# AF might be way better, sensor barely at all, video mode only half fixed(?)



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 22, 2012)

looking at some AF tests on some forums, early tests, rather brief, etc. etc. keep that in mind, hint at a really humungous improvement in AF. In one test a guy focused a fast lens, wide open, barely any DOF on his little girl's eye and the center point 5D2 was dead on sometimes and somewhat off sometimes only truly nailing focus about 50% of the time, the 5D3 was dead on pretty much every frame, considerably better performance; using the left point, the 5D2 was off on by far most frames, looked like 80%+ off, while the 5D3 appeared to be just about dead on on every single frame. 

So the AF earlier results, at least for non-sports tracking, are showing some very encouraging signs. I also saw one guy post a perfectly focused shot of a backlit shopkeeper with tons of brigher and more contrasty and detailed stuff behind him, a test that canon af has often failed on, certainly below 1 series, so that was looking great too.

OTOH, one of the guys posted a high ISO comparison and yeah the 5D3 was better, but wow it looked closer to only 1/3rd stop better.  Granted using ACR is NOT the best way to test and maybe at the super duper high iso above ISO6400 the story would be different. But if this result held up then we have basically the same sensor as the 5D2 with just a few minor tweaks while nikon put much process sensors in the D4 and D800, even the D4 a non-exmor, managed to improve 1 stop low ISO DR over a few years, but Canon not a single bit :'(. It seems Canon is investing less in sensor fab while charging a lot more for their equipment now. :-\

So we are facing a new situation, we are like the Nikon of old, body performance may be fantastic but the sensor kinda pales in comparison (although maybe at ISO1600+ it will be top notch current so it may only be behind on one end of the scale, IF it does get to D3s-type leves on the top end that is certainly a nice improvement, no doubt).

Hopefully the more careful tests of DxO will paint a better picture of the High ISO tale though. And we will at least get high ISO up to D3s,D4 standards. This guy's test looked a bit worrisome, looked questionable to even match the D800 at high ISO, but other tests make it seem quite possible. ANd it's all but been established that the D800 will be noticeable better at ISO 100 for scenes having large dynamic range (they really are not that hard to come across, in part, people were so used to thinking them impossible, they don't even see them anymore in their photographic mind's eye and automatically right them off without even thinking about it).

But the early AF tests are looking VERY, VERY good so far. The body performance seems great this time.

ADD: I've since seen reports from a few people who shot a game or two and they said it did better than their 1 series body when it came to AF.

ADD: The video is apparently blurry and not real 1920x1080 again, getting blasted on the video pro blogs apparently, if they couldn't do 3x3 smoothtly since those blocks are too large compared to the AA filter without having to blur down res to stop aliasing then why not offer a second, cropped mode, using 2x2 blocks like the C300? That may have made the video on this totally killer and been better for the wildlife videographers just in general.


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

Well the sensor was already top notch anyway.


----------



## markd61 (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

All I ever wanted was better AF. Really a 7D body with FF. Pity about the price.

Sensors are so good it is unlikely we will see further quantum jumps in quality.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

It is a totally new sensor


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

have you actually used it or just looking at internet waffle?
This camera is awesome period. 
I feel like a veil has been lifted going from the 5D2 to this
I was never unhappy with the IQ from the mk2


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



wickidwombat said:


> have you actually used it or just looking at internet waffle?
> This camera is awesome period.
> I feel like a veil has been lifted going from the 5D2 to this
> I was never unhappy with the IQ from the mk2



I was happy until I saw the output side to side with output from the 1ds3. Need to do the same test with the 5DIII to see how it compares (at iso 100 and 200)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



markd61 said:


> All I ever wanted was better AF. Really a 7D body with FF. Pity about the price.
> 
> Sensors are so good it is unlikely we will see further quantum jumps in quality.



Well it sounds like you got it then, since the AF seems to be testing well. On that one guys test it easily bested the 5D2 center point (which, IMO, was at least as good, for non-AI Servo, as the 7D center point). Granted AI Servo hasn't been tested yet. But I'd be stunned if it didn't do as well as the 7D and surprised if it didn't do a lot better (only guesses of course).

Well Nikon/Sony sensors are now so good you might not see much better than the D800 sensor, but Canon has a loooong way to go for low ISO dynamic range, like a huge 2-3 stops way to go, and we will see whether they have reached the limit in high iso or not when DxO comes out with their report.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But I'd be stunned if it didn't do as well as the 7D and surprised if it didn't do a lot better (only guesses of course).



I would be stunned if a 7D was as good as a 1D4 - and the 1DX is an upgrade from the 1D4 ......


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > have you actually used it or just looking at internet waffle?
> ...



how did you get the 1Ds3 to shoot at 25600!?


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



with the help of 2 x 580EXII and 4 x 580EX I never need more than iso200  I even have a Flash X-Tender for the 400


----------



## gecko (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

I'm considering the upgrade, but it's looking less likely. 

Stil waiting for in-depth reviews, but it seems to be as sugested above - super new AF, great body, but the sensor probably delivering most of its performance improvments in the high ISO range. 

IQ is pretty great in the MkII, so, for me, the imperitive to upgrade seems minimal. 

Will make a lot of other people happy though.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

I occasionally use natural light as well - like this from Wednesday - this is Jenny Tinmouth, the only female competitor in the British Superbikes

I was also using the 1D4 as I was waving a long one at the track as well  I had a 7D as well - it seemed so slow to lock on with the 400 f/2.8 - missed more shots than the 1D4 which has excellent AF even on the 600. The 5DIII has the same AF as the 1DX which is meant to be better than the 1D4 - it must be stonking

This picture was with the 70-200 f/2.8II on the 1D4


----------



## 4jphotography (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

Pretty stoked on mine.. Feels more substantial, and the AF is pretty crazy. That said, I'm not seeing a huge amount of IQ difference except at high ISO, above 3200. Going to test it at a shoot tomorrow night "for real". At the end of the day though, it doesn't seem like a massive jump from the 5d2. I also mainly shoot full manual, even focus, so maybe the finer points are being lost on me. Can't tell if I have the "new gear afterglow" or if I really feel like I got my $3400 worth (compared to what I already have).


----------



## x-vision (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ... and yeah the 5D3 was better, but wow it looked closer to only 1/3rd stop better.



Yes, ISO performance is indeed 1/3rd stop better at ISO-6400. 
Maybe be more at higher ISOs but I don't care about these, as the noise at ISO-6400 is already at my personal usability limit (YMMV). 
The 5DIII also has a bit better color accuracy than the 5DII. 

Overall, my subjective evaluation is that the sensor improvement is maybe 15% and the AF is maybe 3x better.
Again, these are subjective measurements that I've attached to this camera based on what I've seen so far.

These definitely do not warrant the price increase. 
So, for now the 5DIII gets a firm "hold" recommendation from me  8). 

When the 5DIII drops to $2500, it would be a fantastic buy, though. 
Patience, padawan, patience.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

Anyone compared it at iso 100-400 against the 5DII??


----------



## Invertalon (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

Shooting the camera all day today, IMO the 5D3 has superior IQ and that is just JPEG comparing now... I assume it will get even better with LR4 RAW processing. 

AF is WAY better no doubt. Tracking is dead on. No contest.

ISO performance also clearly better, even the RAW files. The ISO 12,800 RAW file looks better then the 5D2 6400 file. The noise is nicer, cleaner looking with more detail. ISO 25,600 RAW is not shabby either. No blotchy RAW noise, just nice grain. No banding, amp glow, etc...

To ME, clear improvement with high ISO. YMMV.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



briansquibb said:


> Anyone compared it at iso 100-400 against the 5DII??


I haven't done any side by side yet just took the 5D3 out last night over the weekend i'll do some decent side by side shooting

actually the closer i look at the raws in bridge and ACR PS the less impressed i am with the 5D3
sharpness seems better in DPP but I hate using DPP


----------



## te4o (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



4jphotography said:


> Pretty stoked on mine.. Feels more substantial, and the AF is pretty crazy. That said, I'm not seeing a huge amount of IQ difference except at high ISO, above 3200. Going to test it at a shoot tomorrow night "for real". At the end of the day though, it doesn't seem like a massive jump from the 5d2. I also mainly shoot full manual, even focus, so maybe the finer points are being lost on me. Can't tell if I have the "new gear afterglow" or if I really feel like I got my $3400 worth (compared to what I already have).



How is the Fully MF going without a focusing screen? Is the new VF better in that respect than the MkII one?

WIckedW, good luck with the review comparisons - much appreciated!


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone compared it at iso 100-400 against the 5DII??
> ...



I am not a supporter of LR or CS but <3 DPP. Why not use the software that was designed to process RAW - and it is free


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/22/5dmk3/

video mode seems to big a nice improvement in terms of moire/aliasing but a big let down for resolution, maybe C300 protectionism now?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*

It is really starting to sound like they RADICALLY improved the AF but kinda lamed out on everything else. For that, IMO, it should not have been above the old $2700 price. The new AF should be totally awesome, but I mean for 3.5 years it was expected to have SOMETHING be much better for the same price.

I really hoped that at least the video would totally stomp it out of the park but all the talk is it's still pretty soft video and has more of a DVD feel compared to the cams that can give blu-ray-like resolution. darn. I thought they'd at least knock the video out of the park in all respects.

I don't get all the talk about we chose 22MP to focus on image quality and getting perfect video if the video turns out to still be mushy and soft and the low ISO has zero dynamic range improvement and now I wonder if the high ISO will be more like 1/3rd stop instead of 2/3rd stops better unless you shoot over ISO6400 which is always a bit marginal anyway.

Man, I do like the AF, but I kinda feel like they held back on us a bit too much to deserve my $3500. I'll see. I may wait it out a while. It sounds like the video world is semi-underwhelmed and that may not create a market sustaining rush as much as it did for 5D2 pricing. We'll see.... Of course ridding moire/aliasing is certainly very big true, that alone will make a big difference, especially for landscape/nature-type stuff, but to still have the old not really at all full 1920x1080 after 3.5 years, hmmm.

For $2700 I think I'd be diving at it now, but $3500.... man, I don't know at all. Can't help but feel they are over-pricing it. Maybe DxO results and the detailed video tests will still change my mind.


----------



## gecko (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



wickidwombat said:


> actually the closer i look at the raws in bridge and ACR PS the less impressed i am with the 5D3
> sharpness seems better in DPP but I hate using DPP



Is that using DPPs un-AA function?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 23, 2012)

another video review:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review

he doesn't seem too thrilled  to say the least he basically out and out blasts them....
(to be fair the GH2 is a bit stair-stepped, so it's maybe not quite a 100% natural extra detail, but the 5D3 does look a bit soft though, mcuh softer than the C300, which has a great quality)

I know I get heat for blasting Canon so much in forums, but this why, so they avoid stuff like this and stop being so conservative before they blow it all. They did finally listen on AF, but as soon as they listen on that then they get even more conservative on the other elements. That is not the way to charge forward, take over and dominate markets and become THE player for the long term. You don't want to sit on leads and milk things so much.

And it is a good thing they got lots of heat on AF, because if they hadn't gone to town on that this time, finally, they'd really have been in trouble. They do seem to ahve delivered in spades on that at least and it's not a minor element by any means.


----------



## kubrick (Mar 23, 2012)

CameraLabs just posted some 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II noise comparison shots (JPEG only, RAW to follow)
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/high_ISO_noise.shtml


----------



## JR (Mar 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ...while nikon put much process sensors in the D4 and D800, even the D4 a non-exmor, managed to improve 1 stop low ISO DR over a few years, but Canon not a single bit :'(. It seems Canon is investing less in sensor fab while charging a lot more for their equipment now. :-\



BTW when we look at DxO for the D4, the sensor is actually less performant then the old D3s by a small margin. Granted they increased resolution so it does not mean the sensor is not good, just pointing out they have not increased ISO performance with the D4. D3s is still king from NIkon unfortunately.


----------



## JR (Mar 23, 2012)

kubrick said:


> CameraLabs just posted some 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II noise comparison shots (JPEG only, RAW to follow)
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/high_ISO_noise.shtml



Just looking at these sample I dont understand why poeple say the new sensor is not better. First on noise these pictures suggest to my eye ~1.5 stop better ISO. Color and details are way better on the mkIII compared to the mkII, again using these pictures.


----------



## Invertalon (Mar 23, 2012)

The 5D3 is clearly better, if you shot one yourself... Many people are just finding bad excuses for examples and going based of that. It IS better, no doubt...


----------



## x-vision (Mar 23, 2012)

JR said:


> BTW when we look at DxO for the D4, the sensor is actually less performant then the old D3s by a small margin. Granted they increased resolution so it does not mean the sensor is not good, just pointing out they have not increased ISO performance with the D4. D3s is still king from NIkon unfortunately.



+1


----------



## x-vision (Mar 23, 2012)

JR said:


> kubrick said:
> 
> 
> > CameraLabs just posted some 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II noise comparison shots (JPEG only, RAW to follow)
> ...



Because these are out-of-camera JPGs.
The JPG engine in the 5DIII is obviously vastly better than in the 5DII. 
Produces results on par with a good RAW converter. 

Surely a big improvement but RAW comparisons show that the *sensor* (not the JPG engine) is hardly improved.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> another video review:
> http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review
> 
> he doesn't seem too thrilled  to say the least he basically out and out blasts them....
> ...



although to be fair I can't agree when he says his video there would have looked the same from teh 5D2, my 5D2 turns all those fine tree branches into aliased city and as you pan or move the finest twigs can literally pop in and out of existence and I see none of that in his video, it is true that is not bitingly sharp though , although I do think the GH2 has some issues with stair-stepped sharpness that he fails to mention, still that could probably be cured in post and the detail can't be brought back from the Canon


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



markd61 said:


> All I ever wanted was better AF. Really a 7D body with FF. Pity about the price.
> 
> Sensors are so good it is unlikely we will see further quantum jumps in quality.



Ditto. This camera is what my dr ordered.


----------



## x-vision (Mar 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I know I get heat for blasting Canon so much in forums



In all fairness, Canon deserves to be blasted for the 5DIII price. 

Other than that, they did a pretty good job with the camera itself .


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



te4o said:


> 4jphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty stoked on mine.. Feels more substantial, and the AF is pretty crazy. That said, I'm not seeing a huge amount of IQ difference except at high ISO, above 3200. Going to test it at a shoot tomorrow night "for real". At the end of the day though, it doesn't seem like a massive jump from the 5d2. I also mainly shoot full manual, even focus, so maybe the finer points are being lost on me. Can't tell if I have the "new gear afterglow" or if I really feel like I got my $3400 worth (compared to what I already have).
> ...



i've had it for a day and a half now, the VF standard is FAR better than the 5Dmk2 with an EG-S screen in it
its probably not as good as a 1D VF but its not far off, I'm very happy with the VF upgrade even in dim light 3200 ISO+ i found i could MF well using my sigma 85 f1.4 I dont think i would bother with an EG-S screen in this camera even if they were available.


----------



## samueljay (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



wickidwombat said:


> te4o said:
> 
> 
> > 4jphotography said:
> ...



Thanks Wombat! You've made my day!


----------



## eaglem (Mar 23, 2012)

For anyone questioning the 5d3 not being sharp.







http://imgur.com/EKHR8

With 135L and Strobe off camera into a reflective umbrella. 
ISO 400
F 7.1
1/200th


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 23, 2012)

here are a couple of raw files not taken at the same time
but same lens and model (my wife)
first one is 5Dmk3 in AI servo tacking from outer top left focus point walking towards

second one is 5Dmk2 center point focus recompose

https://rapidshare.com/files/265985045/045C0110.CR2
https://rapidshare.com/files/2949940123/IMG_8491.CR2

I have to recheck the Micro adjust on my sigma 85 for the 5D3 but to me it looks like the 5D2 is sharper
its not 100% fair comparision because i was so excited about AF thats what i wanted to play with yesterday
i'll do more in line comparisons on the weekend.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 23, 2012)

are those links working to rapidshare that i put up?


----------



## nighstar (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



samueljay said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > i've had it for a day and a half now, the VF standard is FAR better than the 5Dmk2 with an EG-S screen in it
> ...



indeed, mine as well. thanks, wickidwombat.

i already have my Mark III, but i'm swamped with work so it's staying in its box for now...


----------



## nighstar (Mar 23, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> are those links working to rapidshare that i put up?



they work for me, although i haven't actually dld the files.


----------



## te4o (Mar 23, 2012)

Thank you Wombat!!! Big news for me: VF is my issue with the Zeiss primes. Good news! Much appreciated, your opinion though is bi-phasic. 
I don't know if I'm going insane but if a week ago I was swinging between MkII and MkIII several times a day, now it happens several times I read ONE single thread and even within ONE SINGLE POST!


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 23, 2012)

You all know that this is the mythical "3D" that everybody's been asking for since 2005, right? It's here!


----------



## OscarGoldman (Mar 23, 2012)

*What's this about the video?*

The subject mentions "video half fixed", but I don't see any discussion of it.

How is it "half-fixed"? If Canon didn't add at least some quick-&-dirty pixel-averaging downscaling, then they hugely missed the boat and laid an expensive turd here.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



wickidwombat said:


> have you actually used it or just looking at internet waffle?
> This camera is awesome period.
> I feel like a veil has been lifted going from the 5D2 to this
> I was never unhappy with the IQ from the mk2



The funny thing is that while the tech heads and pixel peepers are going poo poo over the spec sheets and 100% crops, I find myself blown away by the overall IQ of the 5DIII's files. For lack of a better phrase, I find the image quality f***ing stunning. The color, contrast, and sharpness have that film-like quality the 5-series bodies are known for, and now the MKIII matches that up with pro-grade AF and build quality, 6 FPS, and dual card slots. I will put every single one of those features to good use on every single shoot. However, I will never hear back from a client complaining about how they weren't impressed by what they saw when they pixel-peeped my images at 100%. 

I understand that judging a camera merely by the "wow factor" of its images is far too subjective for tech heads, but that's fine by me because photography is a subjective medium. I also concede that the D800 seems to top the 5DIII in many technical benchmarks at a lower price, but that's OK too, because its advantages aren't enough to make me a better photographer. 

IMHO, the 5DII was a smashing success not because of how well it performed in a lab, but rather due to the stunning quality of its images. The 5DII's files had a certain "look" that was immensely appealing to pros and hobbyists alike, and based on early user feedback, the 5DIII will continue that tradition. If this is what Canon can accomplish with a $h!tty sensor, I'm not complaining


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 23, 2012)

V8 did you have a look at those raws I posted?
the build of this camera is exactly what i've been looking for its awesome
I'll be looking forward to adobe products getting final release raw processing
I'll have to do some more shooting to compare the 5D3 and 5D2 better as those arent apples and apples
my gut feel is at ISO 100 there is going to be a negligable difference between the 2
but i was always very happy with the 5D2 low iso performance anyway.

I feel the package is greater than the sum of its parts everything together is very nicely balanced I have to say i really like the 6fps 4 was a bit light but didnt bother me and 10 i felt was over the top on the 1D unless shooting fast action which i never do.
so far its looking good but i really want to do some more detailed IQ comparisons


----------



## Meh (Mar 23, 2012)

eaglem said:


> For anyone questioning the 5d3 not being sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry I can't quite make it out, is that a dollar bill?  Yep, pretty sharp.


----------



## Fandongo (Mar 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> another video review:
> http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review
> 
> he doesn't seem too thrilled  to say the least he basically out and out blasts them....
> ...



http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/22/5dmk3/

Sounds like a damn fair review, and I'm sure both will post some awesome comparison vids in the near future.

When the c300 came out with less features than I expected from the 5d3, I knew they'd stunt 5d3s video.
Sad.

Moire and aliasing are gone, cool. They're gone with the Mosaic filter in the 5d2 as well.

Maybe the 4k dslr, maybe a FF mirrorless, maybe the GH3...
Video people without unlimited pockets are left in limbo.
But the GH2 makes for a hell of an adequate limbo.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: What's this about the video?*



OscarGoldman said:


> The subject mentions "video half fixed", but I don't see any discussion of it.
> 
> How is it "half-fixed"? If Canon didn't add at least some quick-&-dirty pixel-averaging downscaling, then they hugely missed the boat and laid an expensive turd here.



Check the links to the 2 video reviews.

They say moire and aliasing are gone but they complain that the compression quality isn't always as nice as they hoped for and that the delivered resolution stills like only 1/2 of 1920x1080 and almost more like 1280x720p.

Looking at his sheep video and adding some more sharpening I guess it probably isn't really true 1920x1080 which is quite a shame although it does look like very nice 1280x720, no weird aliasing/moire any more, it seems a bit prone to lose detail in areas where contrast isn't very high, maybe going sub 1280x720 in those areas compared to film or a really top flight videocam. Anyway it's hard to say I will try to test on myself and see how it compared to 5D2 using all the settings to try for ideal detail (low ISO, f/6.3, no NR in cam, sharpening in post, etc.)

Mostly they seem to complain about it still not delivering true 1920x1080. But it does seem to have entirely fixed color moire and aliasing. One guy was attacking the compression for making even ISO shadows look weird though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 23, 2012)

Fandongo said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > another video review:
> ...



Have you shot with a 5D2 with the video filter? Does it really do the job well?


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



V8Beast said:


> The funny thing is that while the tech heads and pixel peepers are going poo poo over the spec sheets and 100% crops, I find myself blown away by the overall IQ of the 5DIII's files. For lack of a better phrase, I find the image quality f***ing stunning. The color, contrast, and sharpness have that film-like quality the 5-series bodies are known for, and now the MKIII matches that up with pro-grade AF and build quality, 6 FPS, and dual card slots. I will put every single one of those features to good use on every single shoot. However, I will never hear back from a client complaining about how they weren't impressed by what they saw when they pixel-peeped my images at 100%.



I strikes me that the 5DIII is the amalgam of the 5DII and the 1Ds3 and the 1DX just an upgrade to the 1D4. On this basis I feel the price is very reasonable in that they have turned a semi-pro product into a full pro product.

I suspect the spec peepers have wrongly judged the 5DIII in the same way they poo poo'd the 70-300L.


----------



## shizam1 (Mar 23, 2012)

I just registered so I could reply to some people who are bashing those who are questioning the "awesomeness" of the 5DIII. Especially if someone actually bought a 5DIII and is reporting their opinions of it and they aren't up to the glowing standards others have.

There's nothing wrong with trying to know exactly what you're getting for your money.

Currently I have two 5DII's. If I sold one for $1600, and bought a 5DIII for $3500, that's a difference of $1900.

So what do I get for that that I would actually need/use? 

Autofocus sounds better by most posters, but a couple have said that in low light it still hunts and will refuse to focus.

Viewfinder sounds better, so that's cool.

Dual card slots I'm not so interested in, but maybe it's a feature I could learn to appreciate.

Now image quality is the big one. I shoot a mix of studio fashion/headshots and weddings/events. Currently when doing low light work, I like the image quality up to ISO 1600. If the 5DIII can make ISO 3200 files that look as good as my ISO 1600 files, that's a winner.

I haven't seen any reviews showing this though. Not with RAW files. I've only seen JPG comparisons, which is meaningless to the professional who shoots RAW.

I think everyone will agree that this camera is an upgrade. The only question is if it's worth the price to upgrade from the 5DII. I the image quality doesn't meet my expectations, I'll probably buy another low light prime lens, and wait for the price to come down before jumping in.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



briansquibb said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing is that while the tech heads and pixel peepers are going poo poo over the spec sheets and 100% crops, I find myself blown away by the overall IQ of the 5DIII's files. For lack of a better phrase, I find the image quality f***ing stunning. The color, contrast, and sharpness have that film-like quality the 5-series bodies are known for, and now the MKIII matches that up with pro-grade AF and build quality, 6 FPS, and dual card slots. I will put every single one of those features to good use on every single shoot. However, I will never hear back from a client complaining about how they weren't impressed by what they saw when they pixel-peeped my images at 100%.
> ...



Indeed, you look back at previous generations of DSLR's and specs similar to the 5D mk3 were seen in the flagship models.

My guess is that if Canon was caught "on the hop" by Nikon it was not the specs of the D800(if they were rumoured a year ago I'd guess Canon knew them before that) but rather the price which has come in $1000 under the rumours. That has I'd say put them in a difficult position as the 5D mk3 is in much more direct competision with the 1DX than the D800 is with the D4, if they price it too low at launch they'll likely cannibalise 1DX sales. Unless Canon have a high MP body of their own they are going to sell at a lower price I wouldnt be supprized to the the 5D mk3 drop in price rather more quickly than the mk2 as professional demand tales off.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 23, 2012)

I seriously gotta laugh at the misinformation! Check out the samples i just posted.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html


----------



## shizam1 (Mar 23, 2012)

Bosman said:


> I seriously gotta laugh at the misinformation! Check out the samples i just posted.
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html



If you want to dispel the "misinformation" that the 5DIII has better image quality than the 5DII, then shouldn't you have taken RAW images from both cameras of the same thing, converted using the same settings in DPP, and then posted JPEG's of that?

Or are you talking about some other misinformation?


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



briansquibb said:


> I strikes me that the 5DIII is the amalgam of the 5DII and the 1Ds3 and the 1DX just an upgrade to the 1D4. On this basis I feel the price is very reasonable in that they have turned a semi-pro product into a full pro product.
> 
> I suspect the spec peepers have wrongly judged the 5DIII in the same way they poo poo'd the 70-300L.



My thoughts exactly. There's nothing that the 1DsIII does better than the 5DIII, but the 5DIII is half the price, yet people are complaining. Strange. And don't even get me started on the 70-300L haters. 

I wonder how the 5DIII would be received if it had a 40-45 mp sensor, same consumer grade AF, same slow 4 FPS burst rate, and same consumer grade build quality? I very much prefer the all-around capability of the 5DIII as it's currently spec'd.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 23, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> V8 did you have a look at those raws I posted?



Yes I did. They looked great, and I can't wait until my 5DIII finally shows up. WTF, B&H, where's mine at ?



> I'll have to do some more shooting to compare the 5D3 and 5D2 better as those arent apples and apples
> my gut feel is at ISO 100 there is going to be a negligable difference between the 2
> but i was always very happy with the 5D2 low iso performance anyway.



I'm perfectly content with that  I'm of the opinion that the 5DII was such a phenomenal performer at low ISO, it would have been silly to expect a substantial improvement from the 5DIII. Honestly, I never upgraded from my 5DC to the MKII because while the resolution increase and one stop improvement in ISO was nice, I didn't feel like it was a huge upgrade IQ wise, and Canon didn't address its biggest weakness (AF and FPS). With the 5DIII, I get all the benefits of the Mark II but with pro-grade AF, a fast burst rate, and pro-grade build quality. What's not to like ? 



> I feel the package is greater than the sum of its parts everything together is very nicely balanced I have to say i really like the 6fps 4 was a bit light but didnt bother me and 10 i felt was over the top on the 1D unless shooting fast action which i never do.
> so far its looking good but i really want to do some more detailed IQ comparisons



I think 6 FPS is a good number. I covered an autocross last weekend with my 1DIIn. Even with cars changing directions abruptly on the track, its 8.5 FPS are a bit excessive for this type of use. I ended up with a bunch of redundant frames that just got deleted. For an 8-year-old body, however, the 1DII's AF is freakishly good even with only 1 cross-type sensor. With results like that, I'm very eager to give the 5DIII's 61-point system a whirl.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 23, 2012)

Meh said:


> eaglem said:
> 
> 
> > For anyone questioning the 5d3 not being sharp.
> ...



I have it on good authority if you indeed photograph a $100 bill it will be even sharper than photographing a $1 bill, but that's just me, haha.


----------



## risc32 (Mar 23, 2012)

v8, it looks like we are of the same mind on some things. i too stuck with my 5d and didn't get the v2, i also use a 1dmk2, while you have the "n", and i'm also very interested about my coming 5dmk3 and think the specs sound just about right. Also i do a bit of moto racing photography as well.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 23, 2012)

shizam1 said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously gotta laugh at the misinformation! Check out the samples i just posted.
> ...


At least i have samples and i told you exactly what i did and gave you visuals of the results. Until this camera is supported with raw conversion in LR 4 i dont need to concern myself with it. If you want to see my files I took raw and converted in CS5 then you go here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4685.0.html
It takes a lot of time and energy doing all this for people to see so if i dont do it exactly how you think it should be done then i'm sorry about that. I personally don't see diferences in the files from raw that make me think it has a clear advantage or disadvantage.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 23, 2012)

shizam1 said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously gotta laugh at the misinformation! Check out the samples i just posted.
> ...


Just to appease you event though i am tired i took these in raw and converted to jpg in DPP with no edits.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html


----------



## shizam1 (Mar 23, 2012)

Bosman said:


> shizam1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bosman said:
> ...



If you read the thread title, it says the 5D III has good AF, but the OP was doubting that it had any better IQ than the 5DII. So by trying to dispell the "disinformation", you were challenging that. The Internet is full of pictures showing the III at different ISO's, the only thing lacking is comparison of sensors between the two models, which can only be done by shooting the same stuff in RAW and comparing.

So your post shows that the 5DIII does have nice image quality, and I'm sure someone appreciates that, but trying to use that as proof that it has superior image quality to the 5DII is pretty useless.

I'm personally waiting for an example that is RAW derived that shows ISO 3200 on the III that looks like ISO 1600 on the II. Then I'll buy one now. Otherwise, I'll wait for the price to come down. I will get one, it's just a question of the value proposition and how useful it is for me shooting weddings in low light.


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 23, 2012)

Glad I switched to Nikon, 3500 for an updated AF system is not right.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D800-Review/Sensor-performance


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7278/7008631235_7faa6f5330_o.png


----------



## Bosman (Mar 23, 2012)

poker_jake85 said:


> Glad I switched to Nikon, 3500 for an updated AF system is not right.
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D800-Review/Sensor-performance
> 
> ...



Haha, you say that yet there isnt even a comparison for the 5d Mark III yet. Talk about not having all the data! The images i posted say enough to me and thats real live data. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 23, 2012)

Bosman said:


> poker_jake85 said:
> 
> 
> > Glad I switched to Nikon, 3500 for an updated AF system is not right.
> ...



lol, downsized jpegs? Look at all the D800 full size samples.


----------



## Ivar (Mar 23, 2012)

I planned to reply with an image - for some reason it didn't feel good at all no matter the processing. 

Then I understood - I did a testdrive today with one memory card, and the image was in fact from a 5D3 not from the D800.



Bosman said:


> Haha, you say that yet there isnt even a comparison for the 5d Mark III yet. Talk about not having all the data! The images i posted say enough to me and thats real live data.
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html


----------



## Bosman (Mar 23, 2012)

poker_jake85 said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > poker_jake85 said:
> ...


Try uploading those to this site, cant do it, had to resize them. I am done doing all this work for complainers.


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 23, 2012)

Bosman said:


> poker_jake85 said:
> 
> 
> > Bosman said:
> ...



I don't doubt that, but taking photos of a photo in a book is hardly testing the camera and then downsizing. Just like with a high ISO D800 photo downsized to 5d size, it loses much of its noise.


----------



## Alker (Mar 23, 2012)

Only AF is improved ???
No way...

Check this 25600 ISO Image.
Look at the Tanzania flag so much detail left...

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3202320681/download/1829153


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 23, 2012)

Alker said:


> Only AF is improved ???
> No way...
> 
> Check this 25600 ISO Image.
> ...



Not bad, but I've never had to shoot above ISO 3200 and that was in a dark bowling alley. So I don't understand the ISO performance over better sensor (color, DR). D800 with 14.4 stops of DR!


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

poker_jake85 said:


> Glad I switched to Nikon, 3500 for an updated AF system is not right.
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D800-Review/Sensor-performance
> 
> ...



CU then - bye bye


----------



## Alker (Mar 23, 2012)

poker_jake85 said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > Only AF is improved ???
> ...



Aha the DR numbers of the DXO guys......
Believe me there is more then DR numbers....
It's albout the photographer skills and no DR of 14 is making you or me a better photographer.

If it is like that then every photographer will buy the camera with the highest DR range and only confirmed by the DXO marks.....

Well it is not like this


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

Alker said:


> It's albout the photographer skills and no DR of 14 is making you or me a better photographer.



Yeh yeh - all the old cliches

A good photographer with poor kit will never be better than a good photographer with good kit.


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 23, 2012)

Alker said:


> poker_jake85 said:
> 
> 
> > Alker said:
> ...



Obviously, but it certainly doesn't hurt. Think about taking a landscape at dusk shooting a sunset. Extra DR will help grab detail, may not need a gnd filter, also less pp after. A high DR is still better than a low one.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Mar 23, 2012)

poker_jake85 said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > Only AF is improved ???
> ...



Except at ISO 3200 you aren't getting 14.4 stops of DR, it's closer to 9.7. Check DxOMark, although we don't have the 5d3 numbers in yet, and it will (based on what I've heard/seen historically) be less than the D800 at the same ISO.


----------



## Alker (Mar 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > It's albout the photographer skills and no DR of 14 is making you or me a better photographer.
> ...



No but a good photographer with poor kit will be better than a less good photographer with good kit.

And remember a Camera with a DR of 12 is not less then a camera with a DR of 14
Not true you say....check the numbers....

I will find the link of the guy (DPREVIEW) who makes pictures with a 40D and rebel.
His pictures are awesome and he won a lot of prices..

Not because DR but because he was a born photographer with the correct feeling about compositions, etc.

All the b.ll about the DR numbers of DXO...come on


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 23, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> poker_jake85 said:
> 
> 
> > Alker said:
> ...



I see that but hopefully I won't need 3200 ISO to shoot landscapes :


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

A good tripod works wonders for the DR.

A landscape at 3200 - you must be joking, what is wrong with iso 100? You will at least get good DR then


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> A good tripod works wonders for the DR.
> 
> A landscape at 3200 - you must be joking, what is wrong with iso 100? You will at least get good DR then



I was joking (sarcasm on the net doesn't work). I don't think I've ever shot a landscape over ISO 400 and even at 400 it's rare.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

poker_jake85 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > A good tripod works wonders for the DR.
> ...



A  gives the clue so we can understand ... 8) 8) 8)


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> poker_jake85 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



lol, I must have misused the : face then.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

poker_jake85 said:


> lol, I must have misused the : face then.



Or this stupid old man miunderstood. No problem 8) 8) 8)


----------



## Bosman (Mar 24, 2012)

I don't doubt that, but taking photos of a photo in a book is hardly testing the camera and then downsizing. Just like with a high ISO D800 photo downsized to 5d size, it loses much of its noise.
[/quote]
I did it for everyone, because i didn't have time to shoot a wedding or anything relevant, noise is noise no matter what you photograph. I don't see it loosing noise due to downsizing. However since I am unable to cater to you or others who want it all and how they want it done isn't good enough then do your own samples. Most people get the gist of whats goin on in the samples. I will use it and love it and i dont need to apologize to the peepers any more. Haha!


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 24, 2012)

Alker said:


> Only AF is improved ???
> No way...
> 
> Check this 25600 ISO Image.
> ...



Guys, seriously, don't feed the troll!


----------



## kwwalla (Mar 24, 2012)

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/hands-on-canon-5d-mark-iii-review-1067683?artc_pg=1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all*



briansquibb said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing is that while the tech heads and pixel peepers are going poo poo over the spec sheets and 100% crops, I find myself blown away by the overall IQ of the 5DIII's files. For lack of a better phrase, I find the image quality f***ing stunning. The color, contrast, and sharpness have that film-like quality the 5-series bodies are known for, and now the MKIII matches that up with pro-grade AF and build quality, 6 FPS, and dual card slots. I will put every single one of those features to good use on every single shoot. However, I will never hear back from a client complaining about how they weren't impressed by what they saw when they pixel-peeped my images at 100%.
> ...



I don't think so, not at ISO 100 at least, that's been measured.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

To be fair, I do wonder a bit about the EOSHD review of the 5D3 video that I linked above now that I read that he says the D800 also blow the 5D3 away for video with it's superior sharpness.

I read that and I was oh man....

Then I looked at his samples and I was like what?!? Maybe it's just me but his 'amazingly sharp and detailed' D800 footage likes even softer than his 5D3 video footage, plus it has touches of moire and aliasing that the 5D3 lacks. I don't understand how he can look at those videos he put up and say that the D800 shows more detail. It looks noticeably worse than the 5D3 video to me.

Not sure what the story is there, but something doesn't seem to be adding up right.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I'm perfectly content with that  I'm of the opinion that the 5DII was such a phenomenal performer at low ISO, it would have been silly to expect a substantial improvement from the 5DIII0



seriously?
The D800 beats it by almost 3 stops, yes THREE, at ISO100.
The 5D2 had a TON of room to improve at ISO100. At high ISO there is no possibility to improve by that dramatic of a degree since it;s not theoretically possible, but at low ISO they had tons of room to improve. Maybe Exmor patents make it tricky, but even the Exmor-less D4 improved ISO 100 by over a stop.



> Honestly, I never upgraded from my 5DC to the MKII because while the resolution increase and one stop improvement in ISO was nice, I didn't feel like it was a huge upgrade IQ wise,



So 5DC to 5D2 wasn't much of a sensor upgrade but 5D2 to 5D3 is a huge sensor upgrade??



> and Canon didn't address its biggest weakness (AF and FPS). With the 5DIII, I get all the benefits of the Mark II but with pro-grade AF, a fast burst rate, and pro-grade build quality. What's not to like ?



The AF does seem to be getting mostly raves. Heard some very good things so far.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

Alker said:


> poker_jake85 said:
> 
> 
> > Alker said:
> ...



Funny how a few weeks everyone was saying don't believe it when some of said the D800 would have amaizng DR compared to the 5D3, just wait for DxO and then you'll see and now that they say what we predicted, now DxO is back to being meaningless again .


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > Only AF is improved ???
> ...



this troll, if you mean me, has most likely shot Canon longer than you have....


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> seriously?
> The D800 beats it by almost 3 stops, yes THREE, at ISO100.
> The 5D2 had a TON of room to improve at ISO100. At high ISO there is no possibility to improve by that dramatic of a degree since it;s not theoretically possible, but at low ISO they had tons of room to improve. Maybe Exmor patents make it tricky, but even the Exmor-less D4 improved ISO 100 by over a stop.



Dude, I'm not talking about lab tests. I'm talking about the good old fashioned way of judging image quality. Just look at an image and determine its visual impact, technical proficiency, and artistic value. That's how everyone other than pixel-peeping tech geeks judge IQ. Just about every pro that I know that shoots Canon (5DII or 1DsIII) does so because they like the look of the files, not because of how well their cameras perform in a lab. 

Yes a three stop advantage is huge. Now that the real world samples are trickling out, I just don't see it translating to better IQ. 



> So 5DC to 5D2 wasn't much of a sensor upgrade but 5D2 to 5D3 is a huge sensor upgrade??



Never said that, buddy. The 5DC to 5DII wasn't enough of a jump in terms of AF, FPS, and overall IQ for me to justify upgrading based on my style of shooting. I didn't specifically single out the sensor in my post. As far as the overall package is concerned, the 5DC to a 5DIII is a huge jump. I care more about the entire camera package as a whole than sensor technology alone.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Dude, I'm not talking about lab tests. I'm talking about the good old fashioned way of judging image quality. Just look at an image and determine its visual impact, technical proficiency, and artistic value. That's how everyone other than pixel-peeping tech geeks judge IQ. Just about every pro that I know that shoots Canon (5DII or 1DsIII) does so because they like the look of the files, not because of how well their cameras perform in a lab.
> 
> Yes a three stop advantage is huge. Now that the real world samples are trickling out, I just don't see it translating to better IQ.
> 
> ...



the first few paragraphs of my original post were about the apparently great AF so not entirely fixated on sensors ;D

and get a clue about lab vs real world before you spout nonsense at people

and if you were really such a get out and shoot guy you might realize how 3 stops dynamic range can make a huge difference, maybe it doesn't for what you shoot, but then maybe that just shows that some of the pixel peeping geeks actually get out and shoot a lot more things than you huh?

i guess the Ferrari test team has no lab huh?

all i said was that while the AF appears to have been amazingly improved and the fps bumped up nicely (which are not minor things) that the sensor appears to bring nothing at all new for low ISO shooting and that it remains to be seen whether it brings a solid increase at high iso or nothing much there either and that the video mode fixes up moire and aliasing but that some are saying it is still not real 1920x1080.

Canon has done zero to increase dynamic range since 2007, half a decade ago. Nikon has gotten more than a stop better compared to the best canon of 2007 without exmor tech and almost 3 stops better with exmor help from sony. 

But the AF does sound most impressively better and yeah 6fps are lot nice than 4fps as is the faster trigger response and lessened mirror black-out time etc. Those are certainly very important things for many, including myself (for a pure landscape shooter there may be nothing much in the 5D3 over the 5D2 though which is a bit disappointing for 3.5 years).


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> and if you were really such a get out and shoot guy you might realize how 3 stops dynamic range can make a huge difference, maybe it doesn't for what you shoot, but then maybe that just shows that some of the pixel peeping geeks actually get out and shoot a lot more things than you huh?



In your attempt to be a [email protected], you just posted the funniest line I've ever read by a pixel-peeping geek. Yes, I do dabble in photography that requires lots of dynamic range from time to time.






















Somehow I manage even with $hitty Canon sensors. Now do you care to share some of your images that illustrate how effectively the DR of Sony's Exmor sensor can enhance your photography ?



> i guess the Ferrari test team has no lab huh?



Do you really want to use a car analogy with me? Of course Ferrari has a test lab. The big dog F1 teams like Ferrari and McLaren spend $300-plus million a year on R&D. Wind tunnels, automated dynos that simulate upshifts and downshifts of an entire race, etc. You name it, they test it. During a race, the two-way telemetry on an F1 car wirelessly streams gigabytes of data back to the lab every second so engineers can analyze it in real time. 

That said, all that lab work doesn't mean $hit without real-world track testing. Furthermore, the only reason why teams spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lab testing is to they can more effectively develop parts for real-world testing. As it stands, the main reason why F1 teams are spending so much money on testing in the lab is because the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing a few years ago. Teams would much rather spend that money testing their cars on track in real-world racing conditions, but they can't, so they resort to lab testing instead. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in the lab just so they can make the most of the precious few days of real-world track testing that they're allowed. 

On the other hand, pixel-peeping tech geeks seem more interested in lab tests than actually using their cameras.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > and if you were really such a get out and shoot guy you might realize how 3 stops dynamic range can make a huge difference, maybe it doesn't for what you shoot, but then maybe that just shows that some of the pixel peeping geeks actually get out and shoot a lot more things than you huh?
> ...


Dude! Amazing shots!


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

This one requires a fair amount of DR as well. When you're shooting with natural light, sometimes the light is harsher than you'd like, and it this case, it means you need a lot of detail on the shadow side of the cars and on the buildings. This is plenty of DR for a shot like this. Try to bring up the shadows any more, and the image will look flat, lifeless, two-dimensional, and boring. I suppose there is a lab test that measures for this sort of thing? 





Other times, you have more control over the light to decrease the DR demands on a camera. There are these high-tech gizmos called reflectors. I think they were developed by NASA. I've heard you can use them for fill light to great effect. 





I don't care how many stops of DR some pixel-peeping geek says a camera's sensor can capture. For shots like this, I'm using a reflector regardless of if whether I'm shooting with a POS Canon or with Sony's vaunted Exmor sensor.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 24, 2012)

People need to stop bitching and test them out. Theres all this philosophy and data and bs. If you use nikon buy nikon, if you use Canon then use Canon, both have great cameras you can buy. People really have the 5DM3 now and like myself are really impressed with the camera as a whole. Spec for spec in use it is pure bliss to use. Can't wait to shoot my first wedding with my new camera. The focus locks even in real dark situations too. Thats nice! Oddly enough my testing of all my lenses with it somehow produces dead sharp focus accuracy, its crazy! You all dont believe me because you read some report or saw some video, haha. Ok.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Dude

Your best skill seems to be name calling in laughable manner. ;D ;D ;D ;D
You are kind of a funny guy. ;D

Believe it or not you are not the only person who has ever used a camera. I've shot the men's NCAA basketball tourney (and no, not from the stands ) among other things.

And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times. And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

And it's a bit hard to use reflectors to fill in the interior of a redwood forest, maybe for some scenes, if you spend 15 hours rigging and thousands in expenses for a single shot, perhaps, sometimes, but then try it for a landscape expanding over a a few hundreds acres and it's a bit trickier still and then try that for every single possible such situation you may come across anywhere and.... and yes, sometimes a tripod a multi-snaps will do and sometimes a grad ND filter will do it, but not always. especially if you want details and not a wax-look.

It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 24, 2012)

Bottom line is:

- Do the images produced by the body + glass meet your needs?

I seem to remember the 5DII being slated because it only had 4fps - this has been overlooked in the rush to praise the D800 and criticise the 6fps 5DIII. It doesn't matter what the mps or the dr are if you miss the picture.


Having followed the threads it seems that everyone is fixated on high iso, in which case the argument about DR starts to become irrelevant as the DR is squandered with high ISO.

- does your shooting style with your body + glass meet your DR needs?

- howabout all the other differences? for example silent mode in the theatre?

It is too easy to be blinded by one (great) feature and to ignore features that spoil the experience in the real world.


----------



## Alker (Mar 24, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> V8Dude
> 
> Your best skill seems to be name calling in laughable manner. ;D ;D ;D ;D
> You are kind of a funny guy. ;D
> ...



Could you show us some work photographed by you ?
I have read most of your post and like I said before your really must be the best photographer in the world. 
Just wondering if all your numbers knowledge can be found back in your pictures.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

Ah man. I thought we were going to continue our discussion on Ferrari's F1 program, but if you insist on talking cameras....



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Believe it or not you are not the only person who has ever used a camera.



You're kidding me. I thought the guys I compete with on a monthly basis to pay my bills and feed my kids were using Etch A Sketches. No wonder they never run out of space on their memory cards. Are there DxO test results for one of those bad boys yet?



> I've shot the men's NCAA basketball tourney (and no, not from the stands ) among other things.



I get it now. You're confused and licking the wrong camera's balls. Nikon has a special model for sports shooters called the D4  



> And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times.



Finally, something we agree on! I'll take all the DR I can get. However, I can't easily distinguish the D800's DR advantage over the 5DIII without resorting to a lab test. I'm apparently in the minority here, but I simply prefer the overall look (color, contrast, sharpness) of the 5DIII's files. The D800's samples look flat in comparison. 



> And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.



Ooooh, full-time pros. I'd like to say I'm impressed but I'm not. Whenever I talk to pros, those fools are so busy actually using their gear in the real world that most have never even heard about DxO tests. When are they going to learn about the joys of pixel-peeping and DR/ISO lab tests instead of trusting their own eyes and concentrating their efforts on becoming better photographers. I'm sure the first thing their clients do is blow the images their contributors submit up to 100%, and test its DR and noise. I don't see how they could possibly judge a great image from a junk image without doing so. 



> And it's a bit hard to use reflectors to fill in the interior of a redwood forest, maybe for some scenes, if you spend 15 hours rigging and thousands in expenses for a single shot, perhaps, sometimes, but then try it for a landscape expanding over a a few hundreds acres and it's a bit trickier still and then try that for every single possible such situation you may come across anywhere and.... and yes, sometimes a tripod a multi-snaps will do and sometimes a grad ND filter will do it, but not always. especially if you want details and not a wax-look.



So we've established that different situations call for different equipment or a camera that excels in different areas. Now we're getting somewhere  I have a photo shoot with E.T. scheduled in the redwoods of Northern California next month, so maybe I'll rent a D800 for the day. 



> It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.



Please. You're speaking to someone who ordered up a D800. Granted I will probably cancel it on Monday, but my point is that fixating on lab tests to the point where it takes precedence over judging an image based on overall execution, image quality, and artistic value is nonsense. I pity the fool who thinks his camera is great or thinks it's junk based not on the quality of the images it captures, but someone else's lab findings. 

Seriously, that kind of fixation can't be healthy. The last time I was that fixated on something, someone ended up slapping a restraining order against me ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 24, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times. And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.



Difference between a pro and an amateur

The amateur will do anything for the right photo
The pro will do anything for the right money


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Difference between a pro and an amateur
> 
> The amateur will do anything for the right photo
> The pro will do anything for the right money



You have it all wrong. I see lots of amateurs that have much nicer gear than many of my pro photog buddies. That must mean that the main difference between a pro and an amateur is that amateur has more money ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Difference between a pro and an amateur
> ...



I am trying to work out how to get a modified golf cart with my gear to the locations. They are too big to go under the Winebago - perhaps in a trailer behind then - and the gear would be locked away at the same time. Then I have the problem of the boat.

Perhaps the chauffeur can drive a big truck with all the stuff and this means that the butler and maid would not have to sit up front with us 

   : : :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Ah man. I thought we were going to continue our discussion on Ferrari's F1 program, but if you insist on talking cameras....



it probably would have been more fun and productive to talk about F1 ;D




> > It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. saying it's NOT the end of the world, means you are not fixated  or at least not entirely ;D
(and the better part of my original post here was actually about nothing more than trumpeting the early AF reports....)

2. Those of us asking for more dynamic range didn't just decide to ask it because we saw a difference on some test chart. Believe it or not the desire was not to be able to post a more impressive graph on our walls.  I shoot in the real world and if I run up against some issue THEN I look into it to see what the deal is and if anything else might not have the issue. And I know from real world experience what the charts imply to what I could do in the real world. And I whine and cry about it like crazy not actually to be annoying, but because anything less than a total huge tremendous whine fest of a deal never catches the attention of Canon. I do regularly hit scenarios where I really wish I had the 3 more stops DR (although certainly for many shots it won't make any difference at all, as well). And I think the same goes for most doing the same. And anything less than making a huge production about it means Canon won't even think of paying for patents or building a new fab, etc.

Many people are now raving about the awesome 5D3 AF, and quite a few of the ones who are now going on about how awesome it is are the very same people who called those of us who called out the prior non-1 series AF stuff like pathetic Nikon trolls or silly little people who just need to learn how to shoot properly or told us that is was absurd to ask for top AF in something that wasn't a 1 series. So us know-nothing Nikon trolls perhaps helped get them the very thing they are raving about now and said was impossible to even think of hoping for.

This is the body rumor forum, not a serious how to take better photos forum, so I don't know that it is a bad thing to call Canon out here (plus I was actually tossing them a ton of praise about the AF for the better part of my post), maybe enough gets said, the next cam is better. Maybe if we all kept quiet and said the 5D2 was 10% perfect the 5D3 would have had the 5D2 AF system again or maybe the 7D AF at best?


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Those of us asking for more dynamic range didn't just decide to ask it because we saw a difference on some test chart.



That might apply to you, but not everyone else. There are tons of posts on here where people are going poo poo over the 5DIII based not on how poorly it performed in the field, and how its poor DR was the difference between capturing a great image and coming home with a junk image, but based on the DxO findings alone. Am I the only one that finds that bizarre? 



> I do regularly hit scenarios where I really wish I had the 3 more stops DR (although certainly for many shots it won't make any difference at all, as well). And I think the same goes for most doing the same.



I'd venture to say all photographers run up against situations like this. I do all the time. My point is that there's always a disconnect between lab tests and field results, and right now, I'm having hard time actually seeing the 3 stop DR advantage of the D800 in the sample images that are rolling out. Your results may vary  Come on, three stops of DR is HUGE. The difference should be very obvious outside of the lab, should it not?

Getting back to F1, Ferrari has gone from mopping everyone one up in the early '00s to struggling to keep up with McLaren and team Red Bull since the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing. They have their own freakin' track in Fiorana, Italy that they can't even use anymore. I'm sure if they could get back to doing some on-track, real world testing, their F1 program would be much more competitive. Furthermore, one of the new scrub F1 teams designs their cars entirely on computer. They don't do much testing at all, because they don't have the funds to do so. And guess what? They suck, and are always getting lapped within the first half of a race. 

Whether it's in photography or F1, there needs to be a balance between lab testing and field testing. Unfortunately, the only thing many people seem to care about are lab results, and last I checked, you don't hang lab results on your wall and you sure as hell don't sell lab results to a client. 



> Many people are now raving about the awesome 5D3 AF, and quite a few of the ones who are now going on about how awesome it is are the very same people who called those of us who called out the prior non-1 series AF stuff like pathetic Nikon trolls or silly little people who just need to learn how to shoot properly or told us that is was absurd to ask for top AF in something that wasn't a 1 series. So us know-nothing Nikon trolls perhaps helped get them the very thing they are raving about now and said was impossible to even think of hoping for.
> 
> This is the body rumor forum, not a serious how to take better photos forum, so I don't know that it is a bad thing to call Canon out here



I have no problem calling Canon out when it needs to be called out. Before the karma system went away, I had the smites the prove it  I just find it odd that people are talking about the 5DIII like it's something to wipe your @ss with when you run out of toilet paper based solely on the lab tests conducted by a single group of tech heads. That's not to say lab tests are useless, but rather they're not nearly as useful as determining the strengths and shortcomings of your equipment based on how you actually use it in the field. 

I'm sorry, but when some posts images that they took of their girlfriend's hairy arm pit, and marvels at how much detail they can see in every last pungent follicle at 100%, I can't take them seriously. The D800 appears to be a terrific camera, but I doubt that's the intended use Nikon engineers had in mind when they designed it. Maybe that's your idea of creating art if you have a strange armpit hair fetish, but I other strange fetishes to attend to that don't involve photography ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I'd venture to say all photographers run up against situations like this. I do all the time. My point is that there's always a disconnect between lab tests and field results, and right now, I'm having hard time actually seeing the 3 stop DR advantage of the D800 in the sample images that are rolling out. Your results may vary  Come on, three stops of DR is HUGE. The difference should be very obvious outside of the lab, should it not?



It is a big difference and there are demos comparing the exmor vs the the other sensors, real world demos, and it does show up easily (if your scene has more than 10 or stops of dynamic range, certainly plenty don't and then it makes no difference at all, of course plenty do), that is my point, my point is also that the DR tests I, others and DxO do, DO very much match up to real world use. I don't know why you don't see the difference. I've seen some pretty stunning demonstrations of the difference.



> Getting back to F1, Ferrari has gone from mopping everyone one up in the early '00s to struggling to keep up with McLaren and team Red Bull since the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing. They have their own freakin' track in Fiorana, Italy that they can't even use anymore. I'm sure if they could get back to doing some on-track, real world testing, their F1 program would be much more competitive. Furthermore, one of the new scrub F1 teams designs their cars entirely on computer. They don't do much testing at all, because they don't have the funds to do so. And guess what? They suck, and are always getting lapped within the first half of a race.



1. on track testing, is still testing, not 'real world' races and sure it is important, once you get down to a car on the road and drivers you are into a super complex scenario, far beyond measuring single things which is more like what dynamic range is

2. you can bet all the teams would be wayyyy behind where they are if not for lab tests, so many more parts and specific little bits would take so much longer and waste sooo much more money to develop



> > Many people are now raving about the awesome 5D3 AF, and quite a few of the ones who are now going on about how awesome it is are the very same people who called those of us who called out the prior non-1 series AF stuff like pathetic Nikon trolls or silly little people who just need to learn how to shoot properly or told us that is was absurd to ask for top AF in something that wasn't a 1 series. So us know-nothing Nikon trolls perhaps helped get them the very thing they are raving about now and said was impossible to even think of hoping for.
> >
> > This is the body rumor forum, not a serious how to take better photos forum, so I don't know that it is a bad thing to call Canon out here
> 
> ...



Not quite sure how this came onto hairy armpits, just recall which of the two of us is the only one to have mentioned "hair armpits" and "fetishes" ;D.

I hardly think the 5D3 is some trash to chuck in the garbage!
I did spend half of my original post hear going on about all of the early positive reports about the AF.

But the low ISO dynamic range is wayyy behind Exmor sensors though and even quite a bit behind the best non-Exmor stuff Nikon is doing (D4), I really thought they'd have at least gotten it to D4-level.... I do find that quite disappointing. For the landscape-type shooter, the 5D3 really adds virtually nothing over the 5D2 (for stuff relying on AF or better body response it should be much better than the 5D2 though). Some won't care, but some will and there is nothing any less valid about their caring about that than someone not caring about it. (and once again, I DO see a very large difference real world that matches what the lab results suggest)

And the video is in some ways awesome now, free from moire and aliasing messes, but it still ain't the promised 1920x1080p, every video blog I read is getting on it like crazy for this which is not what Canon needed to continue the low-end film-making domination.

It has less reach than stuff like 7D/1D4/D800 for wildlife/sports.

But yeah the 6fps are not bad for the class and the AF is sounding better and better, it's no doubt a better cam the 5D2, no doubt, it certainly has a lot of great stuff going for it.

But their sensor tech does appear to be falling behind, in ways that may matter for some and appear to be doing a bit of video protectionism for the C300 now, which is a shame, why not a C300 2x2 sampled crop video for 5D3 at perfect 1920x1080 if they can't do that over the entire frame? Probably to not step on the C300.... although it's hard to know for sure.

But once again the improved AF does sound pretty awesome going by early reports and coupled with 6fps that's not a bad thing at all! If the old sensor did what you need, then it should be awesome. 22MP, FF, 6fps, top of the line AF, small form factor, video without moire/aliasing, great user interface, certainly not a bad mix. I think it is one step shy of great though, as is, plus more MP, or plus noticeably more dynamic range, or at least with true 1920x1080p video then it's great IMO for $3500, without at least one of those added in $3500 seems steep. It'll be interesting to see if it drops to nearer $3000 in a couple months.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 24, 2012)

Alker said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > V8Dude
> ...


Not sure about the best but he is pretty bloody good at what he does IMO


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Difference between a pro and an amateur
> ...



Or higher credit card debts!


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 24, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



What is a credit card


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 25, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 1. on track testing, is still testing, not 'real world' races and sure it is important, once you get down to a car on the road and drivers you are into a super complex scenario, far beyond measuring single things which is more like what dynamic range is



A race track is hardly a lab. It's where you see if all the theoretical elements of the car you designed on computers, on the dyno, and in the wind tunnel stands up in real life. Track testing is very much a real world scenario, as it eliminates all the other factors outside of vehicle performance (driver skill, pit crew performance, tire degradation, pit strategy, good ol' luck) that can affect which position a car finishes the race in. How quickly you can bust off a single lap in qualifying is largely viewed by engineers as the ultimate yardstick of performance. 



> 2. you can bet all the teams would be wayyyy behind where they are if not for lab tests, so many more parts and specific little bits would take so much longer and waste sooo much more money to develop



Very true, which validates the importance of off-track R&D. Like I said before, the trick is finding an ideal balance of lab and track testing  Ferrari - along with some camera tech heads - seem to lack this balance 



> But the low ISO dynamic range is wayyy behind Exmor sensors though and even quite a bit behind the best non-Exmor stuff Nikon is doing (D4), I really thought they'd have at least gotten it to D4-level.... I do find that quite disappointing. For the landscape-type shooter, the 5D3 really adds virtually nothing over the 5D2 (for stuff relying on AF or better body response it should be much better than the 5D2 though).



That's fair enough. Let's just say that the D800 is the king of resolution and DxO DR, while for some the 5DIII is a better all-arounder. I can see how the 5DIII might be a disappointment if you're a landscape shooter, but then again I can see how the D800 would be a disappointment if you're a Nikonian who was expecting it to be a baby D4. At any rate, both are great cameras that will far exceed the abilities of many photographers. 

Based on DxO perhaps Canon is falling behind on sensor tech. Maybe Nikon stole all of Canon's best engineers  Who knows. I supposed the 1Dx is the wild card right now, and maybe it will have some pleasant surprises up its sleeves for the pixel-peeping faithful


----------



## jrista (Mar 25, 2012)

@V8Beast: I'd save your breath, man. LTRLI, regardless of how he may have started out on this forum, has essentially become a troll. Ironically, he's not really trolling for responses from the likes of us, he is hoping to evoke a response from the great gods of Canon themselves, in a largely futile effort to get them to improve DR, at a single ISO setting, four years down the road from where we are now. There isn't any winning with him, and ultimately all you'll really end up doing is making yourself look like an ass (or worse) in the end for arguing with him. Let the beast lie. (And save yourself a little face.)

Your photography is excellent, and I can only imagine it getting better with a 5D III over a 5D II. THAT, excellent _photography_, is really what matters to *photographers*. One stop, two stops, even five stops of DR, at a SINGLE ISO setting, are really not going to change things all that much. It would be nice of LTRLI would recognize that fact at some point...this thread is starting to get a little hostile.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 25, 2012)

jrista said:


> @V8Beast: I'd save your breath, man. LTRLI, regardless of how he may have started out on this forum, has essentially become a troll.



It's all good. He makes some good points, and I make some bad jokes, so it's a good tradeoff


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 25, 2012)

jrista said:


> @V8Beast: I'd save your breath, man. LTRLI, regardless of how he may have started out on this forum, has essentially become a troll. Ironically, he's not really trolling for responses from the likes of us, he is hoping to evoke a response from the great gods of Canon themselves, in a largely futile effort to get them to improve DR, at a single ISO setting, four years down the road from where we are now. There isn't any winning with him, and ultimately all you'll really end up doing is making yourself look like an ass (or worse) in the end for arguing with him. Let the beast lie. (And save yourself a little face.)
> 
> Your photography is excellent, and I can only imagine it getting better with a 5D III over a 5D II. THAT, excellent _photography_, is really what matters to *photographers*. One stop, two stops, even five stops of DR, at a SINGLE ISO setting, are really not going to change things all that much. It would be nice of LTRLI would recognize that fact at some point...this thread is starting to get a little hostile.



I am troll and yet there you go again with just having to toss in subtle little personal insults with your "_photography_, is really what matters to *photographers*" trying to imply that anyone who mentions, an actual fact, that the 5D3 has less DR is NOT a REAL photographer, or anyone who mentions they didn't put in a cropped 2x2 block video mode for true 1920x1080 sharpness is not a real videographer, etc. 

I'm not saying that everyone has to care about ISO100-400 dynamic range, but it's a fact Canon has fallen behind there. (and wouldn't you rather Canon know that people notice stuff like less DR or worse AF? If everyone said they were 100% satisfied with the 5D2 AF do you think the 5D3 would have gotten the apparently superb system it did now? This isn't the photographic skills forum or the landscape photographer's forum or the wedding photographer's forum. It's the go on about body specs rumors forum) OTOH, the early reports about the new AF are super positive and I've been forwarding those claims, but you never want to get into talk about that. I spent the first half of my posts here going on about how the new AF sounded so awesome. We did get the histogram outlines so you can see it shooting outdoors, we did get radically better AF, we did get a 50% increase in fps, so maybe they do listen over time. The body performance is great this time. 

With you, if anyone dares to mention any aspect about any Canon that is not perfect, you bury them in posts and insults and try everything under the sun to discredit their methods and claims (and note DxO measured the D800 just as we had predicted, a prediction which you spent about 500 posts, half the time insulting ones, trying to discredit) to the ends of the earth and turn simple threads that may have done with after three posts into endless page after page.... But what it really means is that I am the fool for falling into your baited traps again and again so I do get blame for that and it makes it easier to become overly negative trying to right back against that and it turns into a vicious circle.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 25, 2012)

V8 Beasts photos look really good. Simple, he's knows how to use his equipment within its limitations and, despite the outdoor environment, can often use fill light to compress dynamic range to where his camera can record a dynamic looking image without having to push the dark areas very far in post. That's what pro photographers do when they can. Those are great images for the purpose intended.

LetTheRightLensIn continues to drive home the same point a few of us have legitimate complaints about, Canon's overall DR is pith-poor at low ISO and hasn't improved much since they first came out with their CMOS sensors. And I'm in total agreement with this.

Not many people take photos of landscapes or other scenes with high DR and then try to recover and represent those extreme dark or bright details in a finished image.
Some of those who do photograph such high DR scenes do so without trying to retain those extreme details, that's their creative choice.

For those of us who want to retain and display that detail, Canon SLRs are, unfortunately, a poor choice, as I've painfully become aware of in the past few years after investing a lot of time, effort and $ into their product. At the time I was getting into Canon gear, Nikon was still not offering anything more compelling.
Things have certainly changed a lot in the past few years!

Prior to the Exmor sensors arrival, and their impressive DR ability, we had to rely on EV bracketed shots and combine them in post to try achieve what SHOULD have been possible in the first place with one well-exposed 14 bit raw file. 

LetTheRightLensIn is correct in pointing out that this should not be necessary when the system works as it should to provide us with more dynamic range, which includes clean shadow areas we can bring up in post as much as needed.

That you two are still arguing around this point puzzles me greatly. You both have valid arguments and understand the limitations of the equipment. From my point of view, you both are in agreement, even if it's from different perspectives. 

Like LetTheRightLensIn, I'm disappointed the 5D3 offers minimal improvement in this one area we're hoping it would have; low iso DR.

Like V8 Beast, I'm happy Canon addressed many of the other shortcomings of the 5D/5D2 in this latest camera. The 5D3 is now a better tool than the 5D2 and I'm sure it will help a lot of photographers make better images in more varied conditions than ever before. 

The 5D3 won't do ME any good tho.
Perched on a tripod, carefully manually focused, mirror locked up and manually metered for optimal capture of dynamic range, the 5D3 gives me no more than the 5D2 could. All I would get from buying the 5D3 is a light feeling in my wallet.

OTOH, if I put that money into a D800 to sit on that tripod, I'm likely to be rewarded with a flat-looking raw image that I can massage in post to bring out tonality and detail that 5D? cannot ever achieve without the dark areas having patterns added to them by the confounded noise it continues to suffer from.


I have some shots from my 7D that I cannot use, due to shadow noise, because this low-iso pattern noise shows up in darker areas of the image even with only +17 fill-light being applied in LR3! That's pretty pathetic when I can take a similar image shot with a $650 Nikon D5100 and push it 4 or 5 stops and still not see any pattern noise!

I wish I had a FF Canon body that performed like that cheap little Nikon for low ISO IQ!
If V8 Beast had such a camera, he could simplify his shooting by being able to leave some of those reflectors in the van. 
If LTRLI has such a camera, he wouldn't have to spend as much time as he does on this board writing about it.
And I would spend less time on this site reading about it. Oh, wait. I have the D5100! I'm going to go use it!


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 25, 2012)

Aglet said:


> That you two are still arguing around this point puzzles me greatly. You both have valid arguments and understand the limitations of the equipment. From my point of view, you both are in agreement, even if it's from different perspectives.



I have no beef with LetTheRightLensIn. Anyone who can tolerate my bad jokes on the internet if cool in my book  Seriously, though, he makes some good points even if we have to agree to disagree on other points. 



> I wish I had a FF Canon body that performed like that cheap little Nikon for low ISO IQ!
> If V8 Beast had such a camera, he could simplify his shooting by being able to leave some of those reflectors in the van.



Nonsense. I quite enjoy trying to train an assistant on how to catch the sun at the correct angle with a reflector without having it get blown away in the wind  Good times.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 25, 2012)

I am getting bored with the endless discussions about theoretical dr.

The only important matter is the image that is created at the end of pp

The difference between 12 and 14 stop DR is irrelevant to the vast majority of large prints that come from the camera capture. The difference is only really apparent when the image is played with.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I am getting bored with the endless discussions about theoretical dr.



At the risk of being repetitive, it's not theoretical.



briansquibb said:


> The difference is only really apparent when the image is played with.



Then maybe you're either not pushing your gear or your compositions to where these problems become evident?

Some of us do, and we're finding the limitations disappointing compared to the competition's products.


----------



## Alker (Mar 25, 2012)

Aglet said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting bored with the endless discussions about theoretical dr.
> ...



Show us !!!!!'
Show us any Nikon picture which a canon DSLR cannot do. 
Please please stop this DR saga.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 25, 2012)

Are you getting 14 stop DR at the moment?


----------



## jrista (Mar 26, 2012)

Aglet said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting bored with the endless discussions about theoretical dr.
> ...



Actually, it is theoretical, and subjective at that. That is the "print" DR, one of DXO's most subjective measurements (although it is still more "accurate" than step wedge measurements from DPR). From a technical standpoint, a 14-bit sensor can only provide 14 stops of DR from a mathematical standpoint (every additional bit is a doubling of the numeric space over the previous bit, same as every "stop" of aperture, shutter, or ISO setting is a "doubling"....so 14 bits effectively limits you to 14 stops of DR.) 

The screen (native RAW) DR of the D800 is 13.23, and seems to be right on the mark and entirely valid. The print DR is a bit of a curiosity, and I wish DXO would explain that value a bit more, as exactly how they achieve that number becomes much more meaningful if its possible to extract MORE DR than the camera is physically capable of with post processing (or better, simply downscaling to "8x12 print size".) Reducing contrast can technically increase DR while lowering tonal fidelity, but thats not exactly the same thing (and I certainly hope DXO is not doing something like that with their print DR measurements...that would really kind of invalidate them.) If it is possible to extract more DR than the sensor itself is capable of, then we should be able to do the same thing with Canon raw images...yet...DXO numbers don't seem to indicate that (at least, not anywhere close to what they seem to be claiming is possible with Nikon raw images.)

*@LetTheRightLensIn:*

I don't really mean to be insulting, however I've just been reading threads in the background for almost a week now, and every time I come across one of your posts, its always the same thing: whining and complaining about a couple stops of DR at one ISO setting (maybe two if you account for ISO 200, as at ISO 400 you can't get much more than about 12 stops regardless, and even on Sony sensors its around 11.7). Gets really old after a while, especially when you largely agree (yes, I DO want better DR), but realize the complaining is _mostly ineffectual here at CR_...its just _antagonistic_ at this point (when people would much prefer to ENJOY their shiny new 5D III, not hear about how it might possibly be incomparably inferior.)

If you really want to *CHANGE* things, you gotta bark up the right tree. CR forums is not exactly a big time Canon rep hangout, its more the hangout of antsy trawlers looking for news about the next canon gear release, and a few tech heads who like to spout technical specifications and math every so often. I don't fault you for trying to light a fire under Canon's collective ass and get them to improve DR...your just in the wrong place. I don't think they are really going to hear you from here. If you want to be effective, if you want to be a voice that is heard over the noise of rumormongering...i.e. if you want your SNR relative to the average Canon chatter to be clearly and audibly above the noise floor...you should find the right *official* Canon forum and _make your voice heard there._ At least then, your jihad against Canon DR limitations might actually produce a valuable outcome.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Are you getting 14 stop DR at the moment?



I doubt I'd get anywhere near 14 usable stops, even with the best SoNikon has to offer.
But it should provide me with more shadow pushing ability than Canon product in some images shot at base ISO.

I just bought this little Nikon toy a couple weeks ago, so don't have the shots from it I've accumulated with years of shooting with Canon. But I'm very much looking forward to putting it to the test to see what it can do and how it compares!  Running a studio test shot is, for now, likely the best option I'll have availble for direct and controlled comparison.



> Show us !!!!!'
> Show us any Nikon picture which a canon DSLR cannot do.
> Please please stop this DR saga.



I would LOVE to stop this saga. 
What would it take to convince people?

I think that the best way to stop the low iso DR argument is to have a good smackdown set of results to show the difference.

If I can put up some test shots comparing a Nikon body to one from Canon that will show the difference in final image quality that's possible in post-processing, would that be useful?

I don't know if you've seen a recent posting of mine on another thread here but I've been working on gathering raw files from various cameras. I now have files from 12 or more cameras. Mostly Canon, a couple Nikon. These files are simply DARK shots, no images at this time.

My intent is to exhibit the differences in dark noise levels and also the subjective quality of the dark noise in a very bold manner; by pushing the exposure in post to bring up the dark levels so they are clearly visible.
This kind of push is more than I'd do in normal, even extreme, levels of post on actual images but the end result is you will see that it takes a few more stops of push before the noise levels from some sensors matches what's coming from those other sensors. You'll also be able to see the different types of noise quality, and how it could impair an image if you have to push the shadow areas too far.

I've been working at this for about a month, it'll take a while longer for me to compile it all and make it presentable.
If you have some suggestions of what you'd like to see from it, send me a message and I'll try to accomodate it if it makes sense to do so.

All I can say in summary at this time, it's been quite an eye-opener!

Although I was initially quite miffed with banding from my 5D2, smack in the midtones of a normally exposed image no less, it's improved considerably, likely from firmware updates and better NR in post software. I can use the camera now.

My 7D, however, sometimes vexes me with strong banding - but not consistently.

Let me know what you shoot with, I'll see if I can get dark files from the same model to compare as well.


@ jrista

Agreed, all the DR squawkin goin' on here is not likely to make much of a ripple where it counts, the engineering department in Japan. I've had some good chats with smart people at Canon's service call center, and things have been fixed, altho it did take nearly a year in one instance and it's still not totally resolved. (a problem with a bug in DPP's internal tone curves which only affects Digic 4 EOS bodies)

However, if I can put up some material to show the differences in sensor dark noise, as they can actually affect an image, I'm happy to do so for educational purposes. And a thank-you in advance for anyone willing to contribute to the effort.

I've got too much invested to slam Canon for this shortcoming, unhappy as I may be that it still exists while the competitors are making improvements. I like using Canon gear. I'd prefer not to have to invest in another platform. But I like using the best tool for the job instead of compromising. The research I've been doing has showed me how some of my tools are not as good for certain jobs as some other tools are.

And knowledge itself is a mighty useful tool.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 26, 2012)

I think we all know that the 7D hasn't got the best IQ in the world - it is a consumer sports camera. The pro models are a different kettle of fish.

Perhaps the DPP issue you refer to would explain why the image from my 1Ds3 is better than my 5D2.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 26, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Nonsense. I quite enjoy trying to train an assistant on how to catch the sun at the correct angle with a reflector without having it get blown away in the wind  Good times.



Hmm assistants you say? I think I just discovered where I have been going wrong. I need Kate Beckinsale as my photo assistant. Her magical glow will perfectly fill in shadows in all my scenes, no matter their scale. Hmm yes that's the ticket. Thanks. There is something somehow very appealing about this way to reach 15 stops dynamic range, something that I feel would be lacking were I to use a D800 instead.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 26, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense. I quite enjoy trying to train an assistant on how to catch the sun at the correct angle with a reflector without having it get blown away in the wind  Good times.
> ...


  ;D


----------



## Aglet (Mar 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I think we all know that the 7D hasn't got the best IQ in the world - it is a consumer sports camera. The pro models are a different kettle of fish.



Yup, 7D's a less than ideal bit of gear. Only got it as it promised better AF that the other bodies I had at the time & couldn't justify the cost of 1D4 for a little bit of action work.
Was hoping what i did shoot with it would let me wrangle the raw more than it does. Alas... Altho, it's not so bad if I push the iso to 800 or more so random noise overpowers the Vertical banding. Low iso on my particular 7D can be nasty at times.

OTOH, my 5D2 in initial trim was no peach either.
I think I found one with 1.06 or so firmware still on it; gonna grab some dark files to check for a difference.




briansquibb said:


> Perhaps the DPP issue you refer to would explain why the image from my 1Ds3 is better than my 5D2.



I'm curious, what IQ difference are you finding between 5D2 and 1Ds3?

The DPP glitch I found caused some posterizing in shadow areas with Digic 4 bodies. With Digic 3 bodies, taking the same shot, no posterization.
Recent versions of DPP reduced the problem, tho not completely last time I checked my reference file. I just got some different raw converters to handle problem files. LR3 worked great, DxO was OK too.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 26, 2012)

I take some 2-3000 pictures a week so I haven't time for pixel peeking - just eyeball testing

The images from the 7D have never looked as good to me as any of the ff (or 1D4), just seemed cruder and coarser - even though they went through the same pp

The 7D images were never bad, just worse than the ff

The 1Ds3 renders skin tones better than the 5DII, particularly in the iso50-200 range. After than there is little to choose. I suspect it is better with reds. The 5D2 went a couple of weeks ago as it was just sitting around as I prefered to have either the 1D4 or the 1Ds3.

The 7D I got very cheap and use as a walkabout with the 70-300L. It also sits in the car as the 'just in case' camera. It sits in the bag with the 17-40, but this is rarely used on the 7D as I am not into wa as a rule athough I am into the 8-15 on the 1Ds3 for the fantastic artistic opportunities it opens up.


----------



## seekn (Mar 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



I've been a long time subscriber to CR, just read the forums on a daily basis but never bothered to write anything. However I am compelled to agree here. I totally get that LTRLI means well, however by constantly harping on how bad the canon DR is, it really takes the shine off of my hard-earned money to purchase my mark iii. I have read many times and know that the DR is not as good as Nikon and fully understand the pros and cons of both. I am grateful for all the information found on this forum, however after a certain point we all fully know what both camera's limitations are at this point. Right now hearing the same complaints makes using my new camera less than blissful. I come to these forums to discuss and read about canon rumors and equipment, not to hear how the competition is blowing our sensors out of the water and that unless I sell all my gear I cannot take a decent artistic picture. I truly would love to have 3 more stops of DR, but honestly, I know that there is so much more to photography than DR, and our own individual differences as photographers makes the difference in DR negligible (really it does). I hope canon does listen to everyone here and does work on improving its sensor. I would like to see better resolution and DR in future FF cameras but for now it is what it is. I would like to hear more about pros and cons of the cameras rather than beating a dead horse.  Thanks also to everyone on the forums for just being a wealth of information. It is always the first and last webpage I look at when Im online.


----------



## cinema-dslr (Mar 26, 2012)

If you don't read a post...than does it exist?


----------



## Aglet (Mar 26, 2012)

seekn said:


> ..hope canon does listen to everyone hear and does work on improving its sensor.



I should have an opportunity to speak directly to a Canon Canada rep in a few weeks. I'll be one more voice he hears supplying kudos and complaints about various aspects of their products. 
This kind of feedback does get considered when delivered to the correct audience in an appropriate manner.

This forum has been a great source of information to me as well, and has confirmed some issues I've struggled with in recent years. It's become a useful resource in a constant learning process, especially considering the pace at which things change compared to back in the days of film being king. 

However, I agree, this should be more of a _rumors_ forum. 

I think there is a more appropriate forum area on this site for discussing this kind of image quality and hardware limitations information.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The 1Ds3 renders skin tones better than the 5DII, particularly in the iso50-200 range. After than there is little to choose. I suspect it is better with reds. The 5D2 went a couple of weeks ago as it was just sitting around as I prefered to have either the 1D4 or the 1Ds3.



Looking at the DxO metamerism index, the 1Ds3 does better on that than any of the recent stuff (5D2,D800,D4), it's possible that it's stronger color filters it had gave it the better skin tones (although it perhaps helps make it worse at higher ISOs than the 5D2 by letting a bit less light through).

I wonder what the 5D3 will be like in terms of the filters. The newest Nikons seem to have switched to the more color-blind type as Canon had post-1Ds3.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 26, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Hmm assistants you say? I think I just discovered where I have been going wrong. I need Kate Beckinsale as my photo assistant. Her magical glow will perfectly fill in shadows in all my scenes, no matter their scale. Hmm yes that's the ticket. Thanks. There is something somehow very appealing about this way to reach 15 stops dynamic range, something that I feel would be lacking were I to use a D800 instead.



I said assistants, not models  An assistant is usually some smelly, hairy, overweight dude that's hung over from the night before 

As far as reflectors go, I don't ever see them going away, regardless of how much DR improves in the coming years. There's just a certain quality of light you can achieve with them, and I use them to manipulate highlights, reflections, and light volume more often than I use them for fill light.

Check out this video taken by a super high end commercial photographer. He's shooting with a Phase One P65, which does quite well at 13 stops of DR, according to DxOMark. What do you see 2:40 into the clip? That's right, a reflector 

chmil. 

On a side note, that Phase One shutter sounds sweeet ;D


----------



## Bosman (Mar 26, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm assistants you say? I think I just discovered where I have been going wrong. I need Kate Beckinsale as my photo assistant. Her magical glow will perfectly fill in shadows in all my scenes, no matter their scale. Hmm yes that's the ticket. Thanks. There is something somehow very appealing about this way to reach 15 stops dynamic range, something that I feel would be lacking were I to use a D800 instead.
> ...


Thanks for posting the vid Beast, I saw reflector at about 1min 22 sec too.  
He must be paid 50g's to make a car look good on a shoot like that!


----------



## Aglet (Mar 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The images from the 7D have never looked as good to me as any of the ff (or 1D4), just seemed cruder and coarser - even though they went through the same pp



I've also seen a "certain something" in differences from different bodies and the 7D is not my favorite. To me it has a "gritty" feel even at lower iso and that could be anything. I also have 60D and images from it are similar to the 7D, but ever so slightly different again, even discounting the 7D's more prominent banding in some shots. I like the 60D output nearly as much as my old 40D but the 40D still gives me subtleties in highlight areas I find less "digital" looking.

5D2 also doesn't give me output that looks the way I prefer either, almost always have to tweak tone curves in post. OTOH, I've often been more satisfied with images from my older Digic 3 bodies for that same nebulous reason.

Even the old 5DC, which I didn't have either, was said to produce a very pleasant looking image for whatever reason.

And I guess that's why I'm one of the few (?) who likes to use DPP for post, it tends to maintain that Canon look and feel to the images better than other converters as long as I don't try to make too big of a change. When I need to really push something, it seems DxO and LR do a more credible job but the result no longer has the same feel as a Canon DPP image that was nailed right to start with..

1D and 1Ds stuff has always looked a little better to me too. Unfortunately I don't have any of them to work with or even test. I just don't shoot enough to justify getting one. The 1Dx is something I will consider for the next year or so, IF it can deliver what I want and be worthwhile to me

I think part of the reason is the price you're paying on the 1 series. You are getting the very best they can put into a body. Sensor, support electronics and other hardware and even internal design layout all contribute a little bit to the end result. Sometimes the results are so subtle they're hard to quantify, but the difference in the end result is still tangible. (reminds me of high-end audio gear)
From the horizontal banding and other issues I've seen when looking at the big-picture noise levels I can speculate much of it has to do with minor shortcomings in support electronics, as well as sensor issues. In a 1D body there's a little more physical room to do things better too, from design and engineering perspectives.

I hope the 1Dx performs as well as we hope and builds on the IQ rep of the 1Ds series with some seriously butt-kickin' good AF.


----------

