also have a pretty good handle on my strengths and weakness as a photographer, and what I need to work on to get the most out of that gear. 

When I start losing business because of the read noise in my images, or there is potential to earn more business due to the reduced read noise of the D800, I will switch systems in a heartbeat. Realistically, there are far more variables involved in terms of both camera hardware and shooting technique, that will determine whether or not a client wants to hire me. Everyone has different needs, so if DR is very high on the priority list, purchase the best tool for the job on the market, the D800, and move on.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I very rarely have the need to push the shadows that much, and the 5DIII is a better balanced machine for my needs. I just don't see why I should get upset about one aspect of camera performance (DR) that doesn't affect what I shoot all that much.
> ...



Noise isn't relevant unless it is visible when printed or displayed


----------



## risc32 (Apr 30, 2012)

I ALMOST can't believe we are being told to worry about noise on all of our imagines that we admittedly can't see. That reminds me about the release of the DVD format. All the Laserdisc guys went on and on about the invisible noise from the digital mombo gumbo tricks that are going on, and how it's everywhere and our pictures will suck for it. yeah?


----------



## cpsico (Apr 30, 2012)

I can honestly see in real world situations where the d800's high Dynamic range would be very welcome. I did some fall shots with some deep shadows that would have been much easier to tweak in photo shop if the 5dII didn't have the amount of shadow noise as it does. Weddings on beach's also come to mind, etc. 

Now in the case 5d Mark III it seems to be a well rounded camera capable of sports, studio, great video and in my eyes from the samples i have seen has great color rendition. 

I could see the d800 being another tool in my camera bag, but hardly a reason to jump ship. Cameras are tools, and the d800 is a very specific one at that.


----------



## pete vella (Apr 30, 2012)

so as i see it on nikon forums none are complaining about the dr. they are saying they wanted a camera more like the mkiii in function. so we got the body, and they had to subout the the sensor to sony to get the tech. so nikon has to piece meal their camera together, has to play nice with sony to do it. while canon has to now increase the low iso dr to make us happy. not so bad i think.


----------



## pete vella (Apr 30, 2012)

tests from dxomark and techradar. 
I agree i would be great to improve dr across iso. I also take pride that canon feels they can be master of their own destiny when it comes to camera/sensor making.http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/120_megapixel_apsh_format_cmos_sensor.do For me other than the nikon d3 i dont like the feel of their cameras. Like holding the wrong brush in your hand when painting. Some times it come down to how well you can use it not just how well it works on the spec sheet. Nikons are great cameras and the d800 looks like it may have the best sensor for now; However, I belive for my use the mkiii is the better all around camera. 

"The bottom line, is that these are both amazing tools for photography. There are good points and bad points to both. Nothing is ever perfect and the best advice I can give, is for you to evaluate your needs and make your decision based on what you primarily shoot. There are workarounds to every problem but ultimately a photographer needs to know the camera's strengths and weaknesses in order to get the most out of it. " -www.fredmiranda.com


----------



## gecko (Apr 30, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > So if DR is that important to you - whether it's for practical reasons or just to placate your ego - admit that Canon is inferior at the moment, and buy yourself a D800
> ...



First time for me too to consider this in 20 years. Not that I have a great deal of stuff.

I was going to buy the 5DIII, but have decided that I don't need the upgrade. Plan B was to use the money saved on a new lens (TS-E 24mm). 

5dII plus the TS-E 24 sounded like a great option, but the stellar performance of the D800 is making me wonder......though the Nikon ergonomics tend to put me off.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 30, 2012)

the low ISO noise on the shadows on the 5DMK III is troubling. Why would this guy shoot mostly a drive way with the D800? I'm sort of dissapointed.

I guess he'll be waiting to see nikon's newly discovered upcoming 17mm TS, and 10mm f/4 lenses

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/27/nikon-patents-for-17mm-f4-tilt-and-shift-10mm-f4-16-30mm-f4-5-5-6-and-28mm-f1-4-lenses.aspx/



> I am now seriously considering selling all of my Canon gear.



+1. I am selling once I know I can buy a D800. NO stock anywhere.



> so as i see it on nikon forums none are complaining about the dr. they are saying they wanted a camera more like the mkiii in function


the way I see it they already have it. D700 does really good at 8fps and it costs about the same as a 5DMKII. And if you don't need 36MP, 12MP is plenty then. The rumored D600 is also interesting. 24MP sensor with the D800 processor could make it very very fast and push the ISO to 5DmkIII levels or beyond. If they keep that 14stops of DR then they could have a true D700 successor.


----------



## Astro (Apr 30, 2012)

risc32 said:


> I ALMOST can't believe we are being told to worry about noise on all of our imagines that we admittedly can't see. That reminds me about the release of the DVD format. All the Laserdisc guys went on and on about the invisible noise from the digital mombo gumbo tricks that are going on, and how it's everywhere and our pictures will suck for it. yeah?



he?

people complaining about the 5D MK2 shadow noise forever, that is nothing new... and has not changed with the 5D MK3.

so i don´t know what your talking about?!

it´s very visible in images when you push the shadows a bit.

if you don´t see how much cleaner the D800 is in the shadow areas then i strongly advice you to go and see an eye doctor. 

but i guess it´s the usual ostrich-like fashion.. don´t see what you don´t like.


btw: some people here intermix "read noise" and DR in a way that is wrong.

the D800 has a better DR because the read noise is lower.
not the other way around. a sensor maker has influence on the read noise.

dynamic range = full well capacity (electrons) / read noise (electrons)

so saying we need better DR to have less noise is to put the cart before the horse.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 30, 2012)

Astro said:


> and has not changed with the 5D MK3.



Yeah, about that...

It _has_ changed.

I've downloaded and processed a number of 5D Mk III files, and I've been able to recover a massive amount of data from the shadows with no significant (certainly no _unmanageable_) noise penalty, and none of the 5D Mk II-style pattern noise the LuLa review managed to dig out. 

Frankly I've no idea how Michael Reichmann got such poor results: I've used the new shadows slider in Lr 4 and can easily dig out 4+ stops from the shadows - more if I take a bit of extra care in PP.

Yes, the D800 is still "better" for digging into the shadows, but the 5D Mk III's files are a damn' sight better than they're being given credit for - presumably by people _who haven't actually tried for themselves_ but are happy to pile onto the bashing anyway.


----------



## Astro (Apr 30, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > and has not changed with the 5D MK3.
> ...



to clarify myself....
the difference has not changed between canon and nikon.

the 5D MK3 is a bit better.. but the D800 seems to do a lot better.

so people still complain about the worse shadow noise performance.



astro said:


> people complaining about the 5D MK2 shadow noise forever, that is nothing new... and has not changed with the 5D MK3.



that´s the complete quote.


people can argue about "good enough" as long as they want.
fact is, canon and nikon are in a competition.

who is saying "ok the yankees played good enough"?
you want your team to win. 

and if you pay with your hard earned money you want the best you can get.
both are very human feelings.

otherwise lamborghini would not sell a single car outside germany (no speed limit on some highways).  





> and none of the 5D Mk II-style pattern noise the LuLa review managed to dig out.
> 
> Frankly I've no idea how Michael Reichmann got such poor results



what luminous landscape article you are talking about?
or do you mean the fred miranda article?


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 30, 2012)

KeithR said:


> I've downloaded and processed a number of 5D Mk III files, and I've been able to recover a massive amount of data from the shadows with no significant (certainly no _unmanageable_) noise penalty, and none of the 5D Mk II-style pattern noise the LuLa review managed to dig out.


It's night and day, Keith. I'm sorry, it really is. Once again, I'm not trying to just whine or complain needlessly... This is real world stuff here that affects my bottom line.

I'm attaching a file so that people can see. This is a picture I ended up selling. It was shot with a d800 and a 200-400/f4. This is a much smaller part of a larger picture, obviously. The top was the unprocessed raw file and the bottom was the detail brought out from the sunglasses. I have a 5D3, but it can't do this to nearly the same degree.


----------



## Astro (Apr 30, 2012)

more fuel:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_embarrassment_of_riches.shtml




> Image Quality-A Game Changer
> 
> I now have to report the exciting news: For me the Nikon D800/D800E is a game changer. Why? Because it is the first 35 mm size camera that exceeds my threshold of image quality for exhibition prints. I have shot hundreds of tests, and in test after test the image quality is surprisingly good. The D800 delivers not just high resolution, but also outstanding dynamic range, extremely low noise and world class color accuracy and sensitivity. I would not hesitate to make 40 or even 50 inch wide exhibition prints from D800 files. Believe me, to go from a large format film view camera to a D800/800E for exhibition prints in a little over a decade is a bit shocking, but such is the incredible pace of innovation in our medium.
> 
> I believe that this camera represents the first product of a new era in digital photography.



if your interested in buying the D800 you should read the "However.........." part too.


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

Astro said:


> more fuel:
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_embarrassment_of_riches.shtml



From the same article:

"I have also noticed a similar effect when shooting handheld. Shooting at the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens is not good enough-even with a VRII lens. I would recommend multiplying the focal length of the lens times 3X and using the reciprocal of this number as the minimum shutter speed for maximum handheld quality."

Hey smirky, can you comment on this man's advice? I'd think that 2x the reciprocal would be plenty fast enough on the shutter speed to prevent camera-shake induced blur, but then again, I don't own a D800 

The engine shot in that article is pretty killer, and something I can relate to. Usually, to get shadow detail like that, I'm usually popping off-camera flashes and bouncing flash off a reflector. 

That said, for hand-held action shots, I'm using holding open the shutter as long as possible, sometimes a 1/2 to 1/3 the reciprocal of the focal length, so obviously a D800 might not be the best tool for that job.


----------



## smirkypants (May 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Hey smirky, can you comment on this man's advice? I'd think that 2x the reciprocal would be plenty fast enough on the shutter speed to prevent camera-shake induced blur, but then again, I don't own a D800



I guess his "however" boils down to "this camera is so good it'll prove how much you suck." Way to aim high. Seriously, that's what he came up with?

I think he has the shakes or something. I shoot a 7 pound lens and the d800 with battery grip and 8 batteries inside handheld, and I get dead sharp shots (as you can see by all the tiny details in the sunglasses... look at those colors! not just detail, colors!!).

Anyway, I shoot f4 and set the minimum shutter speed to 1/1600 and I'm fine... and that's with hauling over ten pounds. I guess if you're shooting in bad light you have to be more careful. If you drink too much coffee, maybe you should consider a different camera.


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Anyway, I shoot f4 and set the minimum shutter speed to 1/1600 and I'm fine... and that's with hauling over ten pounds. I guess if you're shooting in bad light you have to be more careful. If you drink too much coffee, maybe you should consider a different camera.



I do in fact drink too much coffee, but when shooting with IS glass and the 7D - which has even more pixel density than the D800 - I've found that the old 1x the reciprocal of the focal length rule is plenty for sharp images. This isn't the best example, or image for that matter, but I shot this at a 1/15 shutter speed out the back of a bouncy truck on a very bumpy road at 24mm. So once you take the crop factor into account, the shutter speed is 1/2 to 1/3x the reciprocal of the focal length. Sure it's not the most demanding subject in terms of gauging sharpness, but I had a hunch that recommending a shutter speed 3x faster than normal sounded a bit fishy.


----------



## risc32 (May 1, 2012)

"In effect, what this means that even a photo of a blue sky and beach (no shadows or anything) is going to be cleaner on the D800 than the 5D3, even if the signal drowns it out."


Aren't you saying this is a problem, and it's in every picture? While I do have more Canon gear than other makes right now, I'm no fan boy. They have been on the back foot with Nikon since the D3. After a week or using my mk3 i've pulled the fuji 6x9 off the shelf. Or maybe i should use my pentax, graflex, or panasonic, or... 

I think this competition is great. that sensor is great. Sure i see the shadow noise in these comparisons. it's an order of magnitude better on the nikon. Cool, I want that. Get to it Canon.

I can't help but wonder, once Sony gets a tighter grip on the market, would you want to be Nikon?


----------



## jordanbstead (May 1, 2012)

If you're accurately exposing - i.e. for the highlights in an image - why in the world would you need to push your shadows five stops? When would you ever push shadows five stops? Even if it did look "good" in terms of noise performance, you're essentially talking about an HDR image at that point. 

...And then the conversation is over, because we're talking about HDR.


----------



## smirkypants (May 1, 2012)

jordanbstead said:


> If you're accurately exposing - i.e. for the highlights in an image - why in the world would you need to push your shadows five stops? When would you ever push shadows five stops? Even if it did look "good" in terms of noise performance, you're essentially talking about an HDR image at that point.
> 
> ...And then the conversation is over, because we're talking about HDR.


No. You need to think about this rationally. I pointed the camera at a girl in broad daylight and exposed it properly. The top part of her face was black from the brim of the helmet. There is nothing any photographer can do to fix that absent artificial lighting without completely blowing out the background. I then gently applied the adjustment brush to the top of her face and recovered just that part of the photo. It's not HDR, it's more like dodging on steroids. 

Call it what you will. I call it extra cash in my pocket.


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> jordanbstead said:
> 
> 
> > If you're accurately exposing - i.e. for the highlights in an image - why in the world would you need to push your shadows five stops? When would you ever push shadows five stops? Even if it did look "good" in terms of noise performance, you're essentially talking about an HDR image at that point.
> ...



Are all polo chics that hot ? Please post some more pics.


----------



## smirkypants (May 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Are all polo chics that hot ? Please post some more pics.


Just one more. The sun was at her back and her face was completely in shadow. Absent off camera flash, this isn't possible without the extended dynamic range. Everything else about the photo was properly exposed. Of course I pumped up the saturation to fit with the "beach" theme. EXIF is there.

I made a lot of money this past weekend from extended dynamic range.


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

I presume the answer is "yes." 

I'm digging the shot. Nice color.


----------



## sarangiman (May 1, 2012)

Nice shots smirkypants!

I see banding even when pushing exposures 1.5-2 stops w/ my 5D Mark III. I'm actually switching to Nikon for the time being, b/c the lack of sensor improvement was the colloquial 'last straw' for me. 9-blade apertures standard on Nikon lenses & the 14-24 f/2.8 & the faster AF on the 85mm prime being the other major factors.

Since these cameras/lenses hold their value, the nice thing is that a switch doesn't cost too much monetarily. More so in terms of learning a new system/ergonomics, and I admit I like Canon ergonomics much better. 

As well as their entire radio-triggered wireless flash setup with the 600EX-RT...

As well as their cross-type AF sensors all over their field.

As well as their Live View implementation.

As well as their... oh dangit!

WHAT DO I DO??


----------



## 87vr6 (May 1, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> I shot a Stouffer Transmission Wedge (13.2 stops DR total) with a 5DII, 5DIII, & a D7000.
> 
> The 5DIII required 1/3EV less exposure than 5DII to keep any channel (meaning: green, since that blows first) from blowing out in the brightest patch of the wedge. The D7000 needed 2/3EV less exposure than 5DII (i.e. 1/3EV less exposure than 5DIII) to keep any channel from blowing out.



Well, I'm sure this ensures you pick the right camera for all those NatGeo contest winning Stouffer Transmission Wedge pictures everybody is clamoring for!! Call the NY times!! Wedge pictures here, get yer wedge pictures here!!

God pixel peepers are a joke. Ansel Adams surely never questioned this type of crap.


----------



## xps (May 1, 2012)

*Waiting for an big megapixelcamera from Canon*

On Friday I was allowed to use the D800, as the Institution I´m working at, is testing cameras (we need a lot of them for our photographers). The 5DMk3, we tested some days ago is very good, when you don´t have much light and you are not allowed to use an flashlight. But my heart stopped beating, when I saw the quality of the D800s pictures we took in the operating theatre, outside of the building (landsape,...) and shooting portraits. The quality is great! Really great! The product specialist of the selling company used lightroom to optimize the imagequality. But the result was amazing. 
I took some pictures of flyinging birds around the builiding and landing helicopters. As the helicopters were approaching fast and I had just some seconds to take the shot, I can say, that the AF is very fast. 

As I´m owning just Canon cameras, I´ll pray for an pedant from Canon (or an payable 7D MKII)


----------



## Astro (May 1, 2012)

87vr6 said:


> Well, I'm sure this ensures you pick the right camera for all those NatGeo contest winning Stouffer Transmission Wedge pictures everybody is clamoring for!! Call the NY times!! Wedge pictures here, get yer wedge pictures here!!
> 
> God pixel peepers are a joke. Ansel Adams surely never questioned this type of crap.



said the ostrich..... oh... narrow minded fanboy i wanted to say.


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 1, 2012)

87vr6 said:


> God pixel peepers are a joke. Ansel Adams surely never questioned this type of crap.



mentioning ansel adams doesn´t make you one. 

when it´s from nikon it can not be good .. right?
in fact people who can´t admit that other companys build great cameras are a sad joke. 

if someon had posted the same test but with a great result for a canon camera, i bet you (and others) would be all praise and glory. it´s ridiculous.

especially as this is clearly a forum/website focused on the GEAR side of photography.
only when nikon, sony etc. gets some praise the "ansel adams posse" make an appearance with the "but gear does not make good pictures" argument.

well yeah im sure we all heard it a trilion times by now... it´s not as if these people tell something new. :


----------



## spinworkxroy (May 1, 2012)

I wish i had the money….i'd have gotten BOTH the 5D3 and D800E
I love the detail on the Nikon but i also love the ISO on the Canon..if only i had both cameras haha..
Again, i guess Canon shooters will stay with Canon and Nikon with Nikon…it's just like the Mac vs PC argument…and i use both daily so…i wish i could do the same for cameras..if only someone made universal lenses (no adapters)
However i must admit something, even on the 5D3, i'm shooting at mJpg and mRaw..i;m not sure what i'll do with a 36mp file  I'd most likely also shoot at under 10mp on the D800..kinda pointless to get it don't you think..


----------



## gecko (May 1, 2012)

The D800 has left the station..........and Canon passengers are standing on the platform with only a rumour of their train coming.......sometime.


----------



## psolberg (May 1, 2012)

> The image from the Canon sensor is as noisy as all hell (splotchy? banded?) whereas the Nikon one is noise free. That tells me that Canon still haven't fixed the noise issues that were integral with the 5D2.



Yes I was quite shocked by it too. That EXMOR sensor is ridiculously for that. 



spinworkxroy said:


> I wish i had the money….i'd have gotten BOTH the 5D3 and D800E
> I love the detail on the Nikon but i also love the ISO on the Canon..if only i had both cameras haha..
> Again, i guess Canon shooters will stay with Canon and Nikon with Nikon…it's just like the Mac vs PC argument…and i use both daily so…i wish i could do the same for cameras..if only someone made universal lenses (no adapters)
> However i must admit something, even on the 5D3, i'm shooting at mJpg and mRaw..i;m not sure what i'll do with a 36mp file  I'd most likely also shoot at under 10mp on the D800..kinda pointless to get it don't you think..



I'm not  The D800 is the 5DmkIII camera I was hoping canon would make so that's why I'm getting a D800. Nikon has had a fast FPS low MP, full frame body with real AF that is under 3K since 2008. But that's not what I'm after. I mostly shoot in good gorgeous big and soft light and low ISO and what the most detail, DR, and quality possible. Maybe canon will win me back in a few years with the 5Dmk4. But for now, nothing canon makes even remotely approaches the quality of output of the D800 at that price point.


----------



## skitron (May 1, 2012)

dilbert said:


> From that review, it is this page:
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
> 
> ...



All that post did was make me go test my lowly 5D2 the same way, push shadows the same degree, and conclude one of two things:

Either Lightroom totally blows chunks,

OR

FM is not a site I will be visiting again due to lack of credibility.

Sorry, but recovering shadows with Capture One 6 gave me very pleasing results with 5D2 with none of the artifacts I see on the FM post. The D800 is better than what I get from my 5D2, but the difference is nothing even remotely like what is posted on that site.


----------



## sarangiman (May 1, 2012)

> God pixel peepers are a joke. Ansel Adams surely never questioned this type of crap.



That's pretty comical, especially if you've read any of Ansel Adams' (very scientific) writing.

skitron: I'm not at all surprised by your observations. I own the 5Dc, 5DII, & 5DIII, & have taken numerous photos with friends' 5D/5DII. Banding often varies from body to body, I find. For example, it's not too offensive on my own 5DII. But it's easily seen on my 5DIII, albeit only in the vertical direction (landscape orientation). 

As for comments on having two systems: Nikon for landscapes & Canon for everything else... true extended DR is extremely useful for landscapes, but often I find myself wanting to lift shadows in other types of photography where something wasn't ideal (wrong exposure b/c of backlight, flash created unwanted shadow because of suboptimal placement, or I don't have time/ability for an off-camera flash setup yet want the background landscape as well as the people in the shot). For these types of shots, the Nikon would undoubtedly be more forgiving. In fact, low read noise downstream of ISO gain application allows for more aggressive exposure compensation in post (i.e. I believe the D800 is a step in the direction of the theoretical ISO-less camera).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 1, 2012)

87vr6 said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > I shot a Stouffer Transmission Wedge (13.2 stops DR total) with a 5DII, 5DIII, & a D7000.
> ...



Ironic you mention Ansel Adams who was the ultimate pixel peeper of his time and someone who spent countless hours doing special dark room processing and picking the right films and manipulating them in every possible effort to handle dynamic range better. 

He was a total tech head and he spent endless hours in the wet lab.

He was the guy who questioned that sort of stuff MORE than perhaps anyone of his time. ;D

He was an artist AND a tech head.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

skitron said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > From that review, it is this page:
> ...



Amen, 

Let me blow your mind a little. Converted using DPP and pushed in CS5.5







AND......







obviously these could not have been taken by a 5D3............. : : :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbicephotography/ here is my photostream so you can go look at the pictures at full size. I think LR4.1 RC certainly works better with Nikon.


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ironic you mention Ansel Adams who was the ultimate pixel peeper of his time and someone who spent countless hours doing special dark room processing and picking the right films and manipulating them in every possible effort to handle dynamic range better.
> 
> He was a total tech head and he spent endless hours in the wet lab.
> 
> ...



That's kinda the point. Tech heads are often poor photographers, and great photographers are often clueless when it comes to the technical aspects of photography. The best photogs are both artists and tech heads like you say, but unfortunately, there seems to be an overwhelming number of tech heads around these parts


----------



## sarangiman (May 1, 2012)

Matt, that's very interesting! Do you think DPP is just doing more noise reduction, or perhaps using the top rows of the RAW data to offset vertical banding? Those shadows look much cleaner than what LR is producing, as you yourself have noted.

I haven't even tried DPP yet... perhaps it is time to.


----------



## Fishnose (May 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> That's kinda the point. Tech heads are often poor photographers, and great photographers are often clueless when it comes to the technical aspects of photography. The best photogs are both artists and tech heads like you say, but unfortunately, there seems to be an overwhelming number of tech heads around these parts



Uh, no. There is no correlation whatsoever between techiness (or not) and artistry.

Being a tech head and being artistic are in no way connected. You can be one or the other, or both, or neither.


----------



## sarangiman (May 1, 2012)

> Uh, no. There is no correlation whatsoever between techiness (or not) and artistry.
> 
> Being a tech head and being artistic are in no way connected. You can be one or the other, or both, or neither.



+1.

These posts attacking so-called 'tech heads' on a forum topic initially started to discuss the low ISO sensor performance of the 5DIII vs. the D800 baffle me. It's just noise injected into an otherwise intelligent conversation where we're just trying to understand & discuss the magnitude of the differences between these sensors. 

Let's keep the conversation productive.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Matt, that's very interesting! Do you think DPP is just doing more noise reduction, or perhaps using the top rows of the RAW data to offset vertical banding? Those shadows look much cleaner than what LR is producing, as you yourself have noted.
> 
> I haven't even tried DPP yet... perhaps it is time to.



Im no photo-software writer. I got no clue. All I know is Canon probably knows how to handle their own files best and, I am getting much cleaner results using this technique. There is quite a bit of detail there as well. I mean look at the painted over surface of the bricks. You can see all the holes and flaws in the brick quite clearly. Here is a crop of the same area boosted in LR4.1 RC.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Ironic you mention Ansel Adams who was the ultimate pixel peeper of his time and someone who spent countless hours doing special dark room processing and picking the right films and manipulating them in every possible effort to handle dynamic range better.
> ...



The point is that some of the supposed pure artists who eschewed all sorts of technical 'nonsense' were actually tech heads who did anything but and that is dangerous to make assumptions.

I haven't noticed that tech heads are any more often poor photographers anyway. I will also say that even if a given tech head is a terrible photographer, even then, so what? That has little bearing on anything even in the cases where it is true.


----------



## skitron (May 1, 2012)

MattBicePhotography said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



LOL, so the 5D3 totally sucks at DR and has nothing but noise and banding in the shadows.

Well at least according to FM and every parrot on the internet. 

And all you have to do to "unlock" that nasty "feature" is use Adobe Lightroom.

Plus with LR your 5D3 files get the bonus feature of that soft look.

...glad i don't own that POS (LR that is).


----------



## sarangiman (May 1, 2012)

> Plus with LR your 5D3 files get the bonus feature of that soft look.
> 
> ...glad i don't own that POS (LR that is).



I hope that was a joke 

Well I just tried DPP 3.11.26. Initially I thought the image looked cleaner but that's because it's applying luminance noise reduction which actually makes the image appear softer than in LR. You can get a similar effect in LR by applying luminance NR. The banding is still there in my images, even in DPP. I doubt it's doing any additional intelligent subtraction to get rid of banding (or if it is, LR is doing just as much, since I see pretty equivalent amounts of banding). DPP's sharpening is useless & introduces weird artifacts (puts a weird texture all over the image when raised).

Anyone else want to give this DPP vs. LR comparison a try to see how shadows are handled?

Matt, it's possible your particular 5D3 sensor just has less banding...?


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 2, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Plus with LR your 5D3 files get the bonus feature of that soft look.
> >
> > ...glad i don't own that POS (LR that is).
> 
> ...



The banding is certainly there when really pushed. It just seems much cleaner. I just adjusted the Luminance NR and it does get rid of a lot of that noise. it seems to get rid of some of the banding too which I think is made far more obvious by the presence of noise.


----------



## skitron (May 2, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Plus with LR your 5D3 files get the bonus feature of that soft look.
> >
> > ...glad i don't own that POS (LR that is).
> 
> ...



Well yes and no. It has been shown in another thread that LR is responsible for many of the "soft shot" complaints aboout the 5D3.

As for Adobe, I have full confidence they will release something with very good output and a not so great workflow and UI. At least that is my experience and perception.


----------



## V8Beast (May 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The point is that some of the supposed pure artists who eschewed all sorts of technical 'nonsense' were actually tech heads who did anything but and that is dangerous to make assumptions.



Never disagreed with you on that, bud  Like you said, the best photogs are often great artists and tech heads. However, there are LOTS of tech heads at the professional level who are very tech savvy, yet produce very mediocre images. So when people online start talking a bunch of trash without ever posting portfolios or a single sample image, I get a little suspicious 



> I haven't noticed that tech heads are any more often poor photographers anyway.



I take it you know a lot of pro photogs that you rub shoulders with and compete with on a daily basis? Next time you meet one in real life (not online), ask what his or her opinion is on Canon's poor DxO scores and Nikon's superior DR. I'd be surprised if they've ever even heard of DxO's sensor testing. Maybe I just hang out with a dumb group of photogs 



> I will also say that even if a given tech head is a terrible photographer, even then, so what? That has little bearing on anything even in the cases where it is true.



I beg to differ. If a photog with the chops to take advantage of the D800's DR, like smirkypants, encounters these situations in his own shooting, and uses that DR to improve his images, it's a legitimate issue. On top of that, he's using this DR advantage to generate additional revenue. That's as legit as it gets. 

However, if you're some tech head (this isn't directed at you) that posts links to _*other people's*_ blogs as examples of why _*you personally*_ need 14 stops of DR, and anything less is unacceptable, you have no credibility. You're basically implying that *if* you shot in _*X situation*_, then you'd need 14 stops of DR, but since you don't here's a link to someone else's blog. This implies that these people are more in love with the idea of having more DR than actually needing more DR in real life shooting scenarios. That's kinda lame, don't you think?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that some of the supposed pure artists who eschewed all sorts of technical 'nonsense' were actually tech heads who did anything but and that is dangerous to make assumptions.
> ...



OTOH I've noted quite a number of galleries belonging to those who most strongly beat down tech heads that have nothing but a few dozen out of focus, weirdly exposed, photos of cats in their backyard. 



> > I haven't noticed that tech heads are any more often poor photographers anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you know a lot of pro photogs that you rub shoulders with and compete with on a daily basis? Next time you meet one in real life (not online), ask what his or her opinion is on Canon's poor DxO scores and Nikon's superior DR. I'd be surprised if they've ever even heard of DxO's sensor testing. Maybe I just hang out with a dumb group of photogs



I know a few tech heads who easily out shot quite a few people in the arts/journalism. Of course I know some great shooters in the latter as well. Anyway I just haven't noted that tech heads tend to be worse photographers.

I ran into a Getty shooter in Best Buy who was griping about how awful Nikon sensors were and jealously peeping at my Canon and talking about switching (this was quite a few years ago). He seemed to know all about sensors and their relative performance.

I hung around sports guys more when it came to pros and they were more often talking about AF.



> > I will also say that even if a given tech head is a terrible photographer, even then, so what? That has little bearing on anything even in the cases where it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/quote]

I disagree. Even if they don't shoot great art they can still know what they are talking about and they can still notice that certain types of snapshots they take don't work out as well due to say not enough dynamic range etc. and it's 100% transferable to someone who takes shots with greater artistry. I don't think it is lame at all.
They could easily think of ways a certain wedding or landscape shot could make use of DR and it could even be from their own practice and it doesn't matter whether they have a great eye for style or not.

You could then turn around and say that someone with a great eye but no tech knowledge shouldn't be allowed to talk about needing dynamic range or not because they don't understand how sensors work or something. That doesn't make sense either.


----------



## V8Beast (May 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I disagree. Even if they don't shoot great art they can still know what they are talking about and they can still notice that certain types of snapshots they take don't work out as well due to say not enough dynamic range etc. and it's 100% transferable to someone who takes shots with greater artistry. I don't think it is lame at all.
> They could easily think of ways a certain wedding or landscape shot could make use of DR and it could even be from their own practice and it doesn't matter whether they have a great eye for style or not.



I'm not so much talking about style as I am technique. Obviously, if you shoot landscapes you're stuck with what light mother nature gives you. The option of pulling shadow detail is great under certain circumstances, but if you have the ability to manipulate the quantity or quality of light, you'll do it every single time instead of cranking up on the shadows slider. Whether you're using something as simple as reflectors or off-camera flash, or something a bit more advanced like monolights, 30-foot softboxes, or gazillion yard long muslins to diffuse natural light, the quality of light often takes precedence over the quantity of light. Why else would high-end commercial photogs - one of the few remaining groups of photogs that are actually wealthy - bother with monolights, 30-foot softboxes, and gazillion yard long muslins? 

The D800 is a beast in terms of shadow recovery, but IMHO, while boosting the shadows changes the quantity of light, it does not affect the quality. Shadow light if pretty $hitty stuff, and if you have the luxury and know-how to manipulate your lighting, it yields far greater results than relying on a camera's DR. Technology is great, but technology is no substitute for technique, and those that can combine technology in conjunction with technique are the badass mofos that hacks like me aspire to be someday ;D



> You could then turn around and say that someone with a great eye but no tech knowledge shouldn't be allowed to talk about needing dynamic range or not because they don't understand how sensors work or something. That doesn't make sense either.



This doesn't address your statement directly, but people that naturally have great eyes for composition are awfully tough competition, even if they're clueless when it comes to anything tech related. All the tech stuff can be learned, as can technique, but some people are just born with a natural gift for light and composition that can't be learned. People like me can try as hard as I want, but these folks generally kick my @ss every single time


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I'm not so much talking about style as I am technique. Obviously, if you shoot landscapes you're stuck with what light mother nature gives you. The option of pulling shadow detail is great under certain circumstances, but if you have the ability to manipulate the quantity or quality of light, you'll do it every single time instead of cranking up on the shadows slider. Whether you're using something as simple as reflectors or off-camera flash, or something a bit more advanced like monolights, 30-foot softboxes, or gazillion yard long muslins to diffuse natural light, the quality of light often takes precedence over the quantity of light. Why else would high-end commercial photogs - one of the few remaining groups of photogs that are actually wealthy - bother with monolights, 30-foot softboxes, and gazillion yard long muslins?



I take a lot of portraits/indoor shots. I have been focussing on quality of light as I found the standard umbrellas to be too harsh - my light sources have to be transportable as I go to the subject rather than use a studio.

Possibly my biggest single improvement recently was the move to 7 foot parabola umbrellas coupled with the use of 1/4 cto stophen on the main shoot through light. At about £100/c. 150usd each (I have 3) the quality of light significantly improved for less the cost of a decent lens. 

I find that DR (as shown in the DPP histogram) of 8 or more seems to give top IQ - this is about 2/3 of the histogram on the camera. I have found that good quality light plus good exposure means you dont have to push the shadows. 

I always have a flash in the bag to help me out with the dark areas in strong sunlight - this is the way we did it with film - and the technique works for digital too - remember those wonderful hammerhead Vivitars?  Contra jour was handled with a small (36 inch) reflector to get light onto the face

Clearly there will always be occasions when you have to push the exposure - but good technique will get that down to the very rare exception for the majority of shooters. If this is true for a puchaser of either the 5D3/D800 then the shadow performance will become less important than the other features.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. Even if they don't shoot great art they can still know what they are talking about and they can still notice that certain types of snapshots they take don't work out as well due to say not enough dynamic range etc. and it's 100% transferable to someone who takes shots with greater artistry. I don't think it is lame at all.
> ...



Yeah but that sort of commercial shooting is but only one small segment of photography. That is not my circle at all.



> > You could then turn around and say that someone with a great eye but no tech knowledge shouldn't be allowed to talk about needing dynamic range or not because they don't understand how sensors work or something. That doesn't make sense either.
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't address your statement directly, but people that naturally have great eyes for composition are awfully tough competition, even if they're clueless when it comes to anything tech related. All the tech stuff can be learned, as can technique, but some people are just born with a natural gift for light and composition that can't be learned. People like me can try as hard as I want, but these folks generally kick my @ss every single time


[/quote]

but that is another subject entirely


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not so much talking about style as I am technique. Obviously, if you shoot landscapes you're stuck with what light mother nature gives you. The option of pulling shadow detail is great under certain circumstances, but if you have the ability to manipulate the quantity or quality of light, you'll do it every single time instead of cranking up on the shadows slider. Whether you're using something as simple as reflectors or off-camera flash, or something a bit more advanced like monolights, 30-foot softboxes, or gazillion yard long muslins to diffuse natural light, the quality of light often takes precedence over the quantity of light. Why else would high-end commercial photogs - one of the few remaining groups of photogs that are actually wealthy - bother with monolights, 30-foot softboxes, and gazillion yard long muslins?
> ...



Well it depends upon the world you come from. You two are doing tons of portraits, commercial set up shots, etc.
Yeah it's a very rare exception perhaps in your circles, fine enough, but there are other circles entirely outside that sort of photography. Believe it or not many people have shot tens of thousands of shots and yet few of them have even touched the sorts of shooting that seems to make up 90%+ of your work. it's one thing to say it is vanishingly rare circumstance that needs more DR in your world but it's not fair to them assume your world is everyone else's world. I don't even personally know any commercial shoot type photographers and I've never dabbled in that myself ever. That is the stuff you deal with all the time so it's easy to think that makes up like 95% of photography, but it doesn't.


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Well it depends upon the world you come from. You two are doing tons of portraits, commercial set up shots, etc.
> Yeah it's a very rare exception perhaps in your circles, fine enough, but there are other circles entirely outside that sort of photography. Believe it or not many people have shot tens of thousands of shots and yet few of them have even touched the sorts of shooting that seems to make up 90%+ of your work. it's one thing to say it is vanishingly rare circumstance that needs more DR in your world but it's not fair to them assume your world is everyone else's world. I don't even personally know any commercial shoot type photographers and I've never dabbled in that myself ever. That is the stuff you deal with all the time so it's easy to think that makes up like 95% of photography, but it doesn't.



Well actually I dont do anything commercial and my subjects are anything that finds itself in front of my lens. I shoot anything from birding/wildlife/sports/portaits of animals and humans but I actually used to specialise in street work. I soon realised that there was little difference between a street shot and a soccer shot - just the content, the tech stuff is all the same. 99% of my shots are grab shots

I struggle with pure studio work - the tech stuff is easy but controlling the scene is hard in comparison to watching it unfold.


----------



## nightbreath (May 2, 2012)

MattBicePhotography said:


> Amen,
> 
> Let me blow your mind a little. Converted using DPP and pushed in CS5.5
> 
> ...



Would someone write them an email with these findings? Would be great if they can improve their algorithms


----------



## KeithR (May 2, 2012)

skitron said:


> obviously these could not have been taken by a 5D3............. : : :



Exactly the kind of result I've been seeing in my experiments too - "night and day" difference between the two sensors my foot.

As usual (exactly like with the low ISO banding/DR and noise "problems" with the 7D - I've posted similar shadow recovery results from my 7D on more than one occasion, which again according to the "experts", the 7D isn't capable of, especially in comparison to the Nikon D7000) it boils down to making smart conversion and PP decisions - and no, that doesn't mean being locked into DPP.

Most people are not prepared to look for solutions or alternative ways to achieve their desired end results, but they're always happy enough to pile on with the bitching.

This doesn't mean that the D800 sensor isn't still "better" (whatever that means in reality), but the BS about it being capable of low ISO DR miracles that the 5D Mk III sensor can't even get close to, is just that: BS.


----------



## Astro (May 2, 2012)

stop the off topic crap about "techheads" and "photographer".

it has nothing to do with this thread.
make your own thread about it.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

KeithR said:


> This doesn't mean that the D800 sensor isn't still "better" (whatever that means in reality), but the BS about it being capable of low ISO DR miracles that the 5D Mk III sensor can't even get close to, is just that: BS.



I would say it's very very early to make a statement like that..


----------



## sarangiman (May 2, 2012)

> Well yes and no. It has been shown in another thread that LR is responsible for many of the "soft shot" complaints aboout the 5D3.



Hmm... skitron-- are you sure you aren't referring to the DPP problem where 'high quality' vs. 'high speed' changed the sharpness of the conversions? I don't remember hearing anything about LR...



> I beg to differ. If a photog with the chops to take advantage of the D800's DR, like smirkypants, encounters these situations in his own shooting, and uses that DR to improve his images, it's a legitimate issue. On top of that, he's using this DR advantage to generate additional revenue. That's as legit as it gets.
> 
> However, if you're some tech head (this isn't directed at you) that posts links to other people's blogs as examples of why you personally need 14 stops of DR, and anything less is unacceptable, you have no credibility. You're basically implying that if you shot in X situation, then you'd need 14 stops of DR, but since you don't here's a link to someone else's blog. This implies that these people are more in love with the idea of having more DR than actually needing more DR in real life shooting scenarios. That's kinda lame, don't you think?



[list type=decimal]
[*]No, that's not lame, b/c some people are just into optimization
[*]You seem to speak of the knowledge of any given photographer as static. What if he/she's technique exceeds that of a lesser camera within a short period of time? Or what if the extended abilities of a better sensor help he/she realize a unique style to his/her photography that would've been otherwise unrealized? Or any of a # of other scenarios.
[*]Why require a so-called 'tech head' to produce photos to prove his/her discussion is legit? Why are you assuming he/she is bad until proven otherwise? It baffles me. I never walk into forums assuming someone is a bad photographer to begin with. Because when you assume, you run the risk of making an...
[*]For example I didn't assume you were a bad photographer just b/c you didn't care at all about the sensor tech talk way back a few weeks ago. And good thing I didn't: because I *love* your work! You've found a way to make very well balanced images despite what looks like potentially difficult lighting in a # of your shots. It works for you. Great. The Canon system generally works for me as well. But I've run into a # of situations where I didn't feel comfortable printing large or raising shadows b/c I saw the banding all the way to the print. I could do without those scenarios, especially if it doesn't require me sacrificing too much else. That's what these discussions are about... optimizing what we work with. In fact, it's precisely b/c of these conversations that I was intrigued enough to do my own tests to see just how much better EXMOR sensors are over my entire 5D line (not all of us have the luxury of shooting Canon & Nikon interchangeably whenever we want, so this has been a learning experience for me). Actually, before doing many of these tests myself, I was disinclined to even believe DXO... my opinion was completely reversed when my own tests confirmed their observations... and these well-controlled tests happen to explain what people are seeing in real-world shooting scenarios. So, in my mind, these discussions are incredibly productive, b/c they solidify the reality of difference between these sensors (a reality that a lot of people were unwilling to accept when DXO initially published their findings). In fact, your statement to the effect of 'yes, now we all know that Nikon's sensors are better than Canon, accept it, move on'... I would argue that, yes, we do seem to know that now... but many more of us know & believe that precisely b/c of these blog postings & these discussions. Remember when LTRLI initially posted his assessment of the DR of the 5DIII? People just blasted him left & right, & boy am I glad I didn't. I questioned his methodology, b/c I also wanted to understand it. Now it seems generally accepted that his estimates were pretty much spot on. So, these discussions *can be* incredibly productive in helping us all arrive at some objective conclusions. And if you don't care, just leave us be, you know? These tech head vs. photographer discussions are so _*off-topic*_ and are just adding noise to otherwise intelligent discourse.
[/list]



> All the tech stuff can be learned, as can technique, but some people are just born with a natural gift for light and composition that can't be learned.



Ok if that's what you think... but keep in mind that's just your opinion  Like LTRLI said: your statement is another topic entirely. Nature vs. nurture is still hotly debated.


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Feel free to think and believe what you want, but facts are that the D800 has 2.8 e and 5dmk3 has 33e readout noise.
> Fact is that 5dmk3 has 11 stops dynamic range and the D800 has 14 stops
> Fact is that some raw converters can eliminate banding and pattern noise but they can not do anything about signal to noise ratio



I undersand where you are coming from but:

- does the nose difference show on the print
- does the dr over 11 matter to most people on a print
- when does a 'bad' snr impact the print

??


----------



## V8Beast (May 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah but that sort of commercial shooting is but only one small segment of photography. That is not my circle at all.



Trust me, I haven't mistaken you for a high-end commercial photog  I merely used them as an example because they're about as high up the ladder as you can get in terms of skill, budget and caliber of equipment, but even at that level, if they have the option to optimize their lighting instead of relying on a camera's DR, they'll go with optimizing their lighting every single time. They'll resort to very elaborate and costly methods to achieve that lighting as well. Mind you, these guys very often shoot medium format, which is obviously junk now after the D800's release, but it used to offer what was once considered pretty darn good DR and IQ. 

If some of the most skilled, well-equipped, and experienced photogs on earth choose to optimize their lighting instead of relying solely on their camera's DR, why should lesser photogs (which is just about everyone, myself included) be beyond this? Technology is a beautiful thing, but it's something that should complement technique, not replace it. People that think that they can't produce good images with the DR offered by Canon's current sensors probably haven't quite yet honed their technique. 

Of course if you have limited to no control of your lighting, then none of this applies and I'll STFU


----------



## V8Beast (May 2, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> No, that's not lame, b/c some people are just into optimization



There's nothing wrong with optimization, but how prudent is it for a photog to switch systems for one factor (DR) if that photog hasn't learned to take advantage of that one factor? 



> You seem to speak of the knowledge of any given photographer as static. What if he/she's technique exceeds that of a lesser camera within a short period of time? Or what if the extended abilities of a better sensor help he/she realize a unique style to his/her photography that would've been otherwise unrealized? Or any of a # of other scenarios.



Nah, I'd never say that a photographer's knowledge or skill set is static. It's always growing, but most of that growth comes from framing an image, releasing the shutter, taking constructive criticism to heart, refining your technique, and releasing the shutter again. Sure nicer gear raises the ceiling higher for what can be achieved, but you have to be realistic about what features and specs (like DR) you really need vs. what you want but might never use. If I have a complaint about my gear, but then see images that kick the $hit out of mine that were captured with lesser gear, it really makes me question whether or not I'm doing everything I can to get the most out of what's in my camera bag.



> Why require a so-called 'tech head' to produce photos to prove his/her discussion is legit? Why are you assuming he/she is bad until proven otherwise? It baffles me. I never walk into forums assuming someone is a bad photographer to begin with. Because when you assume, you run the risk of making an...



I don't assume anything. I've seen some truly gifted photogs get flamed online and treated as if they're novices for no good reason. The tech heads I'm referring to are the guys who talk a bunch of trash about DR and Nikon's and sensor superiority, go out and buy a D800, then post a bunch of underwhelming snap shots to show off how great their gear is. 



> The Canon system generally works for me as well. But I've run into a # of situations where I didn't feel comfortable printing large or raising shadows b/c I saw the banding all the way to the print. I could do without those scenarios, especially if it doesn't require me sacrificing too much else. That's what these discussions are about... optimizing what we work with. In fact, it's precisely b/c of these conversations that I was intrigued enough to do my own tests to see just how much better EXMOR sensors are over my entire 5D line (not all of us have the luxury of shooting Canon & Nikon interchangeably whenever we want, so this has been a learning experience for me). Actually, before doing many of these tests myself, I was disinclined to even believe DXO... my opinion was completely reversed when my own tests confirmed their observations... and these well-controlled tests happen to explain what people are seeing in real-world shooting scenarios. So, in my mind, these discussions are incredibly productive, b/c they solidify the reality of difference between these sensors (a reality that a lot of people were unwilling to accept when DXO initially published their findings). In fact, your statement to the effect of 'yes, now we all know that Nikon's sensors are better than Canon, accept it, move on'... I would argue that, yes, we do seem to know that now... but many more of us know & believe that precisely b/c of these blog postings & these discussions. Remember when LTRLI initially posted his assessment of the DR of the 5DIII? People just blasted him left & right, & boy am I glad I didn't. I questioned his methodology, b/c I also wanted to understand it. Now it seems generally accepted that his estimates were pretty much spot on. So, these discussions *can be* incredibly productive in helping us all arrive at some objective conclusions. And if you don't care, just leave us be, you know? These tech head vs. photographer discussions are so _*off-topic*_ and are just adding noise to otherwise intelligent discourse.



I agree that these discussions can be productive, but there has to come a point where it's more productive to do something about it - whether it's switching systems, experimenting with new technique in the field or in post, etc - rather than arguing with Canonites that are either in denial or completely dismiss Nikon's DR advantage.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah but that sort of commercial shooting is but only one small segment of photography. That is not my circle at all.
> ...



In the commercial world this is relatively unlikely to happen I agree. You'd likely have a diffuser over the model to block the light and relight to get the look you really want and balance for the ambient. (PS MF still produces a different look to 35mm, so it's still very relevant...).

However, there are many photographers who have a lot of skill and could accomplish this but still need better quality shadows. I've thrown my high DR wedding example in a few times. Landscape photographers also need better DR as multiframe HDR can be difficult if there's movement in the scene.

I guess the point is that there's:
a) I'm relying on the camera to make up for my lack of knowledge about how to balance DR in a scene.
b) This situation requires a higher DR to achieve my vision and no amount of skill or knowledge will produce the same effect.
c) I don't have the money to build massive lighting setups so I have to use higher DR
d) maybe others...

For people in a), they need to learn how to control light first. For people in b), they need a higher DR and that's it. For people in c), higher DR can give them something approaching more lighting and allow them to produce "something".

Some people who think they're in b) are actually in a) because they don't actually know what options they have


----------



## skitron (May 2, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Well yes and no. It has been shown in another thread that LR is responsible for many of the "soft shot" complaints aboout the 5D3.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... skitron-- are you sure you aren't referring to the DPP problem where 'high quality' vs. 'high speed' changed the sharpness of the conversions? I don't remember hearing anything about LR...



See: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.0


----------



## V8Beast (May 2, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> However, there are many photographers who have a lot of skill and could accomplish this but still need better quality shadows. I've thrown my high DR wedding example in a few times. Landscape photographers also need better DR as multiframe HDR can be difficult if there's movement in the scene.



I've seen enough of our work to recognize you have plenty of skill to get the most of the the lighting situations you are presented with  I do recall those samples you reference, and they could have definitely benefited from greater DR. 



> I guess the point is that there's:
> a) I'm relying on the camera to make up for my lack of knowledge about how to balance DR in a scene.
> b) This situation requires a higher DR to achieve my vision and no amount of skill or knowledge will produce the same effect.
> c) I don't have the money to build massive lighting setups so I have to use higher DR
> ...



Great way to summarize the issue. Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> It depends what you mean, as a old photographer I work in Raw and adjust and work with my pictures (lighten up shadows, etc.) as in the lab years ago.
> Depending on the subject and how you expose - you can work much better with an image that has been reproduced with a high dynamic range.
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41393266



I guess as a very old photographer I am used to getting the light right in the camera so lab work is at the very minimum - like Cartier Bresson. 

High Dynamic Range is something that never worries me in terms of pushing it. It must be the way that I spray light around so the dark spots get a tickle of flash to help it along

Example today. Straight out of the camera - just resized only

First with no flash
Second with 580EX @1/64


----------



## V8Beast (May 2, 2012)

I'm starting to wonder why the burn tool even exists on Photoshop. Aren't there some situations where you'd want less shadow detail ?


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Im more an Ansel Adams type . And getting it right in the camera ? which camera? which profile etc etc etc
> Sorry there are no getting it right in the camera, and have images that some Japanese programmers believe that the picture should look like is nothing for me.



I see the picture before I take it - so yes I do get it right in the camera, at most it takes minor adjustments - nothing like pushing 3ev, I reckon to get levels all within 1 stop otherwise it is a bad picture. Nothing to do with Japanese programmers as I dont use P mode. On the 1D4 the pseudo manual mode with auto iso and ec gives me and even higher sucess rate

Only thing I dont see is detail in the background so my biggest pp is with the clone/healing tools. 

I am always astonished at just how many people reply on pp for quite major localised adjustments when a simple use of flash gets round all the issues and improves the IQ. I rarely use anything above iso400 with the majority at 100/200 so noise doesn't raise its visible head.


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I'm starting to wonder why the burn tool even exists on Photoshop. Aren't there some situations where you'd want less shadow detail ?



Yes turn a tickle on the rest of the image and the shadow detail drops off - very effective with bg blur as well - like this with a little on the subject de-details the wood on the building - just an example from today - not meant as a gallery picture

Just a single flash with a stophen on manual setting from PW


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah but that sort of commercial shooting is but only one small segment of photography. That is not my circle at all.
> ...



Yeah your last sentence comes to the point. Only a small subset of shoots are amenable to that sort of carefully rigged lighting that you refer to in the first paragraph. In your world the first paragraph may feel like it covers 90% of photography but to someone in another world it may seem like that covers only 1% of photography.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I'm starting to wonder why the burn tool even exists on Photoshop. Aren't there some situations where you'd want less shadow detail ?



hah, i sometimes use it to tame hotspots that draw too much attention and the like, occasionally to darken up some dark area of garbage that is better sunken to depths or to make something brighter pop out more, etc.


----------



## V8Beast (May 3, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah your last sentence comes to the point. Only a small subset of shoots are amenable to that sort of carefully rigged lighting that you refer to in the first paragraph. In your world the first paragraph may feel like it covers 90% of photography but to someone in another world it may seem like that covers only 1% of photography.



I wish it covered 90% of my shooting, since it would mean someone would be willing to pay me enough to take the time rig up some crazy lighting arrangement. Not sure if I'd have the patience for that sort of thing, and I definitely don't have the talent 

That said, there's a lot in between what's used in the world of commercial photography and a run-and-gun photography where it's not practical to haul around a bunch of gear. As brian's samples illustrate, balancing ambient light and flash with a couple of Speedlights can go a long way. Light is also more portable and flexible than ever with the advent of affordable radio triggers and pop-up-out-of-a-bag softboxes. Combine all that with the high-ISO abilities of modern bodies, and you can get a lot of light out of a few small flash guns.

....but I digress, since the subject at hand is landscape photography, and none of this matters


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 3, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> ....but I digress, since the subject at hand is landscape photography, and none of this matters





Well, philosophically speaking, the sun is the most badass flashgun there is...or rather hot light. And while we might not be able to tame him, at least we know where he'll be each day.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 3, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I guess as a very old photographer I am used to getting the light right in the camera so lab work is at the very minimum - like Cartier Bresson.
> 
> High Dynamic Range is something that never worries me in terms of pushing it. It must be the way that I spray light around so the dark spots get a tickle of flash to help it along



This is often presented as a panacea of photography, but in fact it's not, even when taking the example of people and not a massive cliff for a landscape photographer or a bird or something, which are much more difficult to light.

Once I started looking at the intricacies of lighting and how it affects the face, skin, eyes and so on, I realised that some things can only be done with natural light. For example, I know a wedding photographer who uses fill flash extensively. He sent me a photo that he loved and the first thing that I noticed was the incredible forward facing shine on the makeup which wouldn't have been there without the flash. I also noticed the pin light in the otherwise dark eyes. Neither looked attractive to my eyes.

If you want to really get it "right" a large (very large) light source is needed and you need to block out the available light as much as possible and relight from scratch. If you're doing fill light, you need to be exact about the colour temperature of the light source or you can just tell the extra light is there. Or at least I can.

This was shot with a large light source to camera left, balanced for the ambient. Since the flash was the key light, I could get away with some of the things that I note above:





_P.S this wasn't the final version of this file - it was done before LR4 and I overbrushed one or two areas. It's just the only one I have available to link._

In the cases where you don't have the option to setup a massive lighting rig, pushing the shadows might give a more pleasing (to my eye) shot than using some fill flash. That's why I say adding fill light is not the panacea it's presented as in my eyes...

Of course, this is entirely a personal opinion


----------



## briansquibb (May 3, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> In the cases where you don't have the option to setup a massive lighting rig, pushing the shadows might give a more pleasing (to my eye) shot than using some fill flash. That's why I say adding fill light is not the panacea it's presented as in my eyes...
> 
> Of course, this is entirely a personal opinion



The hardest thing is to use a very small amount of flash. I have 6 x 580 flash so a lot of power is there - but often I am usually infilling with 1/64 power with several flash just give a subtle lift. 

I use a 430EXII for the onboard flash for the catchlights


----------



## V8Beast (May 3, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > ....but I digress, since the subject at hand is landscape photography, and none of this matters
> ...



I take it you don't live in Seattle ;D?

I like the sun as a light source, but only for 2-3 hours a day


----------



## sarangiman (May 3, 2012)

V8Beast-- you live in Seattle? We should grab a coffee some time  

Perhaps you'll appreciate this shot from Rizal Bridge I took back in 2010. I went to this stop some 30 times before I finally got an epic sunset. The colors lasted for like 30 minutes... it was insane. Used a 3-stop Daryl Benson Reverse GND filter, & still merged 4 exposures by hand in Photoshop, & still have noise in the trees when I print this. When I denoise the shadows, they just turn muddy. So in the end I chose to just stick with the noise. There's even a little banding in those shadows (this was shot on a 5D). This might be why I'm so interested in higher DR given that, like I said, this was already 4 exposures merged, each taken with that 3-stop Reverse GND...


----------



## Cptn Rigo (May 3, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> V8Beast-- you live in Seattle? We should grab a coffee some time
> 
> Perhaps you'll appreciate this shot from Rizal Bridge I took back in 2010. I went to this stop some 30 times before I finally got an epic sunset. The colors lasted for like 30 minutes... it was insane. Used a 3-stop Daryl Benson Reverse GND filter, & still merged 4 exposures by hand in Photoshop, & still have noise in the trees when I print this. When I denoise the shadows, they just turn muddy. So in the end I chose to just stick with the noise. There's even a little banding in those shadows (this was shot on a 5D). This might be why I'm so interested in higher DR given that, like I said, this was already 4 exposures merged, each taken with that 3-stop Reverse GND...



Nice pic man!


----------



## V8Beast (May 4, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> V8Beast-- you live in Seattle? We should grab a coffee some time



Nah, I was just being a [email protected] since the other poster mentioned that the sun is the ultimate flash gun  Here in Texas, we get too much sun and it's already in the mid-90s! I need weather sealing to protect my cameras from my sweat, and unfortunately, that's not an exaggeration. I lived in Vancouver, WA briefly as a kid, but don't remember anything about it. The Pacific Northwest does look beautiful, though. 



> Perhaps you'll appreciate this shot from Rizal Bridge I took back in 2010. I went to this stop some 30 times before I finally got an epic sunset. The colors lasted for like 30 minutes... it was insane. Used a 3-stop Daryl Benson Reverse GND filter, & still merged 4 exposures by hand in Photoshop, & still have noise in the trees when I print this. When I denoise the shadows, they just turn muddy. So in the end I chose to just stick with the noise. There's even a little banding in those shadows (this was shot on a 5D). This might be why I'm so interested in higher DR given that, like I said, this was already 4 exposures merged, each taken with that 3-stop Reverse GND...



I don't need to live in Seattle to appreciate that shot. It's a great image, and it's definitely shot in a situation that could definitely benefit from more DR. Nice work! Even if you printed this one pretty big, I don't think the noise in the trees would be offensive.


----------



## skitron (May 4, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Here in Texas, we get too much sun and it's already in the mid-90s! I need weather sealing to protect my cameras from my sweat, and unfortunately, that's not an exaggeration.



LOL, as a fellow Texan I can relate...and I even have more concern about the corrosive effect of all the salt in the sweat.


----------



## bycostello (May 4, 2012)

all tool for the job... all take great images.... i'd not stress about micro differences...


----------

