# 5D3 Dynamic Range



## jaayres20 (May 4, 2012)

I have a quick question about the dynamic range of the 5D3 which from what I have been reading is behind the D800. I have never owned a nikon and currently own two 5D3s. I understand what dynamic range is and how it is important for retaining details in the highlights and shadows of an image. I guess I would like to know from one who has seen the differences in the two cameras is what am I missing out on? How does a really high DR (better than the 5D3) help unless I am mostly shooting in high contrast lighting situations or am trying to push or pull and image by more than a couple of stops. I have always been really happy with the DR of my 5D2 and now my 5D3 and being a wedding photographer I shoot in about every lighting condition possible. I always shoot JPEG with highlight tone priority enabled and do my best to get the exposure and WB spot on. I also shoot in Faithful picture mode with the contrast turned down one notch. I end up with pretty flat images out of the camera with plenty of details in the highlights and shadows. Unless I really mis the exposure I have never been unhappy with the DR. I almost always end up adding contrast to the picture because there is too much DR and the image looks too flat. I probably won't own a Nikon so I am just curious from those who have seen the difference hands on how big of a difference is it and in what situations will it really be beneficial. It seems like low ISO high DR performance has become more important than high ISO low noise performance. I am not trying to start another debate over the two cameras I just want to know how much better it is and how much of a difference it would really make.


----------



## RichATL (May 4, 2012)

It doesn't...
Pixel peepers and gearheads are so brainwashed by all the blog posts and workshops they attend that they forget the simple truth that getting the exposure right is what matters.

The most influential exposure system ever devised was based upon only 10stops of dynamic range.
The Zone System

btw... JPEG shooters need not even enter this argument...If you decide to let some computer programmer in Japan dictate how your image looks out of camera... you give up your right to complain about dynamic range 
(that is not directed at you OP)


----------



## cpsico (May 4, 2012)

Shooting JPEG you will never see a difference


----------



## helpful (May 4, 2012)

A really high DR better than the 5D3 doesn't really help. As I have explained in previous posts, a lower DR actually stores more data and detail from a scene than a camera with high DR. Ideally the dynamic range would match the scene's DR. Canon's DR probably fits more scenes better than Nikon's. If the dynamic range is higher than the dynamic range intrinsic to the scene, then it actually makes the picture worse (less fine variations in detail of recorded luminosity).

The only part of the 14-bit RAW or 8-bit JPEG data that is really worthwhile is the part where the histogram shows data has been recorded. In a low dynamic range image (like a frame filled with nothing but green grass), the histogram of a high DR camera like both the 5D3 and the D800 show nothing but a thin peak of data that was recorded. This means lots of detail is being lost because not all 14-bits are being used.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there is "empty" data in most of the picture. There is a color and brightness value at every pixel. But the variations in brightness that could be recorded if all 14-bits were adjusted to a 2-stop DR are simply lost, because the camera is always trying to record a 9 stop or 10 stop DR, for example. The variations in brightness can be recorded much finer, just like with slide film, with a good sensor that has LESS dynamic range.

High or low dynamic range can't be held against a camera, any more than someone can say negative film is "better" than slide film, or vice versa.


----------



## helpful (May 4, 2012)

cpsico said:


> Shooting JPEG you will never see a difference



False.


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

There comes a point where extra DR does not show on a print, it only helps with getting detail in shadows (that probably the eye cant see anyway)


----------



## Redreflex (May 4, 2012)

I think we are still far off from the point where the camera sees detail in the shadow that the eye can't.


----------



## justsomedude (May 4, 2012)

I think there's a lot of misinformation being posted in here. 

First, check this video by Mark Wallace and Adorama TV. It gives a good primer to Dynamic Range: Digital Photography 1 on 1: Episode 41: Dynamic Range: Adorama Photography TV

Also, for those saying DR doesn't mean much, or doesn't matter in print - you are very wrong. Photographers have been pushing the limits of film data for decades. Where do you think the "burn" and "dodge" brushes in Photoshop came from? They were real techniques used in the darkroom to pull out shadows and darken highlights. 

This translates directly to DR performance in dSLRs. Either the information is there - or it is not. A sensor with a higher dynamic range will give the photographer more latitude with processing/editing options in post. And that translates directly to prints.

Smaller DR- less info, and the physical editing limit is hit sooner. Higher DR- more info, more options for editing and exposing usable data in post.

UPDATE: I should point out - if you haven't been over-tweaking your files as part of your normal post-processing technique, than DR won't matter much to you. However, for landscape shooters, and photographers who are used to heavily tweaking their highlights/shadows in post (to maximize the range in their prints), DR is the holy grail of post-processing and digital sensor tech.


----------



## justsomedude (May 4, 2012)

Redreflex said:


> I think we are still far off from the point where the camera sees detail in the shadow that the eye can't.



Most likely, but the d800 still amazes...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

_(In full disclosure, I am a Canon shooter and own a 5D3. But, I must admit the d800 is pretty fascinating with respect to its DR)_


----------



## Michael7 (May 4, 2012)

The D800 is simply on another level when it comes to low ISO dynamic range. This may or may not be "crucial" to you, but if you shoot nature images such as landscape and wildlife, it is the kind of thing that might make you switch camera manufacturers.

Being able to bring up such amazing shadow detail is priceless, and IMHO one of the most important aspects of nature photography.

The 5D III sensor is about 4-5 years behind the D800. I own all Canon gear, but am an inch from purchasing the D800E when it comes out. 

The better the dynamic range, the less of a need for things like GND filters, HDR, and so forth. It really is important for situations where you have absolutely no control of the light such as nature landscape and wildlife.


----------



## justsomedude (May 4, 2012)

Michael7 said:


> Being able to bring up such amazing shadow detail is priceless, and IMHO one of the most important aspects of nature photography.
> 
> The better the dynamic range, the less of a need for things like GND filters, HDR, and so forth. It really is important for situations where you have absolutely no control of the light such as nature landscape and wildlife.



What he just said.


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

Quite simply the vast majority of shooters are very content with a max DR of 12, yet the tiny minority who use DR to get some detail out of shadows are making a disproportionate amount of noise about how vital a DR of 14 is.

There are techniques to avoid shadows in many cases - leaving very few exceptions - yet from the baying of the few anyone would think the 5DIII had a crippled DR system and totally unable to produce a good images.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 4, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> Michael7 said:
> 
> 
> > Being able to bring up such amazing shadow detail is priceless, and IMHO one of the most important aspects of nature photography.
> ...



But the big win is at low ISO. If you're shooting at higher ISOs (I think it's ~800 or 1600) then the DR is approximately the same between the 5d3 and D800. So as a few others have said, if you're shooting lower ISO like for nature photography most of the time, or in a studio with plenty of light, it could matter. If you end up using high ISO most of the time, it won't make much of a difference, and in fact I've seen a lot of people saying at high ISO the 5d3 tends to do better.


----------



## molnarcs (May 4, 2012)

Can't comment on the Mark III, only used the Mark II. Also, disclaimer: I'm shooting Nikon now.

I see the argument that dynamic range doesn't matter, or only matters in edge cases quite often. Well, I guess there is some truth in it. It depends on your work/interests, lots of conditions. DR may or may not be important to you. Instead of going back-and-forth with academic debates, I'll show how it helps in various situations I shoot in - with examples. 

I shot the International Pillow Fight Day event here in Saigon. Fun work, for free of course (non-profit, fun-loving people organized it, couldn't resist). The event took place at 3pm, very hard light, in park where the trees didn't offer enough coverage. Yeah, high contrast situation, hard like, dark shadoes, bright patches of sunlight. Now not all photos are like that, but there are quite a few where I pulled at least 1 stop from the shadows without loss of detail, without smudging the colours, and without any visible noise even at 100%. *That's what dynamic range is in practice.* It may or may not matter to you, it matters to me and probably the people I did it for too. I wouldn't be able to do it without the DR of the d7000. Here: Pillow Fight Day Saigon 2012

Now I don't do many events, I'm an interiour photographer, doing lots of landscapes as a passion (and these year, more and more people, fashion, portraits). In interiour photography, good DR is gold. Ironically, some of the most expensive properties I shot had the worst lighting. Huge rooms, big windows, shooting scheduled for 3pm (and no, I couldn't change it). Hard light coming through windows, rooms too big while lighting not enough to overpower the natural light. This is situation where it's impossible to get a perfect exposure, and HDR is out of question with apartments (too long to explain why). Examples starting here, and the next few pictures: http://molnarcs.500px.com/apartments_villas/photo/16

Landscapes. I don't think I have to explain this one, because its kinda obvious. That said, 90% of my recent landscapes are less than 10 EV, lots of good shots that require minimal post-processing - and in many of them you wouldn't see a difference even if your camera were limited to 8 EV. But that 10% - I'm glad that I had some EV leeway there! 

Remember, good DR doesn't mean pulling 6 EVs from shadows. It means pulling 1 EV *cleanly* - or even half EV. The more DR your camera has the better in the situations above.

Lastly, in commercial photography, there is a good reason top PROs use Hasselblad and medium format cameras. They have phenomenal EV at base ISO, and they are using every single bit of it. Walk through any upscale shopping centre, and you'll see tons of large backlit prints - and it's not just resolution and megapixels. Here's a video comparing the d800 with a Hasselblad. The new "king" of DR in 35mm format can't stand a chance (and why DR does matter in commercial photography). 
D800 vs Medium Format with Roth and Ramberg

RichATL, you're wrong on so many levels that I lost count. DR does matter in quite a lot of situations. Now you may or may not shoot in those situations, but saying that only brainwashed "pixel peepers and gearheads" care is a bit over the top. And as to your jpeg argument... ever heard of picture controls? Seeing your "computer programmer in Japan" line I guess not.

Ultimately, everybody has to decide for himself. If you rarely find yourself in a situation where you'd love to brighten the shadows up just a bit more, but you're losing details... I guess it doesn't matter. Sports, indoor events come to mind with constant, even light. Lots of examples where DR doesn't matter that much. That said, it would still be prudent to make your voice heard to Canon instead of going full denial RichATL. Higher DR has tangible, very practical benefits in many situations. Is the gap Canon and Nikon/Sony sensors huge? I honestly don't know. It's there, and its not good in my opinion.


----------



## cpsico (May 4, 2012)

helpful said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > Shooting JPEG you will never see a difference
> ...


How many stops of dynamic range do you get in jpeg that is different from antone else? Jpeg is 8 bit no matter how many stops you get in raw


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

molnarcs said:


> Can't comment on the Mark III, only used the Mark II. Also, disclaimer: I'm shooting Nikon now.
> 
> I see the argument that dynamic range doesn't matter, or only matters in edge cases quite often. Well, I guess there is some truth in it. It depends on your work/interests, lots of conditions. DR may or may not be important to you. Instead of going back-and-forth with academic debates, I'll show how it helps in various situations I shoot in - with examples.
> 
> ...



Yes I think you are right in that people are trying to make semi pro cameras behave like top MF/LF. These people will not be happy even with 20ev dr, 200mp, iso100000 and 15fps unless it comes in at $1000.

If you want it for a specialist function - dont buy a general purpose camera


----------



## Michael7 (May 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> There are techniques to avoid shadows in many cases - leaving very few exceptions - yet from the baying of the few anyone would think the 5DIII had a crippled DR system and totally unable to produce a good images.



I don't think it's "baying". This is a camera discussion forum, and these camera's aren't cheap. It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

cpsico said:


> helpful said:
> 
> 
> > cpsico said:
> ...



For a linear DR it is a DR of 8 - which is why specialist printers are needed to get more.


----------



## Tcapp (May 4, 2012)

Shooting raw should help your dynamic range more than a d800. 

Also, as a wedding photographer, if you spend a lot of time above 1600 iso, the 5d3 actually has better dynamic range then the d800. Not by a ton, but it does!


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

Michael7 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > There are techniques to avoid shadows in many cases - leaving very few exceptions - yet from the baying of the few anyone would think the 5DIII had a crippled DR system and totally unable to produce a good images.
> ...



Why should you compare the D800 with the 5D3 - apples and oranges - definitely not its chief competitor

As for baying - have you seem the number of threads started up about the 5D3 and how badly if compares with the D800 DR?


----------



## justsomedude (May 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Michael7 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



If the d800 is not the 5D3's primary competitor - then what body is?


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> If the d800 is not the 5D3's primary competitor - then what body is?



Both are in a niche on their own - until the next round of announcements


----------



## Michael7 (May 4, 2012)

The D800 is the 5D III's chief competitor. No lucid person would think otherwise.


----------



## Tcapp (May 4, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Michael7 said:
> ...



D700 Mk II. 

But seriously, EVERY camera is a competitor. People will decide between 5d3 and a 7d, or a rebel. The 5d3 might lose out due to price. The D700 and 5d2 are competitors. But I would say yea, the d800 is the primary competitor, if only because that is what people are comparing it to. People who are in the market for a $3000 FF camera will look at the 5d3 and d800 and decide between them. _that makes them competitors_! So yea, they are all apples.


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Might as well say the 1D4 then as the 5DIII is only a little less.


----------



## Tcapp (May 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...



My point exactly. People are ridiculous to say they one camera isn't a competitor to another. They all are!


----------



## helpful (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > helpful said:
> ...



I hate to say anything critical to anyone, and you are both correct. JPEG has 8 bits of data per channel. And a statement involving the word "it" can always be assumed true--we have no idea about the object to which "it" is referring.

However, you are saying something correct and then jumping to a completely unrelated conclusion. Here's the missing information:

* JPEG is not encoded with linear gamma, and never has been with any digital camera.

"If images are not gamma encoded, they allocate too many bits or too much bandwidth to highlights that humans cannot differentiate, and too few bits/bandwidth to shadow values that humans are sensitive to and would require more bits/bandwidth to maintain the same visual quality."

* One bit and one stop have nothing to do with each other. It's also completely ridiculous to define dynamic range in terms of bits--it is only meaningful if defined in terms of stops.

If you have ever taken a class about encoding mechanisms, one of the first things one learns is, "The first thing to remember is that bit depth and dynamic range are NOT the same thing. It is going to sound much the same, but it's not."

The terminology used on this forum is sometimes as silly as someone saying, "I am going to itch my mosquito bite" when they mean "scratch my mosquito bite."

If you have ever taken a picture with part of it dark or part of it bright, you are seeing the effect of dynamic range. It has absolutely nothing to do with the file format. RAW extends the dynamic range provided that the same gamma curve is applied in the image encoding.

An increased dynamic range in the camera has a proportional effect on the dynamic range of both the JPEG and the RAW image. You can understand this if you will be patient enough to consider the example of an interval of real numbers.

The RAW image corresponds to the interval [-x, x]. The JPEG image corresponds to the interval [-cx, cx], where c is between 0 and 1. A change in the dynamic range corresponds to a change in x. The effects on both the RAW and JPEG images are proportional to one another.

One good article to read is this one:

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/

It also talks about noise in addition to dynamic range. There are books to read about this subject as well.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (May 5, 2012)

There's another way to put this in perspective.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the 5DIII has 12 stops of DR and the D800 has 14 stops, both at ISO 100.

And let's also say that you take a picture of an incredibly contrasty scene where you want to boost the shadows by four stops, and that you can't (for whatever reason) fix the light or shoot HDR. We're talking a noontime shot of a garden, including a shed where you need the interior of the shed to look like you've got a flash hidden in the shed even though you don't.

Conceptually, that's roughly equivalent to making two simultaneous exposures, one at ISO 100 and the other at ISO 1600, and combining them with HDR techniques. The camera will certainly be cleaner when actually exposed at ISO 1600 than by boosting the exposure in post, but it's the same basic idea.

What those two extra stops (if they really exist, and I'm not entirely sure they do) mean, in this situation, is that the pushed-four-stops shadows of the D800 for ISO 1600 equivalent will have roughly the same noise and detail as pushed-two-stops ISO 400 equivalent of the 5DIII. Or, conversely, the pushed-four-stops ISO 1600 equivalent of the 5DIII will be as noisy as pushed-six-stops ISO 6400 equivalent of the D800.

Now, I'm sure we've all seen the high ISO comparisons between these cameras, and there just isn't a whole lot of difference between two stops in the cameras -- at least, not until you get to insane six-digit ISOs. There are differences, sure, but not a whole lot in real-world terms.

All you Nikon fanboys out there, tell me: does ISO 6400 on the D800 suck donkey balls compared to ISO 1600 (still on the D800)? No? I didn't think so. I certainly don't think so -- I think ISO 6400 on the D800 is mind-blowingly good. But that's the degree of image quality difference you're saying the dynamic range differences makes the 5DIII suck donkey balls in comparison to the D800.

So, feel free to continue to claim that the 5DIII is the worst camera on the planet. All you're doing is making it plain to everybody who's actually a photographer and who's ever actually done any kind of post-processing that you've never actually held one of these cameras in your hand.

They're both amazing, fantastic, incredible cameras. And anybody picking the one or the other based purely on megapickle counts or DxO numbers is an idiot. There's plenty to distinguish the two cameras -- lens systems, framerate, autofocus performance, ergonomics, and maybe a few other things. Image quality is pretty much the least significant differentiating quality between the two.

And, as always, if the image quality of the 5DIII won't cut the mustard, neither will the image quality of the D800. You need to look to the world of 80-megapickle (and more) medium format systems before you get a meaningful difference in image quality. Are those cameras insanely expensive? Not to those who use and need them; for them, the equipment almost comes out of the petty cash budget.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Redreflex (May 5, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> Redreflex said:
> 
> 
> > I think we are still far off from the point where the camera sees detail in the shadow that the eye can't.
> ...



Dynamic range of the human eye is something like 18 to 24 stops, depending on lighting conditions etc. The latest 2012 camera range don't even come close to 18 stops of DR.


----------



## Aglet (May 5, 2012)

I'll try to actually answer your quick "?" with a relevant answer. 



jaayres20 said:


> I have a quick question about the dynamic range of the 5D3..what am I missing out on? ..



Not a lot, under most conditions.



jaayres20 said:


> I always shoot JPEG with highlight tone priority enabled and do my best to get the exposure and WB spot on. I also shoot in Faithful picture mode with the contrast turned down one notch. I end up with pretty flat images out of the camera with plenty of details in the highlights and shadows. Unless I really mis the exposure I have never been unhappy with the DR.



considering that you're not shooting raw, and your typical subject matter, your approach is a reasonable and practical one that's working for you.
It'll take more effort, card memory and time to post process raw files to extract a little more from them under the harsher lighting conditions where it may benefit some shots.

However, shooting raw and more PP work would likely give you more of an improvement than shooting jpg on a D800. Then again, Nikon's active D-Lighting can work quite nicely on jpg only output too so also worth considering; you may prefer how it would impact your current workflow.

High end cameras like the 5D3 and D800 do a pretty good job of fitting the DR of the scene into a fairly pleasing jpg output. Altho they both do pretty a similar job, they do it slightly differently so each camera's jpg output of the same scene will look a little different and there'll also be a wide variation on each body's rendering of the shot depending on all those jpeg-relevant options you select in each camera.

If you have the opportunity, you should try shooting some test shots alongside your usual method using a D800 and trying some of its settings to see how it changes the jpeg output. You could also try a D7000 or even a D5100 as they all have similarly high DR at base ISO and more than Canon's.

I remember reading someone recently posting on one of CR's forums here how much better he thought the D800 did in hi contrast, sunlight sitations where he was able to not only recover nice luminance information, from people's faces in a mix of sunlight and shade on one face, but that there was more COLOR and detail information to be had from the D800 in this situation too. He claimed this was the difference between selling a shot or not. He posted an example but honestly I can't confirm that this would be correct since I didn't buy a 5D3 and I don't know how long I still have to wait for my D800. Considering that the shadow area adjacent to a sunlight area on the same surface is only a few stops difference at most I can't see the 5D3 having any trouble accomplishing the same thing.

The greater color information, extractable from the darker areas, CAN be better with the D800 than with most of Canon's cameras because of the lack of noise in the D800's shadows compared to the Canon's. Canon's dark noise tends to include a lot of red channel noise; when shadows are boosted you may have to subdue it by reducing some color saturation in the shadow areas which can yeild a less pleasing image. You typically have to push very dark areas very far before this is a problem and the 5D3 did make some slight improvements in this area over the 5D2 so it's even more pushable than the old 5D2.

So, should you buy a D800 based on this kind of shooting?... Probably not. but it might be worth a try anyway just to see if you prefer the kind of output you get from it. Many people have also said they prefer Canon's rendition of skin tones over Nikons and I might agree a bit there too. I've generally always preferred the "look" of a Canon image which is why I also use DPP to do most of my raw file image processing.

It's probably a better first step to shoot raw with your 5D3 and see what you can do with it in post. Under very contrasty conditions, yet not so bright as mid day, I'd also opt to turn off the HTP as it won't help your raw files and can actually hinder shadow recovery. Process with DPP (or LR4) for ease of tweaking.

I've converted a few long time and very experienced jpeg event shooters into raw shooters after they saw how much more they could do with that raw file!




jaayres20 said:


> I am not trying to start another debate over the two cameras I just want to know how much better it is and how much of a difference it would really make.



You seem to have unleashed another round of that argument, but that's a good thing. I'm glad more Canonites are discussing this issue and more are getting a good grasp of it while some are still steadfastly unconvinced. That latter group is likely to see the dark one of these days.. and it won't have reddish banding in it.  Aw heck, if they haven't seen the red noise lurking in the shadows yet they're just not pushing the limits of their gear. 

I hope I've been able to answer some of your question.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 5, 2012)

RichATL said:


> It doesn't...
> Pixel peepers and gearheads are so brainwashed by all the blog posts and workshops they attend that they forget the simple truth that getting the exposure right is what matters.
> 
> The most influential exposure system ever devised was based upon only 10stops of dynamic range.
> ...



Tell that to Ansel Adams.

Sure it doesn't matter for many shots, but it certainly can matter for many too. It depends what you are shooting.
And enough with the patronizing nonsense about learn how to expose properly. People thirsting for more DR are surely people who knows about exposing properly.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 5, 2012)

jaayres20 said:


> I have a quick question about the dynamic range of the 5D3 which from what I have been reading is behind the D800. I have never owned a nikon and currently own two 5D3s. I understand what dynamic range is and how it is important for retaining details in the highlights and shadows of an image. I guess I would like to know from one who has seen the differences in the two cameras is what am I missing out on? How does a really high DR (better than the 5D3) help unless I am mostly shooting in high contrast lighting situations or am trying to push or pull and image by more than a couple of stops. I have always been really happy with the DR of my 5D2 and now my 5D3 and being a wedding photographer I shoot in about every lighting condition possible. I always shoot JPEG with highlight tone priority enabled and do my best to get the exposure and WB spot on. I also shoot in Faithful picture mode with the contrast turned down one notch. I end up with pretty flat images out of the camera with plenty of details in the highlights and shadows. Unless I really mis the exposure I have never been unhappy with the DR. I almost always end up adding contrast to the picture because there is too much DR and the image looks too flat. I probably won't own a Nikon so I am just curious from those who have seen the difference hands on how big of a difference is it and in what situations will it really be beneficial. It seems like low ISO high DR performance has become more important than high ISO low noise performance. I am not trying to start another debate over the two cameras I just want to know how much better it is and how much of a difference it would really make.



Well if you haven't missed it, ever, then that is your question answered. For you it won't matter at all. For others it might matter quite a bit at times.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> If you want it for a specialist function - dont buy a general purpose camera



So a D7000 or D800 are super specialist cameras? Back when Canon had better DR all the Canon cameras were super specialist cameras, even the rebel?


----------



## Tcapp (May 5, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > If you want it for a specialist function - dont buy a general purpose camera
> ...



I think people consider a D800 a specialist camera because of the resolution, not the DR. At such a high MP, there are certain things its NOT good for, like wedding or event photography where you shoot thousands of photos. The extra mp make processing a more time consuming prospect. Not that it still cant be done! 

But yea, if you think about it, every camera has its own strengths and weaknesses, so they are all good for different situations. _Super_ specialist camera? No. _Unique_ camera? Yea!


----------



## jaayres20 (May 5, 2012)

Well thanks to everyone for all of the input. I guess since I really don't do a lot of post processing anyways then I am not missing out on much. When you deliver 1000+ images per wedding then you try to limit the amount of time you are editing in lightroom. The 5D3 may not be the best when it comes to DR but I have sure been very happy with the AF and low light performance. The colors seem to better than the 5D2 as well. Just more natural I guess. Again I have never used a Nikon so maybe I don't know what I am missing there as well.


----------



## MlQUE (May 5, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> At such a high MP, there are certain things its NOT good for, like wedding or event photography where you shoot thousands of photos. The extra mp make processing a more time consuming prospect. Not that it still cant be done!


How is that some sort of deal-breaker, that continues to be the most ridiculous point I've seen argued.
People who don't want the extra MP can simply set the image size to (M) which means it'll be shooting 5,520 x 3,680 which is about the same as the 5D2's 5,616 × 3,744 pixels pixels.


----------



## KeithR (May 5, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> So a D7000 or D800 are super specialist cameras?



You know fine well what he means.

If, for example, the tiny, irrrelevant-to-most difference between their sensors and the Canon alternatives is so bloody important that you can't take a picture without it (which even you must admit is a scenario so "specialist" as to be utter fantasism) then shut up, get out of Canon and use the Nikons.

Otherwise, do your research, understand the strengths and weakness of the cameras out there _and buy the one that gets you closest to what you need_.


----------



## KeithR (May 5, 2012)

Michael7 said:


> It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.



So because of _one_ metric - slightly lower DR than in the D800 (which is utterly unimportant to most potential users and which in any event can be _significantly_ equalised by the right conversion and PP decisions) - you're suggesting that the 5D Mk III is somehow a "lesser", uncompetitive camera; and that anyone who sees its strengths (of which it has many) over the D800 and prioritises them over the D800's DR "advantage", is being naive?


----------



## KeithR (May 5, 2012)

Michael7 said:


> The D800 is the 5D III's chief competitor. No lucid person would think otherwise.



_This_ lucid person thinks otherwise.

They _are_ - patently and self-evidently - in separate niches, and there's precious little functional "cross-over" between them at all.

There's no photographic genre I can think of where it's not utterly obvious which of the two cameras is best-suited; and if there's no debate about that, there's no _competition_.

_That's_ lucid.

*And - for the avoidance of any doubt, assuming output/print sizes both cameras can achieve natively - D800 for landscapes, especially in contrasty, high DR situations where I want easily to dig detail out of shadows (it can take a little more effort to get them out of a 5D Mk III file); and the 5D Mk III for absolutely everything else.*


----------



## sach100 (May 5, 2012)

KeithR said:


> *And - for the avoidance of any doubt, assuming output/print sizes both cameras can achieve natively - D800 for landscapes, especially in contrasty, high DR situations where I want easily to dig detail out of shadows (it can take a little more effort to get them out of a 5D Mk III file); and the 5D Mk III for absolutely everything else.*


+2
My thoughts precisely.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (May 5, 2012)

KeithR said:


> *And - for the avoidance of any doubt, assuming output/print sizes both cameras can achieve natively - D800 for landscapes, especially in contrasty, high DR situations where I want easily to dig detail out of shadows (it can take a little more effort to get them out of a 5D Mk III file); and the 5D Mk III for absolutely everything else.*



You're forgetting two things with your landscape scenario: lens and light.

My go-to landscape lens is the TS-E 24 II. It mops the floor with anything vaguely similar Nikon has to offer. The D800 + whatever can't compare to the 5DIII + TS-E 24 II, even considering the few extra megapickles and dynamic range.

Second, if you're shooting landscape and you've exposed properly and you still need to recover so much from the shadows that you find yourself wishing for the extra stop or so that the Nikon might give you, then you're probably shooting in some really bad light and you need to wait for the golden hour. Ether that, or you need to take three seconds to turn on the auto HDR feature and get a 6 FPS bracket with handy-dandy rough preview. And, if even that still won't do the trick, then you're either out of your league because you didn't bring the MF kit or you're an incompetent photographer because you don't know how to use your gear.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## cpsico (May 5, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > *And - for the avoidance of any doubt, assuming output/print sizes both cameras can achieve natively - D800 for landscapes, especially in contrasty, high DR situations where I want easily to dig detail out of shadows (it can take a little more effort to get them out of a 5D Mk III file); and the 5D Mk III for absolutely everything else.*
> ...


Ouch why so harsh?


----------



## Bosman (May 5, 2012)

molnarcs said:


> Can't comment on the Mark III, only used the Mark II. Also, disclaimer: I'm shooting Nikon now.
> 
> I see the argument that dynamic range doesn't matter, or only matters in edge cases quite often. Well, I guess there is some truth in it. It depends on your work/interests, lots of conditions. DR may or may not be important to you. Instead of going back-and-forth with academic debates, I'll show how it helps in various situations I shoot in - with examples.
> 
> ...


In my experience this topic is creating an issue out of one that doesn't exist. The software is the source (not only source but main) where the DR has been lacking, the raw data with software that works with it makes all the difference, up til recently the 5dm3 raw files havent been supported. I watched both videos. The pillow fight i watched to completion and it looked like a blast thanks for sharing! The second video the Hasselblad can't pull detail like the D800 from the shadows on the motocycle. This video has been on the forum in other threads since it came out pretty much. From testing images i see i can pull detail out of blackness when i want and while I do not know someone who i could test the two cameras against each other from what i have gotten I don't see anything i have given up. In my real world shooting it will not impact me at all.
Here some people have been testing things with DR and software. I was able to get incredible sharp detail from a practically pitch dark area. Would I care to do this in any normal situation, no. If i had to have an important shot that the flash didn't fire or something the d800 or 5dm3 will both be difficult to get anything that good.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6235.0


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 5, 2012)

helpful said:


> http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/
> 
> It also talks about noise in addition to dynamic range. There are books to read about this subject as well.



BTW, that site:


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 5, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



same price range doesn't immediately make it so. If strawberries are $4.99 a lb, and asparagus is 4.99 lb, does that mean both are the same?

Yeah, same price range. But they are two different beasts. If you primarily shoot landscapes and aren't bound by investments in lenses or overall budget/earnings the d800 is the way to go. If you are more of an all purpose shooter, the mk3 has many advantages. And while its not everyones cup of tea, if you shoot events and weddings and landscapes and are using canon systems, me thinks investing in ND and Grad filters would be a good work around to get more DR ---or shoot HDR...its not the best solution, but unless your making most of your income shooting landscapes I'd say switching systems is a frivolous investment...

(note I did not ad architectural work to this mix only because even with the DR of the d800, the canon Tilt shift lenses are much better than what nikon offers...)


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> And while its not everyones cup of tea, if you shoot events and weddings and landscapes and are using canon systems, me thinks investing in ND and Grad filters would be a good work around to get more DR ---or shoot HDR...its not the best solution, but unless your making most of your income shooting landscapes I'd say switching systems is a frivolous investment...



Or using flash in the dark areas as I do ..... or even overcoming the sun as some pros do

Using big diffusers, reflectors as well - they are so many tool that it seems criminal to rely on the sensor


----------



## Viggo (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > And while its not everyones cup of tea, if you shoot events and weddings and landscapes and are using canon systems, me thinks investing in ND and Grad filters would be a good work around to get more DR ---or shoot HDR...its not the best solution, but unless your making most of your income shooting landscapes I'd say switching systems is a frivolous investment...
> ...



+ a bunch for that! I drag around a standard lightstand with a 60x90 umbrellabox (that opens in 0.5 seconds and takes up less room than a stick) inside is two 580's with each their own cp-e3 batterypack. That way you can balance and create your own light instead of pulling shadows ridcolous 4 stops in post..

Just flipped through to find an example, the original had a bit more shadow detail underneath on his chest, but it lacked contrast, anyway..


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 5, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Michael7 said:
> 
> 
> > It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.
> ...



1. It's not slightly lower and believe me when Canon had a SNR advantage, when it wasn't even as large as three stops, you hardly went around calling it slight.

2. Calling it utterly unimportant to most potential users is going too far. Sure for many shots you won't need it and some people might never need it, but it's not that hard to come up with scenes where it helps. And again you hardly called the high iso advantage Canon had something utterly unimportant.

3. No you can't significantly equalize it in post any more than you could make a 2004 Nikon DSLR closer in SNR performance to a 2004 era Canon, well, not unless you are disingenuous enough to only apply careful PP to one camera's output and not to the others.

4. Just because people call it out for low ISO performance doesn't mean they are slamming every last thing about the camera. It does tons of things body performance-wise than the 5D2.

And it does a few things better than the D800 (6fps in FF mode; video without color moire problems and with less aliasing and with a good 1.5 stops better SNR (although it's also a bit softer and some say they used really cheap audio amps again); it's too early to say but it might have better AF, I read various things though and i haven't heard from any people I have a good sense where there are coming from chip in on the matter yet and I haven't tested either one myself; a bit more dynamic range a super, super high ISOs; personally I like the Canon UI much better; it matches mount to a nicer overall set of lenses IMO).

D800 is a beast though too, a lot more MP for more max detail and reach, on paper at least the metering system should be better, has a built-in emergency flash, built-in intervalometer, superb maximum dynamic range, doesn't have silly little things like autoiso crippled.


----------



## Tcapp (May 5, 2012)

MlQUE said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > At such a high MP, there are certain things its NOT good for, like wedding or event photography where you shoot thousands of photos. The extra mp make processing a more time consuming prospect. Not that it still cant be done!
> ...



One the D800, as i understand it, there is no (M) RAW. And no way in hell am I about to shoot Jpeg. Its full size or nothing. Thats why its an issue.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 5, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> MlQUE said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...



It's silly how stubborn and stuck in the not done here first syndrome some of the camera makers are.

It's really foolish Nikon doesn't offer sRAW/mRAW (although it is true that these are not really quite like regular RAW and that they have some debayering and other processing cooked in and you don't get as ideal a result as could be had from processing full RAW and then downsizing).

It's really foolish Canon that refuses to offer crop modes for more speed. I fear this will be the downfall of their high MP camera from being even half as generally usable as the D800. I fear they will stubbornly say we don't do crop modes! And saddle it with 3fps when Nikon was so smart to offer 1.2x 25MP at 5fps and 1.5x 16MP at 6fps options on the D800.


----------



## Tcapp (May 5, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > MlQUE said:
> ...



I think you are totally right. But, could it be because of patents? Maybe Canon isn't legally allowed to make a crop mode, and Nikon isn't legally allowed to do (M) Raw?


----------



## meli (May 5, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...


Carrying NDs & grads & umbrellaboxes is not a substitute of the flexibility a greater DR offers you, there is just no comparison.
And It is the competitor in most cases, they're in the same price tag and are the most affordable -latest-tech- FF one can get.

and as for this:


Chuck Alaimo said:


> If you are more of an all purpose shooter, the mk3 has many advantages


Lets be honest, it doesnt have many advantages, it has one, a measly one at that: 1fps more @22mp. And seriously for an "all purpose shooter" a choice between 16mp/6fps/crop - 25mp/5fps -36/4fps sounds much more convenient than between 22mp/6fps -22mp/6fps 22/mp/6fps

The TS-Es as you say though are a reason enough not to jump ship.


----------



## Aglet (May 5, 2012)

meli said:


> The TS-Es as you say though are a reason enough not to jump ship.



if affordable, it's good to also own the second ship and equip it to best suit its strengths.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 5, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...



I can't imagine crop mode being patented. Perhap sRAW/mRAW, although you;d think they could find something close enough to work, but who knows.


----------



## RunAndGun (May 5, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I can't imagine crop mode being patented. Perhap sRAW/mRAW, although you;d think they could find something close enough to work, but who knows.



I wouldn't think... RAW is just kind of a descriptor telling you the data hasn't been processed(more or less), the files are completely different between manufacturers, it's not universal like JPEG or DNG. But who knows with some of the silly patents that ARE out there nowadays.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

meli said:


> Carrying NDs & grads & umbrellaboxes is not a substitute of the flexibility a greater DR offers you, there is just no comparison.



Flash also gives lower iso, flash compension AND ec, ability to alter light, more contrast etc etc - it wins hands down over flexibility

I was taking pictures in a theatre

1D4, no flash, iso 6400+
1DS3, flash, iso 100 

Guess which pictures looks the best?

Flash is all about adding light - the more controlled light the better the picture.


----------



## V8Beast (May 5, 2012)

So many landscape photographers, so little time ;D

Seriously, though, if DR is the most important factor for someone's shooting needs, why not just purchase a D7000? It costs $1,200 vs. the D800's $3,000, yet nearly matches it in DR (13.9 vs. 14.4 stops). Sure, the D800 stomps it in ISO performance, but all the landscape guys keep telling me that high ISO performance is useless for their needs, so who cares? If I were a landscape guy who only cared about DR and nothing else, the D700 would be my choice since it's a much better value, DR wise, than then D800. 

D7000 = $86 per stop of DR
D800 = $208 per stop of DR

I think all the landscape guys are getting a hard on over the wrong camera ;D With all the wood they've been popping over the D800's DR, I bet their members can damn near touch their computer screens at this point


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 5, 2012)

Well, I think that whole FF vs crop feature is a big deal.


----------



## sarangiman (May 5, 2012)

> > Quote from: helpful on May 04, 2012, 05:39:39 PM
> > A really high DR better than the 5D3 doesn't really help. As I have explained in previous posts, a lower DR actually stores more data and detail from a scene than a camera with high DR. Ideally the dynamic range would match the scene's DR. Canon's DR probably fits more scenes better than Nikon's. If the dynamic range is higher than the dynamic range intrinsic to the scene, then it actually makes the picture worse (less fine variations in detail of recorded luminosity).
> 
> 
> ...



Well done clearing up that misinformation, hjulenissen


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > Carrying NDs & grads & umbrellaboxes is not a substitute of the flexibility a greater DR offers you, there is just no comparison.
> ...



Flash is not automatically a winner. It may be in your eyes, but inverse square law of light means it's range is limited. Unless you match the colour temperature and drag the shutter, all you end up with is a shot where the flas is very obvious and the ambience is lost. 

I use flash a lot, both on its own and mixed with ambient but I also know when not to use it. 

High dr and high ISO cameras bring something new which couldn't be achieved previously. 

Your style might be to use flash but it's that - a style point - not right and wrong.


----------



## V8Beast (May 5, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Well, I think that whole FF vs crop feature is a big deal.



Not really. It seems DR is the only thing that matters. 

Speaking of DR, I forgot to mention the D5100. With 13.6 stops of DR for $700, you get:

$51 per stop of DR!

OK, now I need to go start some 5DIII vs. D5100 threads so the Canon bashing can persist


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > meli said:
> ...



I guess if you cant use flash correctly then it is not a good thing. However I dont use it as a style - just a way of controlling the light to improve the IQ. Perhaps this is a skill that is being lost.

Of course if you use high ISO then you lose DR and the ability to get details from the dark places.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 5, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I think that whole FF vs crop feature is a big deal.
> ...



Haha!!

To be honest I can't understand why people are still discussing it. It's clear if you need more dr you go Nikon. Each photograper is welcome to their own decision on this point. I have my own view too. 

All this won't change the 5d3, which I must admit I'm incredibly excited to receive when it comes since the dual card slots will solve one of my problems - wedding backups for a month or two. I wanted a fourth copy of the data so I've invested in 15 64gb sd cards. That'll be enough for 15 weddings at full raw. After a drive going down (fortunately it was raid so I lost nothing) the peace of mind I get will be fantastic!!


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Not at all. It's just that people have other options these days, some of which produce superior results in certain circumstances. 

Use each tool for its benefits, not just because you *can* use it. Modern methods are not worse just because they are modern.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I guess if you cant use flash correctly then it is not a good thing. However I dont use it as a style - just a way of controlling the light to improve the IQ. Perhaps this is a skill that is being lost.
> ...



Use of high DR (low ISO) to compensate for poor techniques cannot be considered as advancement - just because you can do it the lazy way.

You mention flash distance - but we place the flash just as close as we used to - just using modern wireless techniques to place the camera where we want it - a good use of new technology.

There are so many top pros that use extensive flash that to dismiss flash would be a folly. These people dont use flash for fun - they use it to improve the picture IQ


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Where did I suggest dismissing flash? Please don't place words into my mouth. 

The dismissiveness is on your side with high dr and the options it brings. So many top pros use high dr too. And high ISO. Tools for the job. 

And I'm talking about superior results - not laziness. Flash is not the automatic winner in all circumstances.

I can see this is something you feel strongly about so there's no point continuing the discussion.


----------



## Tcapp (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



But flash is fun! 

But, devils advocate, ever heard of natural light photography?  No flash! more DR is helpful.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 6, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



That's taking it to a silly point. Why don't you just bring out the R,G,B filters and shoot with three frames for each shot with a B&W camera. It's folly to dismiss that old technique. It's poor technique to not shoot that way. You are wasting so much color resolution.

If your camera captures the scene perfectly without spending an hour rigging things up it's not poor technique.
It's called not wasting time and getting a more natural looking results to boot. And it's called also being able to make more spontaneously shot stuff and large-scale stuff look better.

I'm not dismissing flash and rigging and whatnot by any means but you are dismissing things and tossing insults in as well.


----------



## helpful (May 6, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > > Quote from: helpful on May 04, 2012, 05:39:39 PM
> > > A really high DR better than the 5D3 doesn't really help. As I have explained in previous posts, a lower DR actually stores more data and detail from a scene than a camera with high DR. Ideally the dynamic range would match the scene's DR. Canon's DR probably fits more scenes better than Nikon's. If the dynamic range is higher than the dynamic range intrinsic to the scene, then it actually makes the picture worse (less fine variations in detail of recorded luminosity).
> >
> >
> ...



In your comments there are some mistakes, or perhaps you just read my first sentence which was not clear except in its original context.

* You don't gain information when DR is increased--you exchange one type of information for another. Unless more bits of data are recorded, there is a tradeoff when DR is increased.

I did make one mistake. I should have quoted what I was referring to at the end of the sentence, "A really high DR better than the 5D3 doesn't really help." I was referring to the case being discussed when the scene does not contain more stops of dynamic range than the range already available in the 5D3.

Increasing the DR range of the recorded image does lose data for a scene that does not contain that large of a dynamic range. This is just a mathematical fact--anyone know of the pigeonhole principle? You can't have a RAW file that contains 14 stops of DR and contain as much information in each stop as a RAW file which contains 12 stops of DR. Both RAW files contain 14 bits per color channel, and you can't store those extra two stops without losing data somewhere. The data is lost because the variation between slightly larger changes in color or intensity is "rounded off" to the same value in order to achieve higher DR.

I would like to point out that you actually realized the truth, but didn't grasp it. At the end of your remark, you said, "for some scenes there might be no data to record there, still you loose nothing." So if there is "no data to record there," then that means nothing is recorded there. You may think, "Well, a pixel IS recorded" and so there is no loss. But there is something lost--because that pixel that was recorded could have been recorded with a gamma value closer to one (depending on whether encoding or decoding is being referred to, it could be less than one or greater than one) and stored more tonality and detail.

I am not just speaking off of mathematical logic, but out of my knowledge, training, and education. I have my Ph.D. in mathematics and my field is inverse problems and mathematical imaging. I have multiple articles on the subject published, and the latest is pending publication. These are in top journals--the cheapest of which costs almost $1,500 British pounds for a yearly subscription.

I am also not just a theoretical textbook person. I just got back from spending the entire day photographing.

My purpose is to be helpful through my knowledge, for free and anonymously. You can take it or leave it.

* The last sentence is completely unbelievably painful to even read:

"Most cameras are noise-limited, not quantizer level limited. This means that once the signal reach the ADC, there is (at most) 14 bits of information from the saturation level and down to the noise floor."

That sentence is equivalent to worshiping RAW and saying that 14 bits is the end-all, be-all of everything--the most data that can possibly be contained in an image. If that were true, it wouldn't even be possible to change the ISO level on the camera, because the camera would be recording everything that could be recorded.

There is a compromise in everything. Isaac Newton made the mistake (based on 3rd-party eyes that he trusted better than his own vision) of thinking that there was no diffraction, and hence, he wrongly believed that an infinitely small aperture would be perfect. Likewise, a high dynamic range does not comes without trade-offs, unless a higher quality image format is introduced to store the additional stops of data. Personally, I am advocate of a 48-bit color (3x 16-bit RGB) + 16-bit logarithmic luminosity channel, like Sony's new RGB+W encoding, except with more bits to fit into the current processing standard of 64-bit "words" (i.e., chunks of data).

We can think of these encodings all day long, but no one has control of the market, and no one knows what will be successful.


----------



## sarangiman (May 6, 2012)

helpful,

Since you yourself pointed to Emil Martinec's website, I'm curious why you're still talking about rounding errors when he shows, rather convincingly, that cameras as of ~2008 didn't really benefit from even a 14-bit ADC b/c, essentially, noise is being oversampled at that point. Canon 5D Mark II's noise level at ISO 100, for example, is almost 6 ADU. That means that noise is being oversampled & it is unlikely that higher bit depth would lead to a more accurate representation of the signal since the signal itself can vary by ~6 ADU. 

If the noise level were 1 ADU or less, I would agree that there could be rounding errors due to quantization. But as it stands, Martinec's findings seem pretty convincing to me.

So I'd like to hear your counterargument.

Thanks.


----------



## helpful (May 6, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> helpful,
> 
> Since you yourself pointed to Emil Martinec's website, I'm curious why you're still talking about rounding errors when he shows, rather convincingly, that cameras as of ~2008 didn't really benefit from even a 14-bit ADC b/c, essentially, noise is being oversampled at that point. Canon 5D Mark II's noise level at ISO 100, for example, is almost 6 ADU. That means that noise is being oversampled & it is unlikely that higher bit depth would lead to a more accurate representation of the signal since the signal itself can vary by ~6 ADU.
> 
> ...



Right now the 14-bit data per color channel in the RAW is scaled appropriately to store the dynamic range of the camera's sensor, whatever that might be. If the scaling was changed, then the image from the camera's sensor could actually contain much more data. It's all integrated into hardware and firmware, so camera manufacturer's like to tell a little white lie and say that "RAW" is exactly what the camera is getting, i.e., coming through the lens. But the analog data always has more available than after analog to digital (ADC) conversion. True, the semiconductor components mess up the analog signal a lot, but there is still no reason to arbitrarily limit it at 14-bits.

I'm sorry for being harsh about your comment. It just seemed ironic to me why RAW would always be assumed to represent the maximum that "nature" has to offer--"nature" being the signal. 14-bits is an arbitrarily chosen number--a compromise.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (May 6, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If your camera captures the scene perfectly without spending an hour rigging things up it's not poor technique.
> It's called not wasting time and getting a more natural looking results to boot. And it's called also being able to make more spontaneously shot stuff and large-scale stuff look better.



Actually, flash is a lot like makeup. A good lighting job will look much more natural than natural light, just like a model with a good makeup job doesn't look like she's wearing any makeup at all.

And that really cuts to the heart of the matter, and to why I keep pounding on the fact that, if the 5DIII is inadequate, then so is the D800.

If the scene is so contrasty that you really need 14 clean stops instead of 12 clean stops, _you're shooting in bad light._ Not insufficient light, but _bad_ light. And the purpose of flash or other modifiers at that point is only secondarily to add light to the scene. That's incidental, an oh-by-the-way benefit. the real purpose is to _fix the light._ You know? Add depth and dimesion, sculpt the subject, separate it from its background or surroundings, that sort of thing. And I don't give a damn how much you play with sliders in Lightroom or even with a Wacom airbrush, that's stuff you simply can't do in post if you're even coming close to bumping up against the 5DIII's DR limits.

Once more, with feeling: if the 5DIII hase inadequate dynamic range (or megapixels), the answer isn't to be found in the D800. It's to be found in fixing the light or using some other technique (like HDR or graduated ND filters or whatever). And if you need more megapickles, you either need a multi-shot panorama or you need a larger sensor format.

Really, people. The differences between the two cameras in terms of image quality amounts to little more than a rounding error.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## cpsico (May 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > And that really cuts to the heart of the matter, and to why I keep pounding on the fact that, if the 5DIII is inadequate, then so is the D800.
> ...


_
I kind of agree with both of you, lol yes you are shooting in bad light if you need all that DR, but sometimes bad light is all you have when the moment wil never happen again_


----------



## Michael7 (May 6, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > If your camera captures the scene perfectly without spending an hour rigging things up it's not poor technique.
> ...



Lol. Try "fixing the light" in the middle of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Once more, with feeling: Huge advantage for people who shoot nature, moving or not.


----------



## Tcapp (May 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > And that really cuts to the heart of the matter, and to why I keep pounding on the fact that, if the 5DIII is inadequate, then so is the D800.
> ...


_

Hahaha. +1

And yea, you can't always use flash._


----------



## sarangiman (May 6, 2012)

> Right now the 14-bit data per color channel in the RAW is scaled appropriately to store the dynamic range of the camera's sensor, whatever that might be. If the scaling was changed, then the image from the camera's sensor could actually contain much more data.



Yes, I realize that ADCs are typically matched (loosely) to the DR of the sensor, considering full-well capacity & noise. And what I'm saying is that for the current sensors in question, your statement that the sensor with lower DR will contain more information for a lower DR scene (that is still within the DR of the camera), if of course the end points of the lower DR sensor were still mapped to the endpoints of the ADC, is *not correct* because of the read noise of the system. If the read noise were lower (say 1 electrons instead of >20 electrons), then your statement would be correct.

But as of ~2008, Martinec convincingly shows quantization error is largely absent because the read noise is more than adequately sampled (~6 ADU for the 5D Mark II/III!). Therefore, any more 'accurate' representation of the signal, as you are suggesting, will only more accurately represent the noise (fluctuations) within that signal, without any tangible benefit in actual image data.


----------



## briansquibb (May 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > And that really cuts to the heart of the matter, and to why I keep pounding on the fact that, if the 5DIII is inadequate, then so is the D800.
> ...


_

I understand Trumpet to mean highly contrastly light - which is when high dr/low iso would be useful. Flash is not the panacea for every occasion in the same way the high DR isn't either. I understood Trumpet to mean bad light as diffucult to shoot in light rather than low light.

Most of my shooting is outside which is why I have had to develop flash skills to compensate - for example last year I had to do both a wedding and a christening in blazing sun. Flash was the only way out of that situation as the DR was way beyond that of any camera.

I like using natual light wherever possible - yesterday was good light - bright day with an even cloud cover._


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 6, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > If your camera captures the scene perfectly without spending an hour rigging things up it's not poor technique.
> ...



Sorry, but this just isn't true. Imagine a girl walking along a path in the shade of some trees. In the same scene you can see snow tipped mountains in the background lit by evening sun. Let's say the camera is able to record both the girl and the mountains without excessive noise or highlight clipping.

Are you saying that the light in the shade on the girl is bad light? Because I can guarantee you it isn't. It might not be the light you want, but it won't be poor quality. Now think about the catchlights in the eyes: if you use external lighting to approach or match the exposure of the background, you're going to lose some of the beautiful reflections which reflect the brighter surroundings and partially replace it with a pin light. That's not more natural - its less.

Bad lighting would more likely be the "dirty light" of an indoor venue with dozens of light sources, but capturing shade and non shade and using the natural light makes total sense *in some circumstances*. There's times when each approach is right, but as I said earlier, adding light is not the best option in all circumstances.


----------



## briansquibb (May 6, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I think perhaps the confusion here is the meaning of 'bad light'. I clearly understand it differently to you in that I see it as a more generalised concept. I see bad light as light that makes taking the image difficult.

I think that both Dilbert and yourself have descibed two types of bad light. Dilbert's example might well be resolved by high DR, mixed colours probably wouldn't. 

Mixed colours is possibly the hardest light to shoot in - which is why there are still those using monochrome in those circumstances as the shooter is rarely able to influence the lighting ie at a concert or event.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 6, 2012)

Now that we have beaten lighting to death, it all comes back to the point of, if you absolutely need the DR and it makes financial sense your path is clear, either add a d800 to your bag next to your canon gear or have a yard sale and switch. If more DR is not an absolute necessity then, just a nice thing to have just in case, then you really don't need to be switching or adding to the bag.

And you know, if the need for it does arise, more times than not it would be on a job and if you knew it was an important job and want that little extra DR, why not go with a rental on body and lens?


----------



## Tcapp (May 6, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Now that we have beaten lighting to death, it all comes back to the point of, if you absolutely need the DR and it makes financial sense your path is clear, wither add a d800 to your bag next to your canon gear or have a yard sale and switch. If more DR is not an absolute necessity then, you know, just a nice thing to have just in case, then you really don't need to be switching or adding to the bag.
> 
> And you know, if the need for it does arise, more times than not it would be on a job and if you knew it was an important job and want that little extra DR, why not go with a rental on body and lens?



Finally, common sense returns!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (May 7, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> And you know, if the need for it does arise, more times than not it would be on a job and if you knew it was an important job and want that little extra DR, why not go with a rental on body and lens?



If the 5DIII isn't going to have enough dynamic range or resolution for your gig, you'd be a fool to rent (or buy) the D800. The improvement you get with the D800 is just too minimal to have a significant real-world impact in all but the most meaningless of marginal instances.

No, if the 5DIII can't cut the mustard, nothing in the 135 format ever will. What you need for those jobs is medium format -- and not the entry-level $10K kit, either. Plan on at least something in the range of the median annual household income.

The good news is that, if you're actually doing gigs where you really, truly need more than the 5DIII can deliver, then you're charging your clients enough that the MF gear will almost come out of your petty cash account. A single body and its lenses certainly won't be the most expensive part of your capital budget, regardless.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 7, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > And you know, if the need for it does arise, more times than not it would be on a job and if you knew it was an important job and want that little extra DR, why not go with a rental on body and lens?
> ...




Funny how when canon was 1-2 stops better than nikon sensors the nikon sensors were trash and canons sensors made a huge difference and now that canon is THREE stops worse in one area, that even in that area the difference is non-existant other than in the most meaningless of marginal circumstances. LOL

I'm not saying it is the end of the world, but come on with the ridiculous talk. Just admit it is 3 stops worse and that for some things that can be a difference and how much that matters depends upon the person and let's be done with it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 7, 2012)

helpful said:


> Increasing the DR range of the recorded image does lose data for a scene that does not contain that large of a dynamic range. This is just a mathematical fact--anyone know of the pigeonhole principle? You can't have a RAW file that contains 14 stops of DR and contain as much information in each stop as a RAW file which contains 12 stops of DR. Both RAW files contain 14 bits per color channel, and you can't store those extra two stops without losing data somewhere. The data is lost because the variation between slightly larger changes in color or intensity is "rounded off" to the same value in order to achieve higher DR.



The sensors have linear capture, RAW files are not tone-mapped but stored in linear fashion, they all have enough bits in the format, all the sensors with better DR do is make the shadow have less noise. 

The Canon sensors themselves aren't really any worse they have same DR as Sony it is how they get the read from them where it differs so the only difference those high DR ones provide is cleaner shadows.



> * The last sentence is completely unbelievably painful to even read:
> "Most cameras are noise-limited, not quantizer level limited. This means that once the signal reach the ADC, there is (at most) 14 bits of information from the saturation level and down to the noise floor."
> 
> That sentence is equivalent to worshiping RAW and saying that 14 bits is the end-all, be-all of everything--the most data that can possibly be contained in an image. If that were true, it wouldn't even be possible to change the ISO level on the camera, because the camera would be recording everything that could be recorded.



With the Exmor sensors that pretty much is the case. They are basically ISO-less. Shooting ISO100 and raising it in post 4 stops is basically the same result as shooting at ISO1600. With Canon cameras that is not at all the case.



> Likewise, a high dynamic range does not comes without trade-offs, unless a higher quality image format is introduced to store the additional stops of data. Personally, I am advocate of a 48-bit color (3x 16-bit RGB) + 16-bit logarithmic luminosity channel, like Sony's new RGB+W encoding, except with more bits to fit into the current processing standard of 64-bit "words" (i.e., chunks of data).
> We can think of these encodings all day long, but no one has control of the market, and no one knows what will be successful.



Most cameras can't even handle a basic 14bit linear file so we are not that sort of worry yet.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 7, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > If your camera captures the scene perfectly without spending an hour rigging things up it's not poor technique.
> ...



No the D800 might be adequate if the difference is within three stops.



> If the scene is so contrasty that you really need 14 clean stops instead of 12 clean stops, _you're shooting in bad light._ Not insufficient light, but _bad_ light.



And what about when Canon did 10 stops why isn't the new 12 stops they can do bad light? Because Canon can do it??



> And the purpose of flash or other modifiers at that point is only secondarily to add light to the scene. That's incidental, an oh-by-the-way benefit. the real purpose is to _fix the light._ You know? Add depth and dimesion, sculpt the subject, separate it from its background or surroundings, that sort of thing. And I don't give a damn how much you play with sliders in Lightroom or even with a Wacom airbrush, that's stuff you simply can't do in post if you're even coming close to bumping up against the 5DIII's DR limits.



It depends what you are shooting. If it spontaneous and dynamic, careful light sculpting won't work. If it is a grand scene of nature, forget it. 



> Once more, with feeling: if the 5DIII hase inadequate dynamic range (or megapixels), the answer isn't to be found in the D800. It's to be found in fixing the light or using some other technique (like HDR or graduated ND filters or whatever). And if you need more megapickles, you either need a multi-shot panorama or you need a larger sensor format.



Really so if three stops can make a difference for some scene it doesn't actually make the difference?

Really and before the 1Ds3 and 5D2 I guess you told people who wanted 21MP that the answer was not in 35mm but to go MF, and as soon as Canon has a 40MP camera then you will ok 35mm is fine for 40MP after all?



> Really, people. The differences between the two cameras in terms of image quality amounts to little more than a rounding error.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> b&



I don't wanna bash the 5D3, but that is ridiculous. 3 stops is hardly a rounding error. In that case the 6fps of the 5D3 in FF compared to 4fps in FF for the D800 is just a mere rounding error then too no? If you 4fps is not enough then 6fps will hardly be the answer either right?? yeah....


----------



## Aglet (May 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Not really. It seems DR is the only thing that matters.
> 
> Speaking of DR, I forgot to mention the D5100. With 13.6 stops of DR for $700, you get:
> 
> ...



Atta boy. 
I'll already provided the fodder for that one.


----------



## Aglet (May 7, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Right now the 14-bit data per color channel in the RAW is scaled appropriately to store the dynamic range of the camera's sensor, whatever that might be. If the scaling was changed, then the image from the camera's sensor could actually contain much more data.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think what helpful means is that IF the DR of the ADC was MATCHED to the DR of the scene, then more info could be had from a low DR scene, even with a lower resolution ADC, but he's not describing his idea clearly.

You could certainly get more info from a low DR scene and low DR ADC if they were matched up to the same low and high levels - but there aren't and they won't be. That kind of fiddling is ridiculous to do in a practical ADC system that's used in imaging this way. Not saying it can't be done, it just isn't at this point and doing so would require that a lot more post-processing scaling would have to be done for each image and then you would still have to move it up or down to place the relative data you acquired into an absolute frame of reference. That's why cameras work the way they do now.

Full scale of the ADC needs to be set to the full-well capacity of the sensor, everything else below scaled normally until base noise is a problem. We don't want to putz around by setting ADC's max to 2/3 of full well for this shot because nothing in the scene is that bright. If you were going to do that you'd do better scaling the analog signal from the sensor to match its peak value to ADC max. but that's still not a good system because we don't want relative data, we need absolute data to simplify creating the final image.

14 bits of ADC is good on SoNikon's latest sensors at low ISO
14 bits of ADC is 2 or more LSBits of noise on Canon's, even at low ISO

16 bits might be done on some specialty or analytical cameras with cooled sensors to get super low read noise.

compress all that down with the non-linear gamma we use and we get a useful 8 bit jpg sort of image.

Helpful, if you and the rest of the academics really want to improve SNR and DR performance, you'd devise a non-linear ADC and processing system to better utilize those bits by spreading them over a log function instead of a linear one. Then a 14 bit log ADC could = 14 stops of DR.


----------



## sarangiman (May 7, 2012)

> Helpful, if you and the rest of the academics really want to improve SNR and DR performance, you'd devise a non-linear ADC and processing system to better utilize those bits by spreading them over a log function instead of a linear one. Then a 14 bit log ADC could = 14 stops of DR.



But even if you, say, threw a 16-bit ADC into a 5D Mark III, that wouldn't help at all even for low signals, b/c those signals are subject to 6ADU (for a 14-bit ADC) of fluctuation anyway b/c of the ~33 electrons of read noise, correct? All you'd do is represent the noise even more adequately... the read noise would effectively go up to ~31ADU...

So what you're suggesting would only really help for a sensor/read combo that actually has 14 or more stops of DR (I think if read noise were only 1ADU, you might benefit from a little more precision? i.e. read noise of 2 ADU?). Yes?


----------



## pete vella (May 7, 2012)

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%201D%20Mark%20IV_14
Read Noise in ADUs Chart (2012-04-23) 

Enjoy ;D


----------



## weixing (May 7, 2012)

Hi,
Just wonder is it the way how Canon record the RAW images that cause this? For example, the dark frame RAW files from Canon 60D include the bias signal data (no light = 2048), while Nikon D700 RAW file remove the bias signal data (no light = 0).

Not sure about how this will affect real life image, but may be this is why Canon images look noisier in the dark shadow than Nikon?

Just my $0.02.

Have a nice day.


----------



## sarangiman (May 7, 2012)

Canon does preserve the noise information more than Nikon does because of this offset, but I haven't seen any data yet that quantitates how much the noise is 'crushed' by this pseudo-noise removal in Nikon cameras. 

I'd like to see what the deviation from the expected logarithmic curve one sees in the actual signals of patches of Stouffer Transmission wedge shots with these cameras. That might give some clue as to what degree shadows are crushed in Nikon RAW files, with the added benefit of a seemingly higher SNR in the dark patches due to the effective lowering of noise (which would give them higher DR estimates if you calculate DR by determining the number of stops between the brightest not-blown patch & the darkest patch that still yields SNR=1). I'm attempting to do this now with transmission wedge shots from the 5DIII & the D7000. As of now, the D7000 yields SNR>1 even at patch 42 (13.2EV), but I'm curious if shadow crushing due to Nikon's special processing of low signals ends up not representing the actual gradation between the darkest patches as well as it might otherwise.

I have no doubt that the Nikon/Sony sensors & signal processing yield better DR than Canon (Fred Miranda's comparison is rather convincing!)... I'm just curious if it's as great a difference in the real world as what the DXO testing methodology indicates.


----------



## psolberg (May 7, 2012)

jaayres20 said:


> I have a quick question about the dynamic range of the 5D3 which from what I have been reading is behind the D800. I have never owned a nikon and currently own two 5D3s. I understand what dynamic range is and how it is important for retaining details in the highlights and shadows of an image. I guess I would like to know from one who has seen the differences in the two cameras is what am I missing out on? How does a really high DR (better than the 5D3) help unless I am mostly shooting in high contrast lighting situations or am trying to push or pull and image by more than a couple of stops. I have always been really happy with the DR of my 5D2 and now my 5D3 and being a wedding photographer I shoot in about every lighting condition possible. I always shoot JPEG with highlight tone priority enabled and do my best to get the exposure and WB spot on. I also shoot in Faithful picture mode with the contrast turned down one notch. I end up with pretty flat images out of the camera with plenty of details in the highlights and shadows. Unless I really mis the exposure I have never been unhappy with the DR. I almost always end up adding contrast to the picture because there is too much DR and the image looks too flat. I probably won't own a Nikon so I am just curious from those who have seen the difference hands on how big of a difference is it and in what situations will it really be beneficial. It seems like low ISO high DR performance has become more important than high ISO low noise performance. I am not trying to start another debate over the two cameras I just want to know how much better it is and how much of a difference it would really make.



Unlike a lot of people commenting, I have taken the plunge, joined the dark side or whatever they call it, and actually OWN and SHOT with a D800 out in the field under tricky high contrast as well as even smooth controlled scenarios. My experience goes beyond reading reviews or articles about analog/digital SNR and all that stuff. Charts and equations are neat, but when you're in the field, you don't pull a calculator and start thinking about bits and crap like that. You shoot. 

Okay, now that you know my angle, I'll make it simple. Whatever many stops of DR the D800 has, it is just destroys any canon DSLR I've ever shot with, 5DII, mKIII whatever. In paticular, at ISO100 - 800. As for the benefits of that range, you ask a very relevant question. Where are the benefits? First of all let's understand who the D800 is for: Landscape, Studio, and Wedding/Portraits. The landscape guys need no explanation. They are always bracketing, using GND filters and pulling all sorts of tricks to get more DR. At $3000 the D800 (or slightly pricier D800E) is a deal since no current 35mm camera can match it . As Lloyd Chambers puts it



> I’m not inclined to disagree here. BTW, the rumor I’m hearing indirectly as word on the street from various dealers is that the Canon to Nikon switch is of tidal proportions, unprecedented.


http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120504_3-ReaderComment-5DM3.html

Studio. Resolution aside (which isn't the subject of this thread), I think they benefit less from the broad DR. But many studio photographers need shadows clean of noise for editing purposes and will do complex light setups so the added headroom isn't bad to have. I shoot under sutdio lights rarely and the times I do, I have kept everything within the range of lesser cameras.

Wedding/Portrait.
I just shot an engagement session in NYC and I'm absolutely in love with the D800, and a big reason is it's DR. The highlights slider in LR4 pulls so much detail out of the images that I almost fell of my chair. I was literally pulling sky detail from images where the 5DII would be dead white blown out. I could have done the same with a big strobe but in NYC you can't set those up anywhere. That is by far my favorite thing about this camera. 
In another shot, under shade, I incorrectly metered the background so my subject was nearly gone. No problem, I just re-meterd it it. But in post I went to the bad shot and rescued it. Shot at ISO100, I pulled all the detail I wanted out of the darks with nearly no hint of noise and whatever noise there was left, slight LR4 touches erradicated it. Awesome. Knowing I can pull that much out of the shadows and highlights I can now worry less about DR and more about composition and posing and more importantly, can now take shots I couldn't have before without strobes. I'm still going to use strobes naturally since even the D800 won't show all 20 stops of DR in a scene but it has definitively changed my mind about when I need strobes.

Lastly, girls in white dresses and guys in black moving around outdoors can stress your camera's metering system. The D800 has a very sophisticated 91K RGB meter (on par with the 1DX/D4), but even it goofs up sometime because its algorithms react as you expect: as an engineer not an artist. Having to compensate the meter up and down based on situations is extremelly annoying and a daily routine with lesser cameras. The D800's broader DR makes the inevitable glitch (camera or photographer) much less of an issue, if at all. It's one less crap to think about and if you shoot weddings, you already have enough in your mind.

Well hopefuly that sumarizes my own personal experience with the D800 coming from the red team. As usual, your subjects, shooting style and preferences may result in different reactions. So as they say, your mileage may vary. IMO this is the 5DmkIII I hoped for, it's just made by Nikon ;D. sorry.


----------



## V8Beast (May 7, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Unlike a lot of people commenting, I have taken the plunge, joined the dark side or whatever they call it, and actually OWN and SHOT with a D800 out in the field under tricky high contrast as well as even smooth controlled scenarios. My experience goes beyond reading reviews or articles about analog/digital SNR and all that stuff. Charts and equations are neat, but when you're in the field, you don't pull a calculator and start thinking about bits and crap like that. You shoot.



Amen to that, brudda  



> I just shot an engagement session in NYC and I'm absolutely in love with the D800, and a big reason is it's DR. The highlights slider in LR4 pulls so much detail out of the images that I almost fell of my chair. I was literally pulling sky detail from images where the 5DII would be dead white blown out. I could have done the same with a big strobe but in NYC you can't set those up anywhere. That is by far my favorite thing about this camera.
> In another shot, under shade, I incorrectly metered the background so my subject was nearly gone. No problem, I just re-meterd it it. But in post I went to the bad shot and rescued it. Shot at ISO100, I pulled all the detail I wanted out of the darks with nearly no hint of noise and whatever noise there was left, slight LR4 touches erradicated it. Awesome. Knowing I can pull that much out of the shadows and highlights I can now worry less about DR and more about composition and posing and more importantly, can now take shots I couldn't have before without strobes. I'm still going to use strobes naturally since even the D800 won't show all 20 stops of DR in a scene but it has definitively changed my mind about when I need strobes.
> 
> Lastly, girls in white dresses and guys in black moving around outdoors can stress your camera's metering system. The D800 has a very sophisticated 91K RGB meter (on par with the 1DX/D4), but even it goofs up sometime because its algorithms react as you expect: as an engineer not an artist. Having to compensate the meter up and down based on situations is extremelly annoying and a daily routine with lesser cameras. The D800's broader DR makes the inevitable glitch (camera or photographer) much less of an issue, if at all. It's one less crap to think about and if you shoot weddings, you already have enough in your mind.



Thanks for posting your impressions. I find feedback from the field much more useful than debating lab tests. Looks like you'll be putting your D800's DR to good use, that is whenever Nikon decides to ship it  I've been curious why most of the praise has been heaped at the D800's shadow recovery, and not the highlights, but your testing seems to confirm that its DR is great for recovering highlights as well. 



> Well hopefuly that sumarizes my own personal experience with the D800 coming from the red team. As usual, your subjects, shooting style and preferences may result in different reactions. So as they say, your mileage may vary. IMO this is the 5DmkIII I hoped for, it's just made by Nikon ;D. sorry.



That's funny, because the 5DIII is more of what I expected from the D700 replacement, which is why I own a 5DIII. That makes me wonder how content D700 users are with the D800? Instead of a baby D4 like they were hoping for, they got a D800 with triple the resolution and a slower burst rate than the camera it replaces. That gives them the option of switching from the "low-light, high speed" religion to the "slow-speed, high-resolution" religion, or buying a D4 or a used D3s. You'd think that the D4/D3s option - or switching to Canon for the 5DIII - would be the most practical solution, but switching religions for the sake of fanboyism isn't all that uncommon ;D


----------



## well_dunno (May 7, 2012)

Sorry if this is a noob question but most of what I read talk of photosite size positively correlating with the DR. Somehow the cameras with better DR are not the ones that have the biggest photosites though. I understand SNR is a limiter however not sure if that is the reason for, let us say, mk3 with bigger photosites having worse DR than D800. 

I took a look at the thread but could not get it clear for myself. Could anyone shed light on this? :-[

Cheers!


----------



## psolberg (May 7, 2012)

> That's funny, because the 5DIII is more of what I expected from the D700 replacement, which is why I own a 5DIII. That makes me wonder how content D700 users are with the D800? Instead of a baby D4 like they were hoping for, they got a D800 with triple the resolution and a slower burst rate than the camera it replaces. That gives them the option of switching from the "low-light, high speed" religion to the "slow-speed, high-resolution" religion, or buying a D4 or a used D3s. You'd think that the D4/D3s option - or switching to Canon for the 5DIII - would be the most practical solution, but switching religions for the sake of fanboyism isn't all that uncom



You make a good point. However, I think that the Nikon crowd remains very well served with the D700 which shoots up to 8fps, has a 51pt AF system of the prior D3 flagship, full frame, and high ISO capabilities between the mkII and mkIII. Lacking video yes, but that aside, for $2200 dollars, it is very good value for a budget fast shooter that isn't concerned with movies. Certainly many canonites wished they had a similar camera from canon for that price. To date, nothing quite matches the full frame D700 speed at that relatively cheap price point. They can buy nearly 3 cameras for the price of one 1DX/D4 flagship body and only give up 4 - 6 MP and a few fps in the process.

So I think Nikonians are a little spoiled if you ask me. I understand they are eager to see a D710 just to push ISO levels...even if they don't use them, but after seeing what the 5DIII costs, they better watch what they wish for....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 7, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Canon does preserve the noise information more than Nikon does because of this offset, but I haven't seen any data yet that quantitates how much the noise is 'crushed' by this pseudo-noise removal in Nikon cameras.
> 
> I'd like to see what the deviation from the expected logarithmic curve one sees in the actual signals of patches of Stouffer Transmission wedge shots with these cameras. That might give some clue as to what degree shadows are crushed in Nikon RAW files, with the added benefit of a seemingly higher SNR in the dark patches due to the effective lowering of noise (which would give them higher DR estimates if you calculate DR by determining the number of stops between the brightest not-blown patch & the darkest patch that still yields SNR=1). I'm attempting to do this now with transmission wedge shots from the 5DIII & the D7000. As of now, the D7000 yields SNR>1 even at patch 42 (13.2EV), but I'm curious if shadow crushing due to Nikon's special processing of low signals ends up not representing the actual gradation between the darkest patches as well as it might otherwise.
> 
> I have no doubt that the Nikon/Sony sensors & signal processing yield better DR than Canon (Fred Miranda's comparison is rather convincing!)... I'm just curious if it's as great a difference in the real world as what the DXO testing methodology indicates.



I think it is.

OTOH I believe it is said to not be good for astro photography since it messes up proper stacking.


----------



## Tcapp (May 7, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Sorry if this is a noob question but most of what I read talk of photosite size positively correlating with the DR. Somehow the cameras with better DR are not the ones that have the biggest photosites though. I understand SNR is a limiter however not sure if that is the reason for, let us say, mk3 with bigger photosites having worse DR than D800.
> 
> I took a look at the thread but could not get it clear for myself. Could anyone shed light on this? :-[
> 
> Cheers!



Photosite size will only help DR if all else is exactly the same. D800 sensor has different technology going into it than other sensors, so it overcomes the smaller photosite thing. If you took the D800 sensor, and just reduced the resolution but changed NOTHING ELSE, it might have even better dynamic range and low light performance. But you cant compare different sensors from different generations or manufacturers based on photosite size. Advancements in technology over shadow the size difference. 

Its like saying that a bigger car engine gives more power. Its a true statement for the most part. But if you compare engines made today to ones produced 20 years ago, todays better technology can get more power and efficiency out of a smaller engine.


----------



## sarangiman (May 7, 2012)

> OTOH I believe it is said to not be good for astro photography since it messes up proper stacking.



Why would shadow crushing mess up proper stacking? It can change the noise profile, but random noise will still be removed by stacking...

I'm wondering if shadow crushing was the reason astrophotographers generally don't go w/ Nikon (aside from the fact that Canon offers cameras w/ better filters for astrophotography)? But if the read noise is extremely low, that may be irrelevant when compared to the noisy Canon images (especially when you consider FPN). 

But I don't really know. Would love for an actual astrophotographer to chime in...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 8, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > OTOH I believe it is said to not be good for astro photography since it messes up proper stacking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wouldn't it mess things up if all of the less than zero noise was gone and you wanted to average frame right near black?

Anyway I hear that they also automatically apply NR to RAW files for long exposures. Apparently people using them for astro have to play games by switching modes or shutting it off an somehow restarting the same exposure again, perhaps a few different times, to build up a long exposure without getting NR baked into the RAW.


----------



## sarangiman (May 8, 2012)

> Wouldn't it mess things up if all of the less than zero noise was gone and you wanted to average frame right near black?



I don't see why it would. Temporally variant noise is temporally variant whether or not its negative variation around an arbitrarily set 'black point' is clipped. You'd still get rid of it by image averaging.


----------



## Tcapp (May 8, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Wouldn't it mess things up if all of the less than zero noise was gone and you wanted to average frame right near black?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why it would. Temporally variant noise is temporally variant whether or not its negative variation around an arbitrarily set 'black point' is clipped. You'd still get rid of it by image averaging.



And here I thought I knew a lot about the tech side of photography. I have ZERO idea what you just said, but you sound smart.


----------



## sarangiman (May 8, 2012)

Yet another example of FPN on my 5D Mark III...

Here's the full shot:






And here's a 100% crop:





See the full image at 100% here (drag it around on your screen to see banding): http://cl.ly/GSVA/Canon5DIII-FPNinSkies.png

I personally find this somewhat unacceptable in the light of EXMOR sensors, though I understand others may not.

FYI I averaged 5 exposures (this is ISO 200), which actually accentuates FPN b/c temporally variant noise is removed.

FYI the blue sky *in the original RAW* is 10% R, 17%G, 24%B... hardly unreasonable, IMHO, for a little shadow lift.

Yet it shows this kinda FPN.

This is sort of unacceptable to me in the face of technology like the D800. YMMV, of course, but I think Canon should step it up & offer something somewhat competitive.


----------



## sarangiman (May 8, 2012)

> And here I thought I knew a lot about the tech side of photography. I have ZERO idea what you just said, but you sound smart.



Er, uh... thanks?


----------



## TrumpetPower! (May 8, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Yet another example of FPN on my 5D Mark III...



I must be blind. I don't see any fixed-pattern noise in that shot.

I DO see some clouds generally running horizontally through the scene. Perhaps that's what you're referring to?

b&


----------



## Tcapp (May 8, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another example of FPN on my 5D Mark III...
> ...



I see it. Its only there at 100% on a high end calibrated monitor. Would a client ever see it? Nope.


----------



## pete vella (May 8, 2012)

Would a client see it? maybe not. Does he see it? for sure. Do i see it on my iphone 4 ? Yes


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 8, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > sarangiman said:
> ...



I agree. I didn't see it on my work monitor, but I can see it on my "photo" monitor at home.

I think the client angle is one I would take. If my clients wouldn't notice it, it's not actually a problem unless I want to make it a problem.

Different clients have different expectations of course. A high end beauty campaign - yes they may notice and they wouldn't be that happy, especially if the retouch budget increased to fix it. A high street studio taking portraits? No.


----------



## luc_october (May 8, 2012)

FIXED 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16954130/Canon5DIII-FPNinSkiesdebanding.jpg

I recommend using debanding plugins in post.


----------



## Kernuak (May 8, 2012)

I have a few questions. The first is why did you blend 5 exposures. As you say, that tends to accentuate noise and I find that long exposure shots like this don't have that much dynamic range. In addition, digital sensors don't cope as well with film when exposing for several minutes (i.e. 15 or so minutes plus), I have seen that comment from Nikon shooters too. The second question is how much sharpening was performed. Again, sharpening tends to accentuate noise (or at least make it more visible) I tend not to sharpen, unless I intend to print, in which casem the reproduction isn't large enough to show any noise. The final questions are how long was the exposure and how much did you push a) the image overall and b) the shadows, as the EXIF info has been wiped.


----------



## fotografiasi (May 8, 2012)

luc_october said:


> FIXED
> 
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16954130/Canon5DIII-FPNinSkiesdebanding.jpg
> 
> I recommend using debanding plugins in post.



what debanding plugin did you use?


----------



## sarangiman (May 8, 2012)

Hi folks,

Thanks for the feedback, and good job with the debanding luc_october. It's effective; however, you'll notice that fine vertical lines in the building on the bottom right have also disappeared. This is generally why I don't like noise removal... it lowers MTF, and when I go to print, I always choose the one without noise removal... kind of like how film grain sharpens prints. 

Out of curiosity, what software did you use luc_october?

For those still looking for the banding, view at 100%, and look for vertical striations. Move the image around to see it easily.

Those saying a client won't see it-- maybe. But remember, this sky was actually not even that dark. The original exposure is 1" at f/16, ISO 200. It was, on average, RGB of (24,29,44) on a 0-255 scale in the original RAW. For the more technically inclined, the RAW 14-bit RGBG data is somewhere around (after a subtraction of 2047, the offset bias):

R: 70
G1:260
B: 290
G2: 260

The read noise on this scale is 6 (as determined from dark frames). So we're *well* above the noise floor. This just confirms what someone else here (or on photo.net, I forget) pointed out: that the *FPN is overlayed over everything*, not just low signals. It's just more easily seen over low signals b/c of the percentage of the signal the FPN makes up. But that doesn't mean it won't be apparent elsewhere, especially in areas of smooth tonality.

Here's another example; original image on right, vignetting correction + a gentle shadow lift on left (+100 blacks, +22 shadows in LR4; +100 blacks is *not as drastic as it sounds*, if you've used LR4 you know this):





View it at 100% here: http://cl.ly/GS7R/5DIIIBandingUponVignettingCorrection.jpg

Again, vertical banding is apparent even in image areas that aren't that dark to begin with. This was shot w/ the 35/1.4, so vignetting correction is often necessary in the corners. Or not, depending on your artistic intent.

My point is simply that there's no trace of this in any Nikon file I've seen thus far, so it's disappointing to me, & I would've expected better in 2012 from Canon.

Kernauk:

I averaged 5 exposures to get rid of noise in the buildings (both shot & read noise is reduced by image averaging)... there was a good deal of noise there since the buildings were rather underexposed in order to not blow any channels in the moon. Rather than HDR this, I just averaged 5 exposures which was pretty effective in getting rid of noise in the buildings. The FPN isn't so apparent in the buildings b/c of all the other detail there (not an area of smooth tonality).

I performed masked sharpening so as to not sharpen the sky as much as everything else. Unmasked sharpening accentuated the FPN even more.

Image averaging is another approach to HDR -- you're effectively removing shadow noise so you can boost it more effectively. A camera with higher DR (lower shadow noise) would do better, of course, since the read noise contribution would be considerably lower (e.g. on a D800). Shot noise down there would still remain though, & so the image might still benefit from image averaging. But anyway, I digress at this point...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 8, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Wouldn't it mess things up if all of the less than zero noise was gone and you wanted to average frame right near black?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why it would. Temporally variant noise is temporally variant whether or not its negative variation around an arbitrarily set 'black point' is clipped. You'd still get rid of it by image averaging.



Right at zero though say a pixel is, on different frames, value -5,-1,0,1,-2,0,-1,0,-1,-2,-4,1,1,-1,2,0,2,6,-3,3,0 and you avg that you get a different value then if you chop off all the negative results and avg over 0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,6,3, you end up with a bit higher number and on avg with a million frames it would not avg to 0 but to a bit above I'd think. Whether that really matters a lot I don't know since I haven't done that sort of photography.


----------

