# High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800



## V8Beast (Mar 3, 2012)

You could see this one coming from a mile away. These 5DIII images have already been posted here. Just change the number in the URL from "01" to "18" to download them all.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/01_cinc_big.jpg


Here are some high ISO test images from the D800:

http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-high-iso-image-samples

There aren't many direct ISO comparisons (ie 1600 vs. 1600) in these samples, but my own worthless opinion is that the 5DIII at 25,600 looks almost as good as the D800 at 6400, and the 5DIII looks substantially better at 6400 than the D800 at 6400. So, my unscientific conclusion is that the 5DIII tops the D800 by 1.5 to 2 stops. 

Discuss


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 3, 2012)

From the measurment performed on D800 it seems to be about 1 stop from an idel FF with bayer sensor.
So it quite obvious that it is impossible to be 1 stop better than D800 and if some photos would suggest such a thing then something is wrong.
We know D800 is very good at high ISO. Perhaps 5D3 is slighly better, perhaps it's slighly worse. It will be less than 1/2 stop either way.


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 3, 2012)

Let the DXO guys do their job. These two cameras are good in their own right. I am happy with what Canon has done as thats the camp I am in (lenswise).


----------



## randplaty (Mar 3, 2012)

Tuggem said:


> From the measurment performed on D800 it seems to be about 1 stop from an idel FF with bayer sensor.
> So it quite obvious that it is impossible to be 1 stop better than D800 and if some photos would suggest such a thing then something is wrong.
> We know D800 is very good at high ISO. Perhaps 5D3 is slighly better, perhaps it's slighly worse. It will be less than 1/2 stop either way.



Link?


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 3, 2012)

randplaty said:


> Tuggem said:
> 
> 
> > From the measurment performed on D800 it seems to be about 1 stop from an idel FF with bayer sensor.
> ...



http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40756917


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 3, 2012)

Tuggem said:


> randplaty said:
> 
> 
> > Tuggem said:
> ...



I followed the link, it compares Nikon cameras with each other, including downsizing the d800 that performs so poorly at full resolution to 12 mp.

There was certainly nothing to compare a 5D MK III with at 22 mp.

I'll wait until someone with proper credentials posts a proper review. Its very easy to unintentionally bias a review, and extreme care and understanding is necessary to make a fair comparison.

Comparing out of camera jpegs is one good way to unfairly bias results, due to the better in camera processing on the new models. When you use raw, with a common processor, then you begin to see actual differnces. Certainly, a whole stop improvement for the 5D MK III raw images would be quite amazing to me.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 3, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Tuggem said:
> 
> 
> > randplaty said:
> ...



You asked for a link that showed that D800 is about 1 stop from an ideal bayer FF. I provided the link but now you start asking for comparison between 5D3 and D800. If there had been any direct comparison then I would had told the difference between them not sad that "It will be less than 1/2 stop either way".


----------



## randplaty (Mar 3, 2012)

Tuggem said:


> You asked for a link that showed that D800 is about 1 stop from an ideal bayer FF. I provided the link but now you start asking for comparison between 5D3 and D800. If there had been any direct comparison then I would had told the difference between them not sad that "It will be less than 1/2 stop either way".



I asked for the link, not him. So would the [email protected] 12mp be the ideal bayer FF in that test?


----------



## randplaty (Mar 3, 2012)

Tuggem said:


> From the measurment performed on D800 it seems to be about 1 stop from an idel FF with bayer sensor.
> So it quite obvious that it is impossible to be 1 stop better than D800 and if some photos would suggest such a thing then something is wrong.
> We know D800 is very good at high ISO. Perhaps 5D3 is slighly better, perhaps it's slighly worse. It will be less than 1/2 stop either way.



Rereading the entire thread more carefully, I don't think that's what the thread was saying. One post she said that the D4 line was 2.2db from being the perfect sensor which is what I think you are referring to, but only at the highest EV levels. None of the sensors are anywhere near the ideal FF bayer sensor at low EV levels. They all exhibit a lot of noise. 

This is the quote: 

"Just draw a parallel line to the D4 graph in the EV +1 to +3 range, 2.2dB above the D4, then extend it to the left. That's a 100% QE sensor with no read noise.
D4: Only 2.2dB from ideal (for Bayer sensors)!"

She's saying to draw a parallel line based on the D4 graph in the EV +1 to +3 range... not considering the negative values. In otherwords, a perfect Bayer sensor would have the same noise level as a D4 at + 3 EV as it does in the -10 EV. Obviously no sensor is even close to that, therefore all sensors have A LOT of room for improvement.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 3, 2012)

I just finished reading a review which includes some info from Canon's Chuck Westfall. Chuck says that the sensor is a 2 stop improvement, and its not just improved NR processing in camera, but a two stop better sensor.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11675-12364

I find that amazing, but from my playing with the full size jpegs downloaded from DPR, it is possible, I want to see the raws first. I printed 8.5 X 11 images on my Epson 3880 this morning of the images at ISO 12,800, 25600, 52,200, and 102400. The images were clear and sharp with no visible noiise, unless, of course, you used magnification. I did not think it was possible, so I reprinted them carefully and the results were the same. Anyone would be happy to have a 8 X 10 print at ISO 102800 if this can be reproduced in the real world of images. At any rate, i think ISO 25600 is going to be useful.

The Images from the D800 that I've seen indicate about 1 or 1.5 stops less, which is also supurb, particularly considering the high MP count. We really need high ISO images downsized to 22mp to compare.


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 3, 2012)

the over the fence guy said:


> Canon 5dMarkus the 3rd. ISO shoots:
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1779787/iso-50?inalbum=canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-low-light-iso-samples



Amazing! ISO 25600 is absolutely amazing! Can't wait till the camera ships and so I can put it through its paces first hand. 8) The noise becomes really apparent at ISO 51200 and 102400 so I don't know if there is even any point of them being available except for maybe the very rare instances of sheer desperation to capture an image in really really low lighting.


----------



## vWings (Mar 3, 2012)

> Canon 5dMarkus the 3rd. ISO shoots:
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1779787/iso-50?inalbum=canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-low-light-iso-samples



That is really amazing from someone trading up from a 7D. At least 3 stops, more like 4 better. And that's with no post.


----------



## JustinTArthur (Mar 3, 2012)

the over the fence guy said:


> Canon 5dMarkus the 3rd. ISO shoots:
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1779787/iso-50?inalbum=canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-low-light-iso-samples


 These are really impressive. Just to be clear though: according to the article, it sounds like they were shot directly to JPEG with a side-intention of testing the noise reduction system.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkiii/9


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 3, 2012)

Tuggem said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Tuggem said:
> ...



To be honest your link shows nothing. Like Mt Spokane says, its just comparing Nikon Sony sensors in use and that the *D4* is their closest to an ideal bayer sensor.


----------



## skoobey (Mar 3, 2012)

Well, as expected on 100% comparison 5dIII blows D800 out of the water. It's a t least 1 stop better, but we must not forget that scaled down images just might look pretty much the same, as the D800 has so much detail captured.

Wondering how do they compare scaled down???

What I'm afraid will happen to the d800 is that many wedding photographers won't need it as it is too slow and the files are too big, and many are already shooting Cannon, which has better lenses up it's line (don't argue). Fashion community might embrace it.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 3, 2012)

randplaty said:


> Tuggem said:
> 
> 
> > From the measurment performed on D800 it seems to be about 1 stop from an idel FF with bayer sensor.
> ...



Yes, its correct that 1 step is valdid for about down to -3EV and in thery a lot could be improved in dark shadows.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 3, 2012)

the over the fence guy said:


> Canon 5dMarkus the 3rd. ISO shoots:
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1779787/iso-50?inalbum=canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-low-light-iso-samples



Seems reasonable since Canon made clear they had 2 stops improvement in JPG thanks to improved noise reduction processing. Even though this is way to much noise reduction its gives reason to be quite hopefull.


----------



## swiss (Mar 3, 2012)

XanuFoto said:


> Let the DXO guys do their job. These two cameras are good in their own right. I am happy with what Canon has done as thats the camp I am in (lenswise).



That's the point, and, as long as the cost of the 5D3 is over 3k I will invest in additional glas... Hope the new 100-400 is comming soon...


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 3, 2012)

skoobey said:


> Well, as expected on 100% comparison 5dIII blows D800 out of the water. It's a t least 1 stop better, but we must not forget that scaled down images just might look pretty much the same, as the D800 has so much detail captured.
> 
> Wondering how do they compare scaled down???
> 
> What I'm afraid will happen to the d800 is that many wedding photographers won't need it as it is too slow and the files are too big, and many are already shooting Cannon, which has better lenses up it's line (don't argue). Fashion community might embrace it.



Serious people always only compares att same sizes.

My guess, as I already stated, is that it will be a marginal difference between 5D3 and D800. I dont understand all of those who on before hand assumed that Canon had made no improvement and would be inferior. It doesn't take much of an improvement from 1D4 to be on pair with D800.
If I must make a bet which will have the edge I put the money on D800 but I will not put more than a dollar.

I hope Canon 5D3 will have 1 stop of improvement from 5D2, even though it sounds unrealistic, but I will be OK with that its equal or better than D800.
If they have surpassed 1 stop of improvement I will just bow for them and go into a condition of euphoria.

Canon has already confirmed themselves that the improvement from 5D2 is not 2 stop so that I think people shall stop hoping for.


----------



## Dovepixel (Mar 3, 2012)

The tests on DPreview are done with good lighting, the noise will not be that pronounced.
Here are some tests done by others, probably less financially orientated as DPreview:

http://www.canonklub.cz/clanky/prvni-test-eos-5d-mk-iii-na-sum


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 3, 2012)

The DPR tests are hardly in good lighting at 3EV. If anything, shooting at ISO 25600 with shutter speed of 1/4000 is hardly a real life situation. In the end the results are very impressive in both tests.


----------



## kenraw (Mar 3, 2012)

what is the point of constantly comparing these two cameras?
you either have a canon or Nikon and get on with it. 
or if your that bothered buy one of each. 

lets get out and shoot already.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 3, 2012)

skoobey said:


> Well, as expected on 100% comparison 5dIII blows D800 out of the water. It's a t least 1 stop better, but we must not forget that scaled down images just might look pretty much the same, as the D800 has so much detail captured.
> 
> Wondering how do they compare scaled down???
> 
> What I'm afraid will happen to the d800 is that many wedding photographers won't need it as it is too slow and the files are too big, and many are already shooting Cannon, which has better lenses up it's line (don't argue). Fashion community might embrace it.



could not dissagree more. 

The same could have been said of the 5DmkII. The D700 was faster and produced cleaner images and smaller files. did that stop the 5DII? How many weddings were shot with the SLOW 5DmkII? I'll tell you that more that I can count. It seems every wedding photog with a canon set had a 5DmkII and was ok with the speed. As you said, at 100% the 5DIII is clearly better and has ISO ranges that are not possible with the D800, althought the quality of these is questionable. 

I suspect that downscaling a 36MP file to 22 will improve a the images about a stop or so just like scaling down the 5DmkII images to 12MP improves them as well. The argument was always made that the 5DmkII gave you the option to scale down when you needed it, and preserve high resolution when you didn't. The same argument now applies to the D800.

Ultimately, I think the biggest gains of the 5DIII are for sports and action photographers that need a lot of speed. Wedding and portrait photographers made livings with "slow" 5DmkIIs so why can't D800 photogs? With the cost per gigabyte always dropping down, 36MP files are not that much of an issue compared to 22MP files. It is just 1/3 more pixels. 

So while I totally see that sports photographers will enjoy the new 5DIII over a D800, I don't think the new model has anything over the D800 and in fact, I think the lower MP for a market that is based on a lot of printing and cropping may actually make the D800 the better camera.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 3, 2012)

the over the fence guy said:


> Canon 5dMarkus the 3rd. ISO shoots:
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1779787/iso-50?inalbum=canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-low-light-iso-samples



+1: I am no PP expert but I took the ISO 102k image and did some very basic PP to it. Resize/ Nik's define for noise/ contrast adj and got this usable image. It is not something I would consider client worthy but considering I get images like this from my 5Dc at 800-1600 ISO, thats about 6 stops better ISO perf than my current gear ... impressed!


----------



## K-amps (Mar 3, 2012)

Look at 5:36, that tells me what I needed to know...

Canon 5D Mark III Hands-on First Impression


----------



## MikeHunt (Mar 3, 2012)

Canon have provided a sample video with the 5D3 coupled to various EF L lenses, some of which was shot at ISO 3200 and some at ISO 6400 (see below). Now compare that to any preview Nikon D800 HD video that is available ???

Canon 5D3 HD Sample Video


----------



## cps_user (Mar 3, 2012)

> So while I totally see that sports photographers will enjoy the new 5DIII over a D800, I don't think the new model has anything over the D800 and in fact, I think the lower MP for a market that is based on a lot of printing and cropping may actually make the D800 the better camera.



as a wedding photographer, I think I still prefer the 5d III (not just because it'll fit my EF lenses ;D) since at this point 36mp raw files would not be very great for my workflow: I would need more memory cards and more memory card swapping, file ingestion for making a same day slide show to be played in the evening would take much longer (I usually have only an hour for making this) and I work off the NAS so larger files would slow me down a bit there. 

I don't crop a lot and what's left is almost every time more than large enough for making 11x14 inch wedding albums (largest size I do) and nice enlargements for clients. 

in the future, yes maybe larger files would be great, but at this point as a wedding photog, I'm quite happy with this.


----------



## RafaPolit (Mar 3, 2012)

psolberg said:


> ...Ultimately, I think the biggest gains of the 5DIII are for sports and action photographers that need a lot of speed. Wedding and portrait photographers made livings with "slow" 5DmkIIs so why can't D800 photogs? With the cost per gigabyte always dropping down, 36MP files are not that much of an issue compared to 22MP files. It is just 1/3 more pixels...


I don't think this encompasses the whole picture... It's not the storage of the files, either on camera or inside a hard drive, that is the issue but actually working with those files. At 18MP, when you start adding layers of adjustments and corrections in photoshop, for instance, the resources on the computer start to see themselves heavily demanded. At 22MP things get much worse, but at 36MP, unless you have heaps and heaps of RAM, you will be struggling with any change you want made, and probably could go for a cup of coffee when applying a heavy filter such as lens blur or radial blur.

Lightroom, also RAM hungry, will really struggle loading and developing 36MP images to a degree I would consider beyond reasonable limits.

Noise wise, I'm impressed with what I see on the 5DmkIII, and it's certainly more than 1 stop better than the 5DII under any circumstance. But it's too early to draw final conclusions as very little real samples are out there.

Best regards,
Rafa.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 11, 2012)

In light of these D800 raws that I dug up, I might have to retract my worthless opinion. There's a link to download the raws and jpegs in a zip file. 

http://www.arekgmurczyk.pl/

In comparing jpegs, the 5DIII files look like they have a clear edge, but compared to this set of raw files on Imaging Resource that have already been posted, both cameras appear equal in the noise department:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

It's an apples to oranges comparison since they aren't images of the same subject/scene, but I have to admit that this is a surprisingly good showing by the D800. I was expecting the 5DIII to beat it by a comfortable margin due to the disparity in megapixel count. 

In comparing the D800's raws to its jpegs, the noise is pretty similar. I think this validates people's suspicions that Canon is apply some heavy in-camera noise reduction in its jpeg files.


----------



## KeithR (Mar 11, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I was expecting the 5DIII to beat it by a comfortable margin due to the disparity in megapixel count.


...Which graphically demonstrates the complete nonsense of that line of thinking. 

Just look at this comparison between the D700 and D800 - the 36 mp D800 is _all over_ the 12 mp D700 at the image level, and that's after conversion in a Raw Therapee, which is well known not to be great at high ISOs, _and_ using cobbled-together profiling for the D800...


----------



## SpartanWarrior (Mar 11, 2012)

I think both will be great cameras, but I got to say dpreview is filled with fanboy galore they are already making it sound like the D800 is better than D4 in high ISO, they wish, I will also say the 5D III comes close to D4 at high ISO but better detail from 5D III.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 11, 2012)

KeithR said:


> ...Which graphically demonstrates the complete nonsense of that line of thinking.



Allow me to elaborate. When looking at a 100 percent crop of a 36 mp image compared to a 22 mp image, I'd expect the odds to be stacked in favor of the 22 mp files unless the 36 mp image was downsized accordingly. In viewing the raws from both cameras at 100 percent, I can't see much a difference in noise. 

I'm not complaining about the 5DIII's megapixel count, as I think 22 is plenty, but considering that Canon didn't increase it much at all over the MKII, I was hopeful of a substantial improvement in ISO. It looks like what we got was a substantial increase in in-camera noise reduction. I'm not going to complain about that either, but Canon's advertised 2 stop ISO advantage of the MKIII over the MKII is obviously for jpegs, now raws.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 11, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> It's an apples to oranges comparison since they aren't images of the same subject/scene, but I have to admit that this is a surprisingly good showing by the D800. I was expecting the 5DIII to beat it by a comfortable margin due to the disparity in megapixel count.


I don't know the tech side of this, but I wasn't personally expecting this. The 5dii was only 1/3rd stop behind the d700 (although Nikon fanboys claimed a lot more) and it had twice as many MP.

When taking resolution out of the equation (ie. resizing to the lower resolution of the two) it seems noise is about the same. MP doesn't seem to affect noise all that much..


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 11, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > ...Which graphically demonstrates the complete nonsense of that line of thinking.
> ...


From my quick tests last week, the impression I got was that the MkIII has around a 1.5 stop advantage over the MkII with the noise reduction switched off, but I didn't have any images to take home with me to look properly. I had to compare the images on the back of the screens, as the card slots were taped up.


----------



## SpartanWarrior (Mar 11, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> I don't know the tech side of this, but I wasn't personally expecting this. The 5dii was only 1/3rd stop behind the d700 (although Nikon fanboys claimed a lot more) and it had twice as many MP.
> 
> When taking resolution out of the equation (ie. resizing to the lower resolution of the two) it seems noise is about the same. MP doesn't seem to affect noise all that much..


They claim a lot of false stuff without proof, 5D II and D700 maybe not even 1/3 stop but less, here is my 5D II and my friends D700 that I tested and I have many more with same results,
shot in RAW same settings, cropped 100% and converted to Jpeg nothing else 
5D II ISO 12800





D700 ISO 12800




5D II Left 12800




D700 12800




and here are 5D II mRAW ISO 12800


----------



## Actionpix (Mar 11, 2012)

5DIII and D800 are completely different cameras. So why would you try to compare them? As long digital cameras are being sold there always has been the trade of between amount of pixels and amount of noise. Also you can not expect large files and high fps together. All this is getting better with every camera but the difference remains. Just get what you need most. (Being able to make the pick in one camera system would be nice though.)


----------



## Cali_PH (Mar 11, 2012)

MikeHunt said:


> Canon have provided a sample video with the 5D3 coupled to various EF L lenses, some of which was shot at ISO 3200 and some at ISO 6400 (see below). Now compare that to any preview Nikon D800 HD video that is available ???



Funny timing, I was just reading about the Nikon D800 promo video debacle. Nikon's apparently admitted they used footage from at least a couple of people without permission for their video, one of which said he shot with a Canon 5DmkII (unless this is a fake story?). In the comments section I see people pointing out more clips taken from non-D800 sources. My apologies if this is old news for most.

http://wideopencamera.com/cameras/nikon-steals-canon-5d-mk-ii-footage-for-d800-promo-video/


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 11, 2012)

Good photographers will be able to work with either bodies and produce stellar images. Everyone else with be just comparing specs and complaining. Both cameras are good tools if you know what you are doing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 11, 2012)

Actionpix said:


> 5DIII and D800 are completely different cameras. So why would you try to compare them? As long digital cameras are being sold there always has been the trade of between amount of pixels and amount of noise.



But the point here is there hasn't always been that much of a trade. It now looks like the crazy MP D800 will not only have a lot more dynamic range at low ISO but do just about nearly as well at high ISO. And it's actually often been like that. Within anything not going to crazy extremes, more MP has usually offered more pluses than often trivially minor losses in high iso performance.




> Also you can not expect large files and high fps together.


That is why the 1.3x crop and 1.5 crop modes of the Nikons are cool. 36MP 4fps, 25MP 5fps, 16MP 6fps.

Canon is getting close to large files and high fps at 22 and 6 (if it had been the 6.9-7.5 of the rumors it would've have fully attained that goal).


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 11, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But the point here is there hasn't always been that much of a trade. It now looks like the crazy MP D800 will not only have a lot more dynamic range at low ISO but do just about nearly as well at high ISO. And it's actually often been like that. Within anything not going to crazy extremes, more MP has usually offered more pluses than often trivially minor losses in high iso performance.



+1

And, I really really really hate to say this, but it looks like Canon may (and will?) lose dominance to competition from the d800. I will be totally honest, I have been a 100% die-hard Canon fanboy through and through since my 40D days - but these sample images coming out are making me think twice. Toss in my own disasters with 7D AF (this pretty much sums up my 7D experience) and the 580exII PocketWizard fry-out issue I also had, and Canon's reputation in _my mind_ has sustained some chinks in its armor.

I can't help but think that others around the CR forums are feeling the same way. When other die-hards start saying things like "well - you can't compare them [the d800 and 5D3]," "they're two different cameras," and "well - I'm sure both bodies will take great shots!" ...you know there is trouble in paradise. It's like we're already setting up excuses for the lack of improvements that one would expect in the 5D3 after 4 years of R&D. It seems everyone is trying to deny the fact that the d800 shots look, well - let's face it - f*cking incredible. And nothing trickling out from MKIII land is really that mind blowing. 

*It's discouraging. It's heart wrenching.* It's making me wonder WTF Canon has been doing the last four years.

It's like they had a board meeting and said, "let's address the forum kids bitching about AF - so toss in the 1DX system - and maybe improve noise a smidge" - and called it a frickin' day (or 4 years). Don't get me wrong, the AF and stop improvements will be very welcomed features to most 5D users. But when Nikon has clearly been hard at work with Sony researching sensor tech - you gotta show a little more after 48 months of R&D. Seriously - how can anyone deny those d800 shots? They're just bad ass. ...and quite frankly, they make me want to cry. I WANT those images to be from the 5D. :'(

To boot - that $500 cost premium over Nikon isn't helping Canon much. Sure - they'll get stellar sales on the 5D3 (in full disclosure - I'm already one of the buyers) - but so far every single buyer is living off of 5D2 experiences, and their own hopes and dreams of what the 5D3 *should* be. If that doesn't materialize, you can bet your bottom dollar every single one of us will be looking at the d800 shooter in the corner wondering, "what if?"

I've never considered abandoning all of my Canon gear for Nikon. And I hate to sound trollish - and expect the flames to come - but the d800 samples are the first images that have made me seriously consider "the switch". I'll wait for my hands on with the 5D3 and real world reviews before I make such a huge business decision - but the bug is already there in the back of my mind. 

And just the fact that the bug is there is what's pissing me off the most. I just wish Canon had done more this go 'round.

:-/


----------



## KeithR (Mar 11, 2012)

Actionpix said:


> there always has been the trade of between amount of pixels and amount of noise.


No.


----------



## KeithR (Mar 11, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> And, I really really really hate to say this, but it looks like Canon may (and will?) lose dominance to competition from the d800.


People have been saying this _for years_ and it hasn't happened yet.

And it never will, as long as more photographers concentrate on actually using their kit - using it well - than worrying about spec sheets and what online "experts" tell us is supposely wrong with the gear.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 11, 2012)

Actionpix said:


> 5DIII and D800 are completely different cameras. So why would you try to compare them?



Because I have both of them on pre-order, and whichever is the better camera will determine which system I go with. 

Because I'm heavily invested in the Canon system, I want the 5DIII to be better, but it's hard to ignore the Nikon. 

Because both the 5DIII and D800 represent the mid-range, prosumer DLSR in each company's respective lineup, both are priced similarly, and both will be compared to each other by potential consumers. 

Because like it or not, they are not completely different cameras. They're competing in the same arena of the market for the same consumer dollars. The 5DII and D700 were different tools, with the former aimed at resolution and the latter at speed, but people inevitably shopped them against each other. 



> As long digital cameras are being sold there always has been the trade of between amount of pixels and amount of noise. Also you can not expect large files and high fps together. All this is getting better with every camera but the difference remains. Just get what you need most.



The 1Ds, 1DsII, and 1DsIII all offered an outstanding tradeoff between resolution, speed, and noise. On paper, the 5DIII continues this tradition. The problem is that the competition has been making revolutionary strides, and the D800 sacrifices very little in speed and noise compared to the 5DIII despite its massive resolution advantage. Canon used to be the class of the field in this regard, and Nikon was an absolute joke just five years ago. Unfortunately for Canon shooters like me, the tables are turning. 

Before the sample images from each body started floating around, I hoped the noise and DR of the 5DIII would have been improved enough to make the D800 less appealing. It doesn't look like Canon has succeeded. 

Again, this is still merely speculation and I'll reserve final judgement until I can test both cameras out in the field. That said, I'm still pulling for Canon.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 11, 2012)

KeithR said:


> And it never will, as long as more photographers concentrate on actually using their kit - using it well - than worrying about spec sheets and what online "experts" tell us is supposely wrong with the gear.



Right now I don't see anyone worrying about specs. I see a lot of people worrying about actual sample images. Call me kooky.


----------



## jrista (Mar 11, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > And it never will, as long as more photographers concentrate on actually using their kit - using it well - than worrying about spec sheets and what online "experts" tell us is supposely wrong with the gear.
> ...



Right, and no one really actually seems to see those sample images for what they really are: Demonstrations of CONSIDERABLE, VISIBLE improvement over their direct PREDECESSORS! You can complain about the 5D III all you want...all of the samples so far show that it offers a *marked improvement* over the 5D II in terms of IQ: Far lower noise at high ISO, elimination of fixed pattern noise, reductions in banding noise (only very slight vertical banding visible in highly manipulated images dragging shadow data up by 4-6 stops), stunning color fidelity, excellent sharpness thanks to a less aggressive low-pass filter, etc. Thats nothing to say of the functional improvements, such as the 61pt AF system, 100% viewfinder, etc. *A win for Canon!*

The same exact thing goes for the D800 vs. its predecessor. Its also a huge improvement, despite offering three times as many pixels as the D700. The IQ is still stellar, low ISO DR is still stellar. On a normalized basis, the D800 outperforms the D700 in just about every way. *A win for Nikon!*



There is nothing to complain about here. The 5D III and the D800 serve different markets, different demographics. If you need _uberpixels_, either jump ship and go Nikon (and incur the extreme cost of doing so to replace your entire kit), or just bid your time and see if Canon releases a 40mp+ competitor later in the year. If you don't need uberpixels, or really need high ISO/low light capabilities with low noise, then you really don't have a leg to stand on regarding the IQ of the 5D III. From a technical level, its a strong improvement over its predecessors. From the level of subjective observation...the photographs from the 5D III, at ANY ISO, are unbelievable and highly, highly competitive with images from other cameras on a *realistic* basis (i.e. without manipulating shadow data by 6 stops to compare data at the bare extremes of what any camera is capable of, demonstrating whats possible given an excessively rare need in real-world situations.)


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 11, 2012)

jrista said:


> There is nothing to complain about here. The 5D III and the D800 serve different markets, different demographics.



I don't understand this statement.

Why are people saying this? Seriously. They are both FF powerhouses with great ISO performance. Until real world reviews hit - we can't compare that ISO performance. So that aside, what are the big technical differences, aside from 4 vs. 6 fps burst rates, slightly different AF point systems, and $500.

I see these competing directly with each other, quite frankly. But then, maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## jrista (Mar 11, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing to complain about here. The 5D III and the D800 serve different markets, different demographics.
> ...



I guess the markets they serve can be seen as subjective. However the D800 with its high resolution sensor really comes off as a studio powerhouse, while the 5D III, given the changes it has over the 5D II (which in the past would have also filled the role as a studio camera quite well, given it essentially held the place back then the D800 holds now) feels more like the cheaper, smaller alternative to the 1D X sports powerhouse, with one stop lower ISO and a few FPS less. But even so, none of that really matters. Technically speaking, *all* of the current-generation professional cameras on the market from both Canon and Nikon are _superbly well suited_ to do _*any* kind of photography_ one puts their mind to, so long as you know the gear and use it effectively. Damn the "ideal" markets...professional digital cameras are so capable these days bickering or complaining over which is better...well, we could all be out taking fantastic photographs right now with any one of the cameras we all currently own. 

But lets just drop the second sentence of mine from your quote. There is STILL NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT. ;-)

Thats all. I'm going to go out and find some birds to photograph with my trusty, very capable and excessively lacking in comparison to the D800 camera...the Canon 7D.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 11, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing to complain about here. The 5D III and the D800 serve different markets, different demographics.
> ...



The D800 does 5 FPS in 1.2 crop mode and will still outperform 5D3 in IQ at low ISO. At high ISO and in 1.2 crop mode it will probably be slightly behind 5D3 in Noise.
So the only thing 5D3 has better than D800 is 1 FPS. The D800 has over 5D3 DR, IQ, high ISO noise (this is still not 100% confirmed but at the moment things points in this direction), resolution, built in flash.
AF and meetering we dont know.
FW features I guess goes in both directions but I find 5D3 multi exposures interesting. If there is any difference between 5D3 and D800 in HDR I would be interested to know if someone has the information.


----------



## altenae (Mar 11, 2012)

> The D800 does 5 FPS in 1.2 crop mode and will still outperform 5D3 in IQ at low ISO



Well we still don't know this for sure
I read a lot, I will wait now for the production images (RAW) and wait for some real tests.

And then we all know.

Edward van Altena
www.wildlife-photos.net


----------



## ITakePhotos (Mar 11, 2012)

The main issue to me is that the mark 3 is takes better pictures than the mark 2. I find the low ISO pictures are fine. If you comparing the high ISO 25600 shots to the mark 2 they are much better and the noise is more pleasant. The d800 25600 noise looks bad from what I have seen. Look at the final picture on this site:

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/02/09/nikon-d800-sample-images-low-light-high-iso-samples-photos/

The noise has a lot of random color in it like the mark 2 at high ISO. I think it will be nice to have more wiggle room at high ISO myself.


----------



## Ricku (Mar 11, 2012)

altenae said:


> > The D800 does 5 FPS in 1.2 crop mode and will still outperform 5D3 in IQ at low ISO
> 
> 
> 
> Well we still don't know this for sure


Oh yes "we" do.

I've done many tests on the low ISO RAW files from D800 and the 5D3, and I've seen that the D800 (and especially the D800E) completely smokes the 5D3, when it comes to low ISO IQ and dynamic range.

It is the new king of dynamic range and landscape photography for sure.

There are still thousands of nay-sayers at the Canon side, but everyone will know the truth by next month.


----------



## altenae (Mar 11, 2012)

Oké. :-\



> completely smokes the 5D3



Whenever I read this kind of sentence, I think. 
Well never mind.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 11, 2012)

ITakePhotos said:


> The main issue to me is that the mark 3 is takes better pictures than the mark 2. I find the low ISO pictures are fine. If you comparing the high ISO 25600 shots to the mark 2 they are much better and the noise is more pleasant. The d800 25600 noise looks bad from what I have seen. Look at the final picture on this site:
> 
> http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/02/09/nikon-d800-sample-images-low-light-high-iso-samples-photos/
> 
> The noise has a lot of random color in it like the mark 2 at high ISO. I think it will be nice to have more wiggle room at high ISO myself.



Up to ISO 6400, the 5DIII and D800 perform very closely. I was expecting The 5DIII to have a clear advantage based on the early jpeg samples, but in looking at the raw files, the D800 certainly doesn't embarrass itself. The 5DIII clearly pulls ahead by 12,800 and 25,600. The D800 looks terrible at 25,600, but I can't think of many situations where I'd need to shoot above ISO 12,800. That's why the D800's supposed advantage in DR is of particular interest to me. I say supposed, because I need to see more images from both bodies before drawing a final conclusion.


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 11, 2012)

5d mk III is going to be a beast, it is better than the d800.


----------



## tonyp (Mar 11, 2012)

Ricku said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> > > The D800 does 5 FPS in 1.2 crop mode and will still outperform 5D3 in IQ at low ISO
> ...



Where are you getting these RAW files from? Just out of curiosity...


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 11, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Actionpix said:
> 
> 
> > 5DIII and D800 are completely different cameras. So why would you try to compare them?
> ...


you could just use both, I used both Nikon and canon for ages then just got sick of different batteries , doubling up on alot of gear so sold off all my nikon gear mainly because I was so heavily invested in canon too and the 5Dmk2s give great IQ also the whole D800 being continually delayed annoyed the hell out of me . I'll be interested to hear your take when you get them both though, I am sure both will be great


----------



## jrista (Mar 11, 2012)

Ricku said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> > > The D800 does 5 FPS in 1.2 crop mode and will still outperform 5D3 in IQ at low ISO
> ...



What, exactly, is the definition of "completely smokes"? (A NON-SUBJECTIVE definition fitting for the context is obviously preferable, I'd rather not have to debate the subjective nature of your definition, and the subjective nature of the definitions definition, etc. etc. ad inf.)

But seriously, where does that kind of crazy talk come from? Unless you have a critical need to photograph the sun itself while concurrently demonstrating that the vastness of space is black, lightless and lifeless, or are photographing frogs in the dead of night illuminated with nothing but starlight, the capabilities of neither of these cameras is actually "needed". And if you do have an ever-present critical need to do one of the above two tasks, your probably a scientist of some kind...and as a scientist, you'll probably find that using a scientific device that is properly designed to meet your specific and *rather niche needs* will do the job far better than either the D800 or 5D III (or any other DSLR camera on the market as of today.)

Excluding the excessive probing and augmentation of the bottom 3 bits of dynamic range from modern cameras that multiplies them 64 times beyond their normal state, does anyone seriously think the 5D III is actually going to be _*incapable*_ of capturing the exact same photos as the D800 at _more than acceptable_ quality? (Acceptable, not "perfect"...were not looking for_ heart-attack inducing perfection_ here...and if you are...you probably need to multiply your budget by an order of magnitude and look elsewhere.) Does anyone REALLY think you couldn't print the same photo from both cameras at a standard print size? (Lets use 8x10 or 8.5x11, since thats about good enough for a magazine centerfold or the average photographic portfolio, a happy medium between your run of the mill 4x6 and a wall-hanging size of say 13x19/A3 or 17x22/A2.) On a normalized basis, for the very, very vast majority of photographers, these two cameras are so much more than anyone actually needs its kind of humorous. Were not all shooting this:

https://vimeo.com/32001208
^-- Shot with a D3s or D3X, forget which

(Bummer, this forum needs support for embedding Vimeo videos)


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 11, 2012)

From looking at quite a bit of samples from both cameras, I think it's too early to tell anything concrete about ISO performance. There is a huge variance between different sources. Some images look fantastic while other look pretty poor. From both cameras. I think that since we are dealing with pre-production bodies, there are quite a lot of differences between copies. I mean, on Canon's site, for example, there are images that were taken as far back as six months ago and who knows how up to date that camera was at the time. 

Not that a stamp of approval really matters in the end, but if anyone needs or wants to know which is better, I think it's best to wait for a head to head comparison by done on the same conditions.


----------



## SpartanWarrior (Mar 11, 2012)

Ricku said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> > > The D800 does 5 FPS in 1.2 crop mode and will still outperform 5D3 in IQ at low ISO
> ...


Smokes it? lol I think you've been hanging out to much in dpreview, yes we will see wont we?


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> does anyone seriously think the 5D III is actually going to be _*incapable*_ of capturing the exact same photos as the D800 at _more than acceptable_ quality?



That's a great point, and the obvious answer is of course not. Nine times out of 10, the limiting factor with either body is going to be the skill of the photographer. 

Even so, I'm looking at this more as a long-term investment. I'm already invested in the Canon system, but the competition has been making incredible strides the last 3-4 years. Back when I started shooting digital in the early '00s, if you showed up with Nikon gear at a gig, all the Canon-toting photogs laughed their asses off at you. Nikon was that bad, and lost a TON of market share from loyal Nikon photogs switching over the Canon. No working pro in their right mind shot with anything other than Canon, and the day that Nikon would catch up, let alone surpass Canon, was inconceivable. The catchphrase "Digital revolutionized photography, Canon revolutionized digital" was 100% fact and 0% marketing BS. 

These days, for a Canon shooter, the marginal improvements the company has made in its crop and full-frame models the last 1-2 generations might make you think that you're backing the wrong horse. Don't get me wrong. Canon still makes a great product, and I think it still has a better overall system than Nikon. The question is whether Nikon is going to continue pulling away, or if Canon is going to reclaim its digital supremacy.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> you could just use both, I used both Nikon and canon for ages then just got sick of different batteries , doubling up on alot of gear so sold off all my nikon gear mainly because I was so heavily invested in canon too and the 5Dmk2s give great IQ also the whole D800 being continually delayed annoyed the hell out of me . I'll be interested to hear your take when you get them both though, I am sure both will be great



I've considered this option as well, but I don't make enough moolah with my gear to warrant having two systems, and redundancy in lenses and accessories between them. I was hoping there would be a big enough difference between the 5DIII and D800 that I could just outright cancel one of my pre-orders, but I think I'm going to have to try them both out side-by-side. If that happens and the 5DIII comes out on top, I'll post my impressions here. If the D800 comes out on top, I'll have to PM or e-mail you my impressions or else I'll get flamed into oblivion ;D


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 12, 2012)

Ricku said:


> poker_jake85 said:
> 
> 
> > 5d mk III is going to be a beast, it is better than the d800.
> ...




lol, sure sound like a fanboy. To me the extra FPS, AF system, and better ISO performance, plus canon lenses are cheaper and better than Nikon, this camera is most definitely worth the $3500. Already sold my mk ii and keeping my 7d as a backup. This is what I wanted in a FF camera and thank you canon for delivering.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > you could just use both, I used both Nikon and canon for ages then just got sick of different batteries , doubling up on alot of gear so sold off all my nikon gear mainly because I was so heavily invested in canon too and the 5Dmk2s give great IQ also the whole D800 being continually delayed annoyed the hell out of me . I'll be interested to hear your take when you get them both though, I am sure both will be great
> ...



I believe the IQ of the two will be very simillar such that it will impossible to tell the difference on a 20" x 16" print

Anyone who expects high IQ at more than iso 800 is going to beunlucky because that is about the point where the DR takes a nose dive. There may be little noise but it will be flat as a pancake - so all the wonderful talk about high iso means low DR and a horrible picture


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > altenae said:
> ...



So a few days ago when you thought Canon would improve DR a lot and make it the same as Exmore or close then you cared a lot of about DR and now that it seems VERY likely that it hasn't improved at all and it will be behind the D800 by a noticeable margin, now suddenly high DR is suddenly a pretty useless feature for a camera to have? And you blasted me for being a troll for days?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > does anyone seriously think the 5D III is actually going to be _*incapable*_ of capturing the exact same photos as the D800 at _more than acceptable_ quality?
> ...



+1

Back in 2004 if you asked people on the sidelines what to get, they'd say Canon. When to the local newspaper, Canon. Talked to people in the PJ department, Canon. I once ran into a Getty photographer in Best Buy and when he heard that was shooting Canon he had a sad and wistful look in his eye and said how lucky I was and that he was really thinking it was time to finally just give up an switch to Canon. etc.

Now, you do not by any means here the advice to pick Canon over Nikon 98% of the time any more.

I can't help but think back to the interview with some European Canon exec where he was more or less laughing at how pathetic Nikon was and how they were hopelessly behind and would take years upon years upon years to ever catch up in FF and how when asked what Canon needed to do next he more or less went on along the lines of we are kings and can sit and rest on our high perch and if we ever should actually need to respond we have so much stuff ready we can instantly respond and beat them at anything. I had a really bad feeling when I saw that interview, it spelled trouble in my mind. Can't imagine him getting away with talk like that now, just a very, very few years later. It seems to me that they became a little bit too slow and too full of their superiority and too much what can we hold back and how can we milk this more and too protective and too reactive instead of being the old Canon that would be bold and leap forward all cannons blazing. They were sooooo far head of Nikon but just sat around thinking they didn't need to go all out.

I mean it's hardly disaster now, the 5D3 should be comparable at high isos and in terms of response and AF to any of the Nikons and hopefully the video will be better, but it is also $500 more than the most direct D800 competition and offers worse metering and it seems very likely that it will quite clearly lose for lower ISO image quality by pretty much any marker you can think of, sometimes by a good deal, and they certainly appear to be clearly behind in sensor tech now and even charging more for arguably less or the same.

EDIT: although to be fair you do need to add $$ to the D800 to get it to 6fps, so that suddenly brings the price even


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 12, 2012)

Found these new d800 shots on a Polish website about some Nikon "roadshow". 

http://www.arekgmurczyk.pl/zdjecia-z-nikona-d800-i-d800e-na-iso-50-iso-25-600-roadshow-w-warszawie/

May be worthwhile shots for doing some comparos. I grabbed the ISO 50 and ISO 100 shots from the RAR. They are pretty impressive. Tried uploading the 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400 shots, but MediaFire kept giving me upload failures...

http://www.mediafire.com/?joc2owtmuztmmt9
http://www.mediafire.com/?lwx0m62f5n4z1ml

Problem noise starts creeping in a little earlier than I would've guessed based on other samples. The 1600 is rough, while 3200 is definitely noisy (the areas outside the DOF seem even mushier).

However, on the flip side, the incredible detail of the low ISO shots is mind blowing. I've never seen this kind of detail from a FF dSLR. Heck, you can even clearly make out the ridges in the "Canon" logo up to 3200.

:-/


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 12, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I believe the IQ of the two will be very simillar such that it will impossible to tell the difference on a 20" x 16" print
> 
> Anyone who expects high IQ at more than iso 800 is going to beunlucky because that is about the point where the DR takes a nose dive. There may be little noise but it will be flat as a pancake - so all the wonderful talk about high iso means low DR and a horrible picture



That's a good point. Fortunately, the images that I take for editorial clients that are printed the largest are almost always at low ISO, which is why my main concern when comparing the two bodies in question is DR. 

Editorial work is funny, because on one hand, there are only a couple of two-page spreads that are printed per story, and most the other images end up being printed rather small. On the other hand, editors and art directors critique each of your images based on what they see on a nice 27-inch Apple Cinema display, so ISO performance, DR performance, and overall IQ are critical in all your shots regardless of how big or small they are printed. Considering they determine who to hire and who not to hire based on how well your images stand out on a big fancy monitor, you can't put anything less than 110 percent into each shot regardless of how it will be used in print.


----------



## jrista (Mar 12, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> So a few days ago when you thought Canon would improve DR a lot and make it the same as Exmore or close then you cared a lot of about DR and now that it seems VERY likely that it hasn't improved at all and it will be behind the D800 by a noticeable margin, now suddenly high DR is suddenly a pretty useless feature for a camera to have? And you blasted me for being a troll for days?



I still care a lot about DR. The difference between you and I, however, is that I've not jumped to any conclusions about what DR the 5D III is capable of. I personally still think it will be demonstrably improved over the 5D II once some more scientific tests are done. Two reasons I believe that: One, Canon has explicitly claimed on several occasions that they made SENSOR-LEVEL improvements to SNR that lead to improved ISO, better noise at high ISO, AND wider dynamic range...for both the 1D X and 5D III. Second, it seems the base read level for the masked off areas in the 5D III is 2048 rather than 1024. No one really knows how those values are used, why there is a non-zero base, or how a higher base over the 5D II might affect DR in the 5D III (you certainly have more "negative" room...about twice as much.) As for comparison to Nikon...since switching to Sony sensors, they have always had the edge when it came to DR...by a stop or two. Unless Canon has made similar kinds of hardware-level read and ADC improvements to their sensors, its doubtful they will gain the full 2 - 2.5 stops of DR improvement. Realistically, figure 1-2 stops (more so for the 1D X than the 5D III, obviously.) Nothing really changes on the Canon vs. Nikon front there, so as far as I'm concerned its rather moot to worry about it.

I haven't preconcluded that the 5D III offers no image sensor improvement over the 5D II. Thats been my stance the entire time you and I have been arguing with you all over DR (and the reason I've argued in the first place.) You seem to think everyone is just going to go balls to the walls tears because a few tech heads on the net crack open the new CR2 files with open source and beta software, a thorough lack of understanding of how those files may need to be processed to extract the maximum amount of DR, make a few claims about how the 5D III is already a failure, and that tomorrow...oh, wait, sorry, on 12/12/21...the world ends. It MAY be true, just as much as it MAY NOT be true. Not all of us are as naive as to simply believe the tech heads, and we're quite happy to believe the improvements Canon claims (not to mention our own eyes) are real until official tests by DXO, DPR, and friends are done with a full and proper understanding. ;D



To play the devils advocate, lets say the absolute worst case so many of you seem to fear actually ends up being true: The D800 beats the 5D III in every single category by miles. Does that mean the 5D III can't take better photos than the 5D II, or the 1D IV, or the 7D, or the 1D/s III, or a whole bunch of prior Nikon and Sony cameras? The answer, as we all know, is *Hell No!* So what does it really matter...unless you literally have the funds to jump ship, dump your entire kit, and replace it with an entirely new Nikon kit? : _Nothing._


----------



## jrista (Mar 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Editorial work is funny, because on one hand, there are only a couple of two-page spreads that are printed per story, and most the other images end up being printed rather small. On the other hand, editors and art directors critique each of your images based on what they see on a nice 27-inch Apple Cinema display, so ISO performance, DR performance, and overall IQ are critical in all your shots regardless of how big or small they are printed. Considering they determine who to hire and who not to hire based on how well your images stand out on a big fancy monitor, you can't put anything less than 110 percent into each shot regardless of how it will be used in print.



I would _REALLY_ like to hear from a broad set of editors and art directors to know if that line has even a scrap of truth in it. I don't think DR or even noise are anywhere near the top things on an editors mind when they are critiquing photographs for publication. For one, no one can even gauge the dynamic range of a photo by eyeballing it, and even if they did measure it...what are they measuring? The DR capability of the camera you used to take the shot, or your fully post-processed image that has a myriad of exposure tweaks, curve adjustments, color tweaks, noise reduction, and sharpening applied? Assuming you actually did capture a photo with 14 stops of dynamic range, does that even matter a wit for the final presentation format...in this case print? Viewed on something like a LaCie 730 10-bpp RGB LED display that covers 123% of the AdobeRGB gamut (probably the best photographic editing screen on the planet), your instantly limited to viewing 10 stops of DR. Printed, you can't expect much more than 8 stops at most with the absolute best paper, inks and printers, and on average you might get 5-7 stops with even very good inks and papers (as ink density limits your black point and paper brightness limits your white point.) The offset lithography printing normally used for publications has greater color, resolution, and DR limitations than your average Epson or Canon 10 to 12-color ink jet (they are used because they are *economical* and offer good enough IQ), so your certainly not gaining anything there. If your photos are so noisy or have such atrocious DR that an editor dumps them, then the problem is far more likely that you aren't exposing or lighting your scene properly than the fact that the camera shows a minor amount of banding noise in the lower few bits of the 14 available. As for IQ...well, even the crummy samples Canon has offered demonstrate that the 5D III will take photos with stunning IQ when they are exposed properly (and that really _is_ the goal). 

There are SO many other things that make a photograph, and many more that make it art. Whether your camera is a stop or two less capable than the competitions is not going to cost you your job with that fancy magazine.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> I still care a lot about DR. The difference between you and I, however, is that I've not jumped to any conclusions about what DR the 5D III is capable of. I personally still think it will be demonstrably improved over the 5D II once some more scientific tests are done. Two reasons I believe that: One, Canon has explicitly claimed on several occasions that they made SENSOR-LEVEL improvements to SNR that lead to improved ISO, better noise at high ISO, AND wider dynamic range...for both the 1D X and 5D III. Second, it seems the base read level for the masked off areas in the 5D III is 2048 rather than 1024. No one really knows how those values are used, why there is a non-zero base, or how a higher base over the 5D II might affect DR in the 5D III (you certainly have more "negative" room...about twice as much.)



If you check back in the thread where you suddenly disappeared from you will notice that black frames have been provided and lo and behold the results are basically the same as when using the masked area (other than being slightly WORSE, same as with the 7D). There is nothing weird about 2048 instead of 1024. The 7D also used 2048, unlike the older models.



> As for comparison to Nikon...since switching to Sony sensors, they have always had the edge when it came to DR...by a stop or two. Unless Canon has made similar kinds of hardware-level read and ADC improvements to their sensors, its doubtful they will gain the full 2 - 2.5 stops of DR improvement. Realistically, figure 1-2 stops (more so for the 1D X than the 5D III, obviously.) Nothing really changes on the Canon vs. Nikon front there, so as far as I'm concerned its rather moot to worry about it.



Well that would have been awesome, but it has been tested on masked areas by many people and by black frames now too by a number of people and nobody has measured any improvement at all.



> I haven't preconcluded that the 5D III offers no image sensor improvement over the 5D II. Thats been my stance the entire time you and I have been arguing with you all over DR (and the reason I've argued in the first place.) You seem to think everyone is just going to go balls to the walls tears because a few tech heads on the net crack open the new CR2 files with open source and beta software, a thorough lack of understanding of how those files may need to be processed to extract the maximum amount of DR, make a few claims about how the 5D III is already a failure, and that tomorrow...oh, wait, sorry, on 12/12/21...the world ends. It MAY be true, just as much as it MAY NOT be true. Not all of us are as naive as to simply believe the tech heads, and we're quite happy to believe the improvements Canon claims (not to mention our own eyes) are real until official tests by DXO, DPR, and friends are done with a full and proper understanding. ;D



Really and what gives them, especially DPR, such above and beyond understanding of the rest? Some of the people who have carried out the test so far I believe have rather more degrees than anyone at DPR has if that is the sort of thing you care about. People who have actually written RAW decoders, theoretical particle physics PhDs, astrophysics PhDs, people with degrees in engineering, etc. 

Any where is the logic in saying that you don't trust the findings of us tech heads because you only trust tech heads (DxO/DPR and friends with a full and proper tech head understanding)?  


> To play the devils advocate, lets say the absolute worst case so many of you seem to fear actually ends up being true: The D800 beats the 5D III in every single category by miles. Does that mean the 5D III can't take better photos than the 5D II, or the 1D IV, or the 7D, or the 1D/s III, or a whole bunch of prior Nikon and Sony cameras? The answer, as we all know, is *Hell No!* So what does it really matter...unless you literally have the funds to jump ship, dump your entire kit, and replace it with an entirely new Nikon kit? : _Nothing._



It's certainly not a total disaster or anything but it is kind of disappointing that after all of this time and all of Canon's braying about how they were the kings and Nikon was hopelessly far behind in FF technology that they seemingly can't deliver one single bit of improvement to Canon image sensor below ISO800 after 4.5 years. Sure many images fit into the DR it already delivers but there are golden moments where it simply falls flat and it would have been exciting to get a camera that allow more freedom to shoot what you want (and the higher density D800 and it's 6fps DX mode work better for wildlife shooting too).

Maybe they are cheaping out and didn't want to use the new process on it, maybe they didn't feel like paying for the DR improvement tech or maybe they are simply stuck behind Sony patents and none of the other stuff worked out or would have actually worked out, although that isn't so great looking to the future if it's that they are trying but are patent blocked and stuck and literally nothing else helps.

(the 7D will still deliver better images if you are reach limited, same goes for the 1D4, otherwise you are probably correct)

Anyway maybe the AF will be truly out of this world and the video will be better, at least.


----------



## jrista (Mar 12, 2012)

meli said:


> > Not all of us are as naive as to simply believe the tech heads, and we're quite happy to believe the improvements Canon claims
> 
> 
> Ah, a model consumer, every company's dream ;D



Hey, hey, none of that! ;D I still _WANT_ more! 

I want lots and lots more. I just realize that I've already received a LOT with the 5D III, from what so far appears to be stunning ISO up to 25600, one of the best AF systems on the planet, and a thoroughly upgraded body with things like the 7D's transmissive LCD 100% VF, the 1D X menu system, etc. I certainly could complain about the noise characteristics in the bottom couple stops of DR, and how Canon has apparently already failed miserably because the D800 has uberpixels...but I'm HAPPY about what the 5D III already is. I'm GLAD that Canon focused on ISO and camera features rather than just pumping out more megapixels...even though I had hoped for around 28mp rather than 22mp, I'm *satisfied*.

Based on the tone of Canon forms over at DPR, you might think Canon had literally gone out of business because of how much of a blunder the 5D III supposedly is.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> I'm GLAD that Canon focused on ISO and camera features rather than just pumping out more megapixels...even though I had hoped for around 28mp rather than 22mp, I'm *satisfied*.



Can you say they focused on ISO and AF rather than more MP when the D800 has more DR and perhaps quite similar ISO and also advanced AF (although perhaps the 5D3/1DX AF will prove better than the D4/D800 AF???)?



> Based on the tone of Canon forms over at DPR, you might think Canon had literally gone out of business because of how much of a blunder the 5D III supposedly is.



I think people are freaked by having to deal with, for the first time, being more expensive than the comparable Nikon (at least at base price) and with a worse sensor and not having the most MP, but that said it should have rocking AF, decent fps, and do pretty well at mid to high ISO compared to anything else and perhaps have the best video (I just hope it's not as blurry as the few posted samples show, that might damper that, for now I assume it is just poor choice of in cam settings).


----------



## jrista (Mar 12, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Really and what gives them, especially DPR, such above and beyond understanding of the rest? Some of the people who have carried out the test so far I believe have rather more degrees than anyone at DPR has if that is the sort of thing you care about. People who have actually written RAW decoders, theoretical particle physics PhDs, astrophysics PhDs, people with degrees in engineering, etc.
> 
> Any where is the logic in saying that you don't trust the findings of us tech heads because you only trust tech heads (DxO/DPR and friends with a full and proper tech head understanding)?




I trust them because they have solid track records about being accurate and meticulous about their camera testing. The only track record I have for most of the DPR tech heads is that they like to tear up Canon raw files and complain about them...A LOT. They could claim (or literally) have 10 Ph.D's...that wouldn't change their track record. They enjoy complaining about Canon DR, I won't fault them for doing what they enjoy...rather than getting out into the real world to enjoy photography...although I think they might be happier doing the latter. 



Hmm. You still seem to be missing my point, so I'll state it clearly:



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's certainly not a total disaster or anything but it is kind of disappointing that after all of this time and all of Canon's braying about how they were the kings and Nikon was hopelessly far behind in FF technology that *they seemingly can't deliver one single bit of improvement to Canon image sensor below ISO800* after 4.5 years.



That is pure assumption, and will be until the camera actually hits the streets and non-beta software is used to evaluate IQ. 

Even testing with a pre-production sample and beta software, we do know that Canon HAS DELIVERED *several* improvements with their latest sensors: two stops better Native ISO for both the 1D X and 5D III; elimination of fixed pattern noise leaving behind more appealing random noise; higher readout rate, allowing 12-14fps on the 1D X (which is still higher resolution than the 1D IV, and thus definitely an improvement) and 6fps on the 5D III (almost double its predecessor WITH an increase in resolution, even though it was modest.) Saying Canon has not delivered even a "single" improvement over the last four years is just flat out wrong, even in the case of DR. Canon has consistently delivered improvements to DR and low ISO noise...they have just been smaller and smaller improvements as they have approached 12 stops.

Technically speaking, Sony hasn't really invented much in the way of new sensor tech in quite a number of years either...they have just been implementing it. They have sat on patents for their improvements for decades. Things like hardware-level fixed pattern noise reduction, hardware-level dark current noise reduction (a form of CDS, correlated double sampling...which is really an older concept first implemented for CCD's by other parties) date back to the early 2000's, backlit sensor design in CMOS sensors dates back to 2007 at least (I don't even think that was theirs, there are research papers dating back nearly a decade that cover that technology for scientific grade CCD's...Sony was the first to come up with a design for consumer-grade CMOS sensors), etc. Even Column-Parallel ADC is a patent that dates back to 2000.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 12, 2012)

To me the real objective is to raise the iso where:

- the sensor is noiseless (or as near as)
- DR is 10 stops or greater

Historically the move from 12bits to 14bits made a big difference, it would be a big improvement to move to 16bits

Ideally metering improvements would help push the envelope as it would become easier to achieve the optimum exposure (especially for snap photography such as photojournalism or street where there is little time). Just an improvement here would mean that non optimally metered images might get 10 stops DR.

To achieve this at iso 3200 would be a major benefit to all, so then we can concentrate on the content rather than the technicalities.

I bought my 5D2 in Sept 2010 and was somewhat impressed with the low light performance but not the quality. In spring 2011 the quality of my pictures took a leap forward, especially with the wedding photos. Analysis of this showed the reduction in iso as the light improved. I found that prior to the 5D2 I had been keeping the iso low (because of noise issues) whereas the 5D2 released me from those constraints and during the winter months I was happy to use iso 1600 and 3200 which were pretty much noiseless (3200 with care and using the slight over exposure method)

I have found the 'native' iso number to be rather meaningless as it indicates neither noisless nor good DR - however there seems to be a real focus on this headline figure. This number may be of interest to paps, PIs and some sports reporters but for the rest of us use of high iso is not the way to get a top IQ.

Ironically much of my recent photography has been for Victorian re-enactment groups where the image is 'aged'. Even here I have stuck to the principle of the best quality base image before pp. That way gives me the most flexibility for example high contrast, low contrast, grain/nograin images are not constrained.

I feel the way ahead is to focus on DR and good metering. If I can get this in my next upgrade I will be pleased. Mps, fps and native iso are secondary to me providing they do not go backwards.


----------



## altenae (Mar 12, 2012)

What a topic. 

With the next Pulitzer price and in all magazines the DR numbers are mandatory. 
These kind of topics are all over the Internet. 

It's is really simple. 
If Canon cannot deliver then don't buy the 5D. 

Edward van Altena
www.wildlife-photos.net


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 12, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm GLAD that Canon focused on ISO and camera features rather than just pumping out more megapixels...even though I had hoped for around 28mp rather than 22mp, I'm *satisfied*.
> ...



Of course you can. What the Nikon ends up being better/worse at has no bearing on what Canon's focus was.


----------



## meli (Mar 12, 2012)

3kramd5 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Doubt you can. Its not that Canon operates inside a bubble, they do have to take into account what the competition is offering or where its competition R&D is heading to. 
Its another thing though to what percentage this affects their decisions. It seems that the notion of having such a huge userbase in 2 different fields (stills /video) *tied *with their products, affects more their decisionmaking.

I hope this pattern doesn't continue, cause it starts to remind me Sony in the 90s right before the downfall.


----------



## caMARYnon (Mar 12, 2012)

Did you read this http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/compatibility02.htm ? and In particular note 5 ...
So, let's wait for professional reviews and comparisons before judge


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 12, 2012)

Some newer High ISO from the 5D MK III

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-high-iso-sample-images/

Also note, this is a pre-prod version of the body, so I expect production versions to be even sharper


----------



## altenae (Mar 12, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Some newer High ISO from the 5D MK III
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-high-iso-sample-images/
> 
> Also note, this is a pre-prod version of the body, so I expect production versions to be even sharper



And again jpeg directly out of the camera.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> I would _REALLY_ like to hear from a broad set of editors and art directors to know if that line has even a scrap of truth in it. I don't think DR or even noise are anywhere near the top things on an editors mind when they are critiquing photographs for publication.For one, no one can even gauge the dynamic range of a photo by eyeballing it, and even if they did measure it...what are they measuring? The DR capability of the camera you used to take the shot, or your fully post-processed image that has a myriad of exposure tweaks, curve adjustments, color tweaks, noise reduction, and sharpening applied?



Of course they're not sitting there measuring the DR or noise of final edited that images submitted to them. They judge an image just like anyone else based on the immediate visual, emotional, and artistic value it captures. That said, if there are overt technical deficiencies in the image, be it excessive noise, clipped highlights, or lack of shadow detail, they're going to notice. I'd say this is the photographer's fault rather than the equipment's fault in most instances, as it's the photographer's job to know his equipment and work around its limitations. 



> Assuming you actually did capture a photo with 14 stops of dynamic range, does that even matter a wit for the final presentation format...in this case print?



The short answer is yes, it absolutely matters. Unfortunately, you have to accept the fact that the image you capture isn't going to reproduce in print nearly as nicely on paper as it does in it's original digital glory. Rather than say, "oh well, it's not going to reproduce anyway" and put in a half-ass effort, it means you put in even more effort to get your digital captures as good as humanly possible. 



> If your photos are so noisy or have such atrocious DR that an editor dumps them, then the problem is far more likely that you aren't exposing or lighting your scene properly than the fact that the camera shows a minor amount of banding noise in the lower few bits of the 14 available.



Did I ever imply that this is the case? If you can't expose an image properly, you're not going to work professionally. Case closed. 



> As for IQ...well, even the crummy samples Canon has offered demonstrate that the 5D III will take photos with stunning IQ when they are exposed properly (and that really _is_ the goal).



5DII? Please. I've taken images with my 20D and 1DsIII that are indistinguishable from each other. With enough extra effort in the field and post production, you can get stunning results from lesser gear. That doesn't change the fact that spending hours of additional time in post production isn't cost effective. 



> There are SO many other things that make a photograph, and many more that make it art. Whether your camera is a stop or two less capable than the competitions is not going to cost you your job with that fancy magazine.



I think we're actually in agreement. My point was that regardless of how an image is used in print, the impact the digital files makes on an editor or art director on a fancy monitor is very important. A stop or two of DR or noise isn't going to be the difference between paying your bills or going broke, but to say it doesn't matter because it won't show up in print is ridiculous. The more latitude you have in your files, the greater the potential to save you time in the field and deliver a better product after the post production process.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> A stop or two of DR or noise isn't going to be the difference between paying your bills or going broke, but to say it doesn't matter because it won't show up in print is ridiculous. The more latitude you have in your files, the greater the potential to save you time in the field and deliver a better product after the post production process.



+1 .... which is why I keep the iso as low as possible and why I have become a flash fanatic


----------



## jrista (Mar 12, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > A stop or two of DR or noise isn't going to be the difference between paying your bills or going broke, but to say it doesn't matter because it won't show up in print is ridiculous. The more latitude you have in your files, the greater the potential to save you time in the field and deliver a better product after the post production process.
> ...



You guys are missing my point. Assuming the worst case scenario, the 5D III hasn't changed. Its not better, but it also isn't worse. Millions of photographers have used the 5D II as well as cameras with much worse read noise and the same DR as offered by Canon cameras for years, and its never been a problem. Look at read noise levels for digital MF cameras, touted as offering FAR better quality than any lesser camera by professionals who use them every day for publication work. Digital MF has relatively poor QE (15-25%), high to very high read noise (15-30 electrons), limited maximum saturation relative to the likes of any current Canon or Nikon/Sony (less than half as much in more cases than not), and they all top out at around 11.5 stops of DR or less. 

The Leica M9, also considered one of the best professional grade cameras on the market, has consistent read noise of about 15.5 e-, maximum saturation at lowest ISO of 30000, and maximum DR of 11.1 stops. There have been reports of banding issues with several Leica sensor designs as far back as the M7, and the M8 had particularly bad banding...but it was still considered a better camera than anything from Canon or Nikon...since banding only ever exhibited in shadows, and was relatively easily mitigated in post. 

You can make the argument that better DR may make your life easier. If you regularly find yourself dragging up the shadows, then you might as well jump ship and head over to Nikon where the grass is greener. Or you could ETTR, utilize the sensor DR better (Canon does seem to have a bit more highlight headroom than Nikon by about 1/2 a stop based on DPR charts), and correct exposure at the click of a button in post (or, in the case of LR, you could simply set a negative exposure bias in the default import profile for your cameras, and never actually have to worry about it again...no time wasted whatsoever.) But the simple fact of the matter is the cameras that are literally considered THE BEST on the market by most professionals who shoot for print and publication on a daily basis, the likes of Hasselblad, Phase One, Aptus, etc. are no better or worse than anything Canon is or has been putting out. Actually, with the 1D IV, 7D, and 5D II/III, Canon is better on a technical level...although we all know that still doesn't matter a wit when it comes to producing good photographs.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> You guys are missing my point. Assuming the worst case scenario, the 5D III hasn't changed. Its not better, but it also isn't worse. Millions of photographers have used the 5D II as well as cameras with much worse read noise and the same DR as offered by Canon cameras for years, and its never been a problem. Look at read noise levels for digital MF cameras, touted as offering FAR better quality than any lesser camera by professionals who use them every day for publication work. Digital MF has relatively poor QE (15-25%), high to very high read noise (15-30 electrons), limited maximum saturation relative to the likes of any current Canon or Nikon/Sony (less than half as much in more cases than not), and they all top out at around 11.5 stops of DR or less.
> 
> The Leica M9, also considered one of the best professional grade cameras on the market, has consistent read noise of about 15.5 e-, maximum saturation at lowest ISO of 30000, and maximum DR of 11.1 stops. There have been reports of banding issues with several Leica sensor designs as far back as the M7, and the M8 had particularly bad banding...but it was still considered a better camera than anything from Canon or Nikon...since banding only ever exhibited in shadows, and was relatively easily mitigated in post.
> 
> You can make the argument that better DR may make your life easier. If you regularly find yourself dragging up the shadows, then you might as well jump ship and head over to Nikon where the grass is greener. Or you could ETTR, utilize the sensor DR better (Canon does seem to have a bit more highlight headroom than Nikon by about 1/2 a stop based on DPR charts), and correct exposure at the click of a button in post (or, in the case of LR, you could simply set a negative exposure bias in the default import profile for your cameras, and never actually have to worry about it again...no time wasted whatsoever.) But the simple fact of the matter is the cameras that are literally considered THE BEST on the market by most professionals who shoot for print and publication on a daily basis, the likes of Hasselblad, Phase One, Aptus, etc. are no better or worse than anything Canon is or has been putting out. Actually, with the 1D IV, 7D, and 5D II/III, Canon is better on a technical level...although we all know that still doesn't matter a wit when it comes to producing good photographs.



Perhaps we are talking at cross purpose here. 

My point is to maximise the DR because that gives the best possible image with some lattitude to play with. Go for high ISO and you throw that DR away. High ISO looks very flat colourwise so why use it unless you HAVE to?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> I trust them because they have solid track records about being accurate and meticulous about their camera testing. The only track record I have for most of the DPR tech heads is that they like to tear up Canon raw files and complain about them...A LOT. They could claim (or literally) have 10 Ph.D's...that wouldn't change their track record.



That is interesting because the DPR tech heads have a solid track record of ISO 100 DR measurements matching up with DxO.  While DPR does not. 



> They enjoy complaining about Canon DR, I won't fault them for doing what they enjoy...rather than getting out into the real world to enjoy photography...although I think they might be happier doing the latter.



Some of them actually have much more extensive galleries, from around the world, than the people telling them to go out and shoot. 




> That is pure assumption, and will be until the camera actually hits the streets and non-beta software is used to evaluate IQ.



Maybe production models will vary appreciable from the beta cams, but that has not been the case in the past.
Beta software is not being used for the DR tests. The only place people have used beta software is peeking at high ISO performance where it seems to show the 5D3 doing better than the 5D2 .



> Even testing with a pre-production sample and beta software, we do know that Canon HAS DELIVERED *several* improvements with their latest sensors: two stops better Native ISO for both the 1D X and 5D III;



Yes, but two stop more native ISO is different than 2 stops better SNR in RAW. Not that is a bad thing though.
Even Canon themselves don't claim 2 stops better SNR for RAW.



> elimination of fixed pattern noise leaving behind more appealing random noise;



Not at low ISO, although the horizontal banding appears to be 100% gone and even the vertical doesn't appear to show up as much at high ISO (although it hasn't been carefully tested yet). But yes it does seem that the high ISO noise will look nicer, less clumped, less giant chomra-blotched, no horizontal banding at all and potentially less objectional vertical banding (at high iso only). Certainly nice improvements, no doubt.



> and 6fps on the 5D III (almost double its predecessor WITH an increase in resolution, even though it was modest.)



6.0 isn't almost double 3.9 unless the D800 as almost double the MP of the 5D3 and it does not. 

That said getting to 6 is big since that is the absolute minimum where it just begins to appreciably help for sports.
I wish the 6.9fps or 7.5fps rumors had been correct though since then you'd really be talking. But 6fps will sometimes get you more than one good frame, nearly as often as not, but 7-8fps almost always will. Still it is much better than 4fps which hardly ever will and it's much better than even 5fps which will only do that from time to time.



> Saying Canon has not delivered even a "single" improvement over the last four years is just flat out wrong, even in the case of DR. Canon has consistently delivered improvements to DR and low ISO noise...they have just been smaller and smaller improvements as they have approached 12 stops.



When did I say they haven't offered a single improvement? I've said that the video might be much better, the fps are up, the AF should hopefully be way better, high ISO should be somewhat better.

As for DR they really haven't improved that for 4.5 years though (at base ISO).


----------



## jrista (Mar 12, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Perhaps we are talking at cross purpose here.
> 
> My point is to maximise the DR because that gives the best possible image with some lattitude to play with. Go for high ISO and you throw that DR away. High ISO looks very flat colourwise so why use it unless you HAVE to?



I guess I'm confused, as I don't remember saying to go for high ISO. I agree, you should use the lowest ISO you can at all times to maximize DR. But you can do things like expose to the right at ISO 100 to make more effective use of the DR available there, correct the overexposure in post, and push down the noise floor digitally. (Certainly you may have some limitations there if your shooting lots of motion or need very deep DOF...however in those cases you are probably shooting at a much higher ISO to start with. In the case of landscapes or any kind of still scenes, your ability to ETTR is extreme.) Canon has a lot of highlight headroom (they tend to favor highlights at the cost of shadows, where as Nikon seems to generally be slightly worse on the highlights for much better shadows), and you can push exposure pretty far before you actually blow out highlights. 

I'm not a working professional who regularly creates publishable work, but I have spent several years with Canon cameras exposing bright subjects in the dark. Namely the moon, where its possible to push exposure so far to the right it looks like you have nothing but a white disk, and still not blow out the highlights. You have a TREMENDOUS amount of room to recover at that point, and noise in the low frequencies is rarely a problem. Personally, I have found Canon's low ISO DR to be quite usable and very versatile when you make effective use of the highlight headroom that is available...far more usable than the worries over low ISO read noise that you get off of DPR and CR forums would seem to indicate.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> I guess I'm confused, as I don't remember saying to go for high ISO.



mmm - that is the topic of the thread ....


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 12, 2012)

People keep touting the notion that ISO performance is increased, but DR at low ISO is not. I'm trying to understand how this is possible... is the following valid:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Increased QE due to better microlenses = increased SNR across the board. Coupled w/ lower gain, this decreases per pixel noise (shot noise is decreased). You'd think this'd also increase DR even at low ISO by decreasing noise at the lower end...
[*]No improvement in read noise means less usable data on the lower end
[/list]

So, ISO performance is increased b/c for any equivalent ISO setting on the, say, 5DII, the 5DIII is actually receiving more photons... which translates to higher SNR. 

BUT, DR is only slightly improved at low ISO b/c *absolute* SNR increase for dark pixels is small compared to *absolute* SNR increase for brighter pixels (e.g. say read noise on 5DII & 5DIII is 5e-; QE is 0.5 on 5DIII vs. 0.25 on 5DII | then: for a signal of 20e- SNR of 5DIII vs 5DII would be 2 vs. 1, but for a signal of 2000e- SNR of 5DIII vs 5DII would be 200 vs. 100)?

Meaning *DR* is largely determined by *full-well capacity, bit-depth of ADC, & read noise*? Neither of which, it'd seem, have changed much for the 5DIII compared to 5DII?

(This of course leaves out practical usability of low-end due to banding, which is another issue in an of itself... less FPN = more forgiving raising of shadows since we're so sensitive to patterns).

Just trying to understand these arguments being thrown around... thanks!


----------



## jrista (Mar 12, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> People keep touting the notion that ISO performance is increased, but DR at low ISO is not. I'm trying to understand how this is possible... is the following valid:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Increased QE due to better microlenses = increased SNR across the board. Coupled w/ lower gain, this decreases per pixel noise (shot noise is decreased). You'd think this'd also increase DR even at low ISO by decreasing noise at the lower end...
> ...



Just to offer some (to our best knowledge) real numbers for the 5D II, 7D, and 1D IV, if that helps anything (from sensorgen.info, based on DXO testing):

*5D II @ ISO 100*
Q.E.: 33%
Pixel Size: 6.4 microns
Saturation: 64600
Read Noise: 27.8 e-
DR Stops: 11.2

*7D @ ISO 100*
Q.E.: 41%
Pixel Size: 4.2 microns
Saturation: 20187
Read Noise: 8.6 e-
DR Stops: 11.2

*1D IV @ ISO 100*
Q.E.: 44%
Pixel Size: 5.7 microns
Saturation: 48702
Read Noise: 16.6 e-
DR Stops: 11.5


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> You can make the argument that better DR may make your life easier.



I don't mean to sound elitist, but this isn't something to be taken lightly. If you're taking photos for fun, I can see how spending 1 minute in post production to extend the DR of an image vs. spending 10 minutes isn't a big deal. However, if you're working on a tight deadline, need to process six dozen images to present to a client, and your livelihood depends on the quality of your images, out-of-camera files that "make your life easier" in post production isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. 

Obviously, this doesn't only apply to DR, but also noise, sharpness, color reproduction, contrast, etc. It all adds up, and any time you can save in post production is time you can be spending behind the lens and making more money. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be shooting than staring into a computer screen and fiddling with a mouse 



> If you regularly find yourself dragging up the shadows, then you might as well jump ship and head over to Nikon where the grass is greener. Or you could ETTR, utilize the sensor DR better (Canon does seem to have a bit more highlight headroom than Nikon by about 1/2 a stop based on DPR charts), and correct exposure at the click of a button in post



I would certainly hope that anyone attempting to earn a living with Canon gear utilizes a technique as simple as ETTR  Like you said, Canon files are incredibly good at highlight recovery, which makes ETTR a very useful tool in extending DR. My point is that over time, everyone is going to learn tricks like ETTR, or something as basic as using reflectors, fill light, multiple exposures, etc to extend DR. You're going to do that regardless of whether you shoot Canon or Nikon. Ultimately, however, a file with more latitude right "out of the box" will help you create the best image possible. 

I'm not quite sure how this thread turned into a talk about DR, but DR is just one of MANY factors that determine IQ. Even if the D800 proves to have better DR than the 5DIII in the real world, I can just as easily decide that I hate it due to color reproduction, contrast, and sharpness that aren't my cup of tea. I remember the first shoot I did with the 5DC. I was blown away by the film-like image quality of the files. It was like I was shooting color slides again, and the color, contrast, and sharpness were simply stunning. I'd never seen such incredible IQ on any digital camera before. I didn't care how its DR or ISO measured on some on chart posted by some geek on the internet. The images just had that certain look and feel to them that I cherished, and at the end of the day, that's all that mattered. IMHO, that's why you have to try these things out in the real world before determining a winner.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I'm not quite sure how this thread turned into a talk about DR, but DR is just one of MANY factors that determine IQ.



The thread is about high ISO - and I put forward the fact that high ISO significantly impacts DR



V8Beast said:


> Even if the D800 proves to have better DR than the 5DIII in the real world, I can just as easily decide that I hate it due to color reproduction, contrast, and sharpness that aren't my cup of tea. I remember the first shoot I did with the 5DC. I was blown away by the film-like image quality of the files. It was like I was shooting color slides again, and the color, contrast, and sharpness were simply stunning. I'd never seen such incredible IQ on any digital camera before. I didn't care how its DR or ISO measured on some on chart posted by some geek on the internet. The images just had that certain look and feel to them that I cherished, and at the end of the day, that's all that mattered. IMHO, that's why you have to try these things out in the real world before determining a winner.



Now you know how I feel about the 1Ds3 in comparison to the 5D2


----------



## jrista (Mar 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You can make the argument that better DR may make your life easier.
> ...



Certainly, I don't disagree. However, if your spending that much time tweaking every single photo one at a time, your not using modern post-processing tools effectively. Lightroom, for example, supports per-camera import profiles that can automatically apply default processing to every file you import. 

In the case of my 7D, it has a bit of an aggressive low-pass filter so it always needs a little sharpening, and I prefer to import with flat tone curves and the Canon Neutral profile (amongst other things.) I simply took one photo, applied my base adjustments, and created an import profile based on that images adjustments. Every image I import from my 7D gets a fairly significant set of standard adjustments that prepare my photos for a little more tweaking. I also created a couple presets named after the camera model and intention of the preset (such as "Canon 7D 1EV ETTR", "Canon 7D 2EV ETTR", etc.) which can be applied at the click of a button to apply further adjustments automatically to correct for how I may have used ETTR on any given photo. If all the photos in a set need the same preset, I can apply on import, otherwise I can apply it to a single photo, individually select any others that need the same preset, and sync settings. However the presets are applied, its always fast, and the remainder of per-photo tweaks are the same tweaks you might need to do if you had better shadow recovery built into the camera. 

Just because to change your approach to utilize the capabilities of a camera better does not mean you have to spend an extra, inordinate amount of time in post "compensating" for the "deficiencies" of your gear. Just like you need to know how to use your gear, you should also know how to use your post-processing tools. If you ARE spending a tremendous amount of time in post adjusting your photos, then you can save yourself a LOT of time by learning your post-process software as well as you know your gear. So I entirely agree...minimize time spent in post; what camera you have has no bearing on that.



V8Beast said:


> > If you regularly find yourself dragging up the shadows, then you might as well jump ship and head over to Nikon where the grass is greener. Or you could ETTR, utilize the sensor DR better (Canon does seem to have a bit more highlight headroom than Nikon by about 1/2 a stop based on DPR charts), and correct exposure at the click of a button in post
> 
> 
> 
> I would certainly hope that anyone attempting to earn a living with Canon gear utilizes a technique as simple as ETTR  Like you said, Canon files are incredibly good at highlight recovery, which makes ETTR a very useful tool in extending DR. My point is that over time, everyone is going to learn tricks like ETTR, or something as basic as using reflectors, fill light, multiple exposures, etc to extend DR. You're going to do that regardless of whether you shoot Canon or Nikon. Ultimately, however, a file with more latitude right "out of the box" will help you create the best image possible.



Sure, more latitude is always better. I don't think thats been the debate, though...at least, not as I've seen it. The tone here is less extreme over at DPR, but there are a lot of people who seem to literally be freaking out as thought the 5D III is a complete flop and a totally worthless excuse for a camera because of one single aspect that Nikon and Sony do better...and better only really at a low technical level...the gap is minor in terms of real-world performance. Everyone wants more DR, but 2.5 stops more on a technical level boils down to less than a stop in real-world difference, which kind of makes all the worry rather moot in the grand scheme of things. Its a lot more effective to just buy a reflector, or a fill light, or use multiple exposures, etc. than to wait a whole extra generation before upgrading, or incurring the excessive cost of switching brands. If you have DR limitations, light the scene properly, or slap on a GND.



V8Beast said:


> I'm not quite sure how this thread turned into a talk about DR, but DR is just one of MANY factors that determine IQ.



Dunno...I responded to something a while back about DR. DR seems to be what people care about most. 



V8Beast said:


> Even if the D800 proves to have better DR than the 5DIII in the real world, I can just as easily decide that I hate it due to color reproduction, contrast, and sharpness that aren't my cup of tea. I remember the first shoot I did with the 5DC. I was blown away by the film-like image quality of the files. It was like I was shooting color slides again, and the color, contrast, and sharpness were simply stunning. I'd never seen such incredible IQ on any digital camera before. I didn't care how its DR or ISO measured on some on chart posted by some geek on the internet. The images just had that certain look and feel to them that I cherished, and at the end of the day, that's all that mattered. IMHO, that's why you have to try these things out in the real world before determining a winner.



+1 Couldn't agree with all of that more. We can presume to know all we want, but real-world performance is all that really matters. Regardless of how we may all feel about the low-level technical statistics...one thing has been pretty constant for all Canon, Nikon, and Sony cameras the last 4 years: they get better every time they are upgraded. Its highly doubtful the 5D III will perform worse than the 5D II, and based on the samples so far (most of which are from pre-production models), I'd be quite happy with any one of the newly released cameras (money being no object.) I don't think any of them would produce anything either me, my customers, or even an editor of a publication couldn't be happy with. Even if they were...I'd blame the photographer, not the camera. :


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 12, 2012)

I look at it this way, what everyone is talking about at very small differences. Overall BOTH cameras are going to produce great images in the right hands and utter rubbish in the wrong hands. For me it boils down to this.

Even if the D800 is better it will be by a marginal technical amount that will more than likely not be noticable in images and definately not noticable in print. 
With so much invested in canon glass (as with alot of other people on here) changing teams would be a silly haircut to take to change to Nikon. 

Sure this round Nikon win the MP Bragging rights and some numerical theoretical DR bragging right. (How many people waste all this image quality and inbuilt DR by running 9 bracket exposures at 0.5 stop through a trash compactor like photomatix etc? Can people not see how the image quality is decimated by these programs FAR beyond the miniscule differences between a D800 sensor and a 5Dmk3 Sensor, DR is becoming a crutch. Ok overprocessing fans smite away again  :-* )

This stuff while interesting to read about being technically minded does not mean that the differences between the cameras are going to be noticable or even measurable in real world work and deliverables.

Step back and look at the bigger picture, then go and take some enjoy the camera and the shoot, after all isnt that what most of us are here for anyway?


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 12, 2012)

jrista & LetTheRightLensIn:


> 5D II @ ISO 100
> Q.E.: 33%
> Pixel Size: 6.4 microns
> Saturation: 64600
> ...



Thanks for that reference, jrista. So while sensorgen is calculating DR from full-well capacity (in e-) & read noise (also in e-), what LetTheRightLensIn was doing in calculating the 5DIII DR was saying that:

[list type=decimal]
[*]*Full-well capacity* is equivalent to *maximum pixel value* (in a white exposure)
[*]*Read noise* is equivalent to *stdev of lowest pixel values* (in a black exposure)
[/list]

Is that correct? 

You certainly do end up getting almost the same numbers as sensorgen/DXO... alluding to, but not proving, the validity of the principle.

For example, here are my numbers using IRIS & Excel to analyze black/white frames from the 5D II, 5D III, & a Nikon D7000:

5DII:
Average: 1025.616715
STDEV: 5.795391049
*Dynamic Range: 11.42509592
% Variation in black: 0.565%*

5DIII:
Average: 2047.064307
STDEV: 5.662172538
*Dynamic Range: 11.39988832
% Variation in black: 0.2766%*

D7000:
Average: 0.437679967
STDEV: 0.696348062
*Dynamic Range: 14.52203144
% Variation in black: 159.1%*

BUT, I just think there's something really strange about about Canon's black levels of *1024* & *2048* vs D7000's *essentially 0*. So for fun I just took the standard deviation in black pixels, divided it by the mean of black pixels, then multiplied by 100. That's that '*% Variation in black*' number you see. Notice it's *down* for the 5D III vs. the 5D II. Meaning a cleaner, but higher, black level. And for the D7000, the percent variation is pretty high since the actual numbers are vacillating around 0-1, with a max of 8 (black level of D7000 RAW files really seems to be 0-ish).

I don't really know what to draw from that other than that 5D III probably has cleaner blacks than 5D II. I wish someone could figure out what the higher overall black level signal in the Canon files mean, next to Nikon's near 0 black level...


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I'm not quite sure how this thread turned into a talk about DR, but DR is just one of MANY factors that determine IQ. Even if the D800 proves to have better DR than the 5DIII in the real world, I can just as easily decide that I hate it due to color reproduction, contrast, and sharpness that aren't my cup of tea. I remember the first shoot I did with the 5DC. I was blown away by the film-like image quality of the files. It was like I was shooting color slides again, and the color, contrast, and sharpness were simply stunning. I'd never seen such incredible IQ on any digital camera before. I didn't care how its DR or ISO measured on some on chart posted by some geek on the internet. The images just had that certain look and feel to them that I cherished, and at the end of the day, that's all that mattered. IMHO, that's why you have to try these things out in the real world before determining a winner.



This paragraph mirrors my sentiments exactly regrading the 5DC. Even after all these years I am amazed at the color and contrast it produces. There are many newer cameras that are better on paper and I certainly give my 7D and rented 5DIIs their fair use but I always prefer to use the 5DC when I am not in need of specific features it lacks (video for example).


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 13, 2012)

jrista said:


> Certainly, I don't disagree. However, if your spending that much time tweaking every single photo one at a time, your not using modern post-processing tools effectively. Lightroom, for example, supports per-camera import profiles that can automatically apply default processing to every file you import.



I hardly spend a lot of time in post. On average, it's less than 20 seconds per image. As an old film guy, I put in enormous effort to get things right in camera. I fully understand the benefits of an efficient post production work flow, but this technique is less effective in some situations. Most of what I shoot is in natural light, which is complemented with off-camera flash, reflectors, etc. The quality of the light varies dramatically based on the time of day, weather conditions, etc. As such, it's not practical to apply a generic profile in Lightroom across a broad set of images. 

The light in this image...






...is different from the light in this one...





...and this one...





...and this one...





...and this one....





...and this one...





I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea. 



> Just because to change your approach to utilize the capabilities of a camera better does not mean you have to spend an extra, inordinate amount of time in post "compensating" for the "deficiencies" of your gear.



It's not always about deficiencies in gear. There are certain situations in which you can't possibly expect your camera to capture the image you're picturing in your head. You just need to understand the limitations of your equipment and adjust your technique accordingly. 

For instance, you can't expect any camera on earth to properly expose the range of shadows and highlights in this image...





...but to get this shot to look how I envisioned it in my head, the final image was assembled with close to a dozen different exposures, fill light, reflectors, etc. If you can configure Lightroom to read my mind and assemble this image for me with some nifty presets, I'm game. Again, this has nothing to do with a deficiency of the equipment used, but more DR would have certainly reduced my time in post production







> If you have DR limitations, light the scene properly, or slap on a GND



I'm not saying you're guilty of this, but just because you want to more DR doesn't mean you aren't already implementing such techniques. I sure hope anyone that wants to have a career spanning longer than two weeks would already be familiar with such basic techniques  



> Even if they were...I'd blame the photographer, not the camera. :



No one's blaming the gear. IMHO, the photographer always deserves the blame. Even in situations where the equipment is clearly at fault, it's the photographer's responsibility to know these issues or risks and bring the right tools to the job.


----------



## jrista (Mar 13, 2012)

@V8Beast: First off, damn nice photographs. Love your action shots, fantastic! Based on some of the editing, I don't think the lack of a stop worth of real-world DR is going to affect your processing time much...you do some pretty extensive and unique editing, which I would figure is what makes your work stand out, and why you have a job!

Second, we obviously don't disagree (and, btw, I was not claiming you actually don't use your gear or your software correctly.) The point I've been trying to make, which I believe you have made for me better than I could myself...is low-level differences that require poking around a raw file with open-source editors so you can see special masked off data that is only supposed to be used by code...just doesn't matter. With or without the extra DR (which, keep in mind, has only really been the case for not even three years in production DSLR's), you can still take photographs that rival or surpass what was possible with the best film in the past. Many of the advancements in digital technology have given digital a significant edge over film (such as low light photography, for which we have far better tools today to capture high quality and high detail way beyond all but the most expensive and specialized films of the past.)

Its human nature to want more, to want the best, to want everything...and at 1/10th cost. I have to wonder the cost of all the complaining, though, given the technical differences translate into marginal real-world gains/losses either way. We already have someone on this forum who posted a question asking if he was insane to dump Canon and go to Nikon...and the reason he was asking was because of all the talk about DR and noise and how atrociously horrible and nasty its going to be compared to Nikon had him worried. Thats a really sad state of affairs, to open up a discussion about something that causes your average photographer to worry that much about their gear to the point where they LITERALLY consider dumping their gear (at a guaranteed loss of some amount), jumping ship, and buying new gear. Your photos demonstrate that its possible to take fabulous photos with old gear, let alone the brand spankin new 5D III. 

Its one thing to debate the technical merits of one technology or another in a forum of like-minded tech-heads who enjoy tearing things apart and figuring out how they work and how they compare on every level. Its another thing to give the average photographer (or even professionals who generally couldn't give a crap about the low-level technical specs, so long as the pictures they see it take look great and service their profession) enough worry that they waste money switching (only to find the grass really isn't that much greener on the other side, not nearly worth the cost they went through to get there), when that isn't the goal of all the tech-talk in the first place. I think the people tearing up CR2 files over on DPR to measure DR, SNR, noise, banding, etc. have failed in that respect, and done a disservice to the people who just need a tool to aid them in their profession or hobby (and really couldn't care about how the least significant 3-4 bits of Canon and Sony sensors compare.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 13, 2012)

jrista said:


> @V8Beast: First off, damn nice photographs. Love your action shots, fantastic! Based on some of the editing, I don't think the lack of a stop worth of real-world DR is going to affect your processing time much...you do some pretty extensive and unique editing, which I would figure is what makes your work stand out, and why you have a job!
> 
> Second, we obviously don't disagree (and, btw, I was not claiming you actually don't use your gear or your software correctly.) The point I've been trying to make, which I believe you have made for me better than I could myself...is low-level differences that require poking around a raw file with open-source editors so you can see special masked off data that is only supposed to be used by code...just doesn't matter. With or without the extra DR (which, keep in mind, has only really been the case for not even three years in production DSLR's), you can still take photographs that rival or surpass what was possible with the best film in the past. Many of the advancements in digital technology have given digital a significant edge over film (such as low light photography, for which we have far better tools today to capture high quality and high detail way beyond all but the most expensive and specialized films of the past.)
> 
> ...



I just want to clear up one too though, most us did dig into for no particular reason but only after we ran into the issues in the real world more than a few times. It depends what you want to shoot, etc. I don't mean to say it will matter for everyone at all, for some it virtually never may, but it's garbage OTOH to just turn the whole thing into a big joke and laugh it and so beyond downplay it as you are and you can get a bit snide and insulting about it all.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 13, 2012)

I have to admit I have half an academic interest in this & half a real interest in this DR debate because I also have found myself in situations where I've wanted to raise the shadows more in a landscape (where I did already control DR using Singh-Ray grad NDs) but couldn't, b/c of banding or FPN.

Therefore, I'm with LTRLI's sentiment of 'it's unfair to bash those concerned with these (esoteric?) subjects'.

LTRLI, did you get a chance to review those assumptions I posited (in my last post) you made when doing your DR analysis of the 5DIII? In the end, I think your method is valid because the per-pixel gain applied by the pixel amplifiers is probably roughly the same for low & high signals (e.g. about 4e- per DU to compress full-well capacity signal of ~65,000e- to 16,384 max for 14-bit ADC)... therefore relationship between input DR in scene (where increase in light causes a directly proportional increase in e- accumulated) and output DR in file (which you've analyzed via max pixel vs. stdev of blacks) will be maintained.

Thanks.


----------



## jrista (Mar 13, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I just want to clear up one too though, most us did dig into for no particular reason but only after we ran into the issues in the real world more than a few times. It depends what you want to shoot, etc. I don't mean to say it will matter for everyone at all, for some it virtually never may, but it's garbage OTOH to just turn the whole thing into a big joke and laugh it and so beyond downplay it as you are and you can get a bit snide and insulting about it all.



I'm sorry that I disagree, but I do. I'm also sorry that I've found the growing level of...angst...in the Canon community (at least those that hang out on DPR, here, and a couple other places) to be particularly humorous. I spend a lot of time viewing other photographers work. Online, at galleries, in books. Most of it is beautiful, artful, creative, and beautifully composed. Its only at final glance that I MAY notice grain or noise...or a funky artifact tucked away in a corner somewhere, or a tiny bit of banding in some deep shadow. Those things just don't matter...the beauty, art, and creative composure are what matter...what catch my eye...what draw me in.

Comparing the capabilities of the technology that took most of those photographs to what we have today...the difference on a technological level is stunning! I'm frequently awed when I see a photograph that looks like it was taken with $60,000 worth of gear, only to find it out was something like a 350D with the cheap 18-55mm kit lens! The fact that you can get the worlds best AF system, second highest ISO capability, and one of the best viewfinders I've ever seen (not to mention the host of other improvements the 5D III has) for $3500...as compared to the $7k, $8k, or even $40-60k you might have had to spend 4 years ago for similar and even LESS CAPABLE gear...amazes me. It absolutely floors me though that so many photographers are hung up on the bottom few bits of DR and a megapixel count as the focal point upon which their world hynges.

What really boggles my mind, though, is that all that angst appears to actually be making photographers worry that they chose the wrong brand (as evidenced by @tonyp's question in this very forum.) So yes, I downplay the angst, and I intend to keep downplaying it because it really doesn't matter. People have been making awesome photographs with far lesser technology than either the 5D III or D800. People will continue making awesome photographs with far lesser technology. In five years, people will be making awesome photographs with the 5D III and D800 when they pale in comparison to the next greatest gear to hit the markets, even if that gear supports 16-bit ADC and a full four stops better DR. 


It's not the gear that makes the photograph...and I just can't help but laugh when so many people are nearly up in arms over issues that are...relatively speaking...so small, and largely irrelevant in the face of talent and skill. I don't mean to be snide, I apologize if it comes off that way (I tend to argue passionately regardless of what I'm arguing), and I'll try to avoid that in the future. But my mind is truly blown...so much ruckus for such little things.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 13, 2012)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to clear up one too though, most us did dig into for no particular reason but only after we ran into the issues in the real world more than a few times. It depends what you want to shoot, etc. I don't mean to say it will matter for everyone at all, for some it virtually never may, but it's garbage OTOH to just turn the whole thing into a big joke and laugh it and so beyond downplay it as you are and you can get a bit snide and insulting about it all.
> ...



Yeah, I wonder if Nikon had less of it, if you'd be going on about how no true artist could ever use a Nikon or some such equally ridiculous nonsense from the other side of things.

And before you toss more snide insults realize that not everyone is the same and what is a minor thing some may not be for others .

I said 1000 times sure you can make awesome photos, fantastic ones even with say the 10D, but that doesn't mean that you have as much freedom to make certain types that some might want to make and it isn't fair to put that all down to pathetic tech head talk.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 13, 2012)

jrista said:


> Second, we obviously don't disagree (and, btw, I was not claiming you actually don't use your gear or your software correctly.) The point I've been trying to make, which I believe you have made for me better than I could myself...is low-level differences that require poking around a raw file with open-source editors so you can see special masked off data that is only supposed to be used by code...just doesn't matter.



I never thought we were in disagreement. We just had different ways of illustrating our points. It's nice to have a civil discussion on a topic that's become so incendiary these days. As soon as the 5DIII and D800 hit the streets, hopefully people will be too busy shooting to split hairs about such trivial issues


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 13, 2012)

Here's why I'm having a hard time accepting LetTheRightLensIn's (and other DPR guys') method for determining the DR from the black & white exposures:

Thought experiment:

You could have some arbitrary algorithm in the processing pipeline that says 'hey, if you're <2060 (say that's the average maximum pixel signal Canon ever saw in a number of completely black exposures on the 5D III), I'm gonna make you 0'... and then suddenly your black exposure would be ~0 with very little standard deviation... like the Nikon D7000 file... and then suddenly your DR from this method of calculation goes up like 2 or 3 stops.

So what if Nikon did that with the D7000?

Some operation like this would not, however, affect the more rigorous way to measure DR based on actually measuring the luminosity of scene elements recorded (the range of which should exceed DR capable by camera).

Apologies in advance if you think I should take this conversation elsewhere.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 13, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Apologies in advance if you think I should take this conversation elsewhere.



I find the tech talk somewhat interesting, but admit that I don't fully understand it. Maybe I'm too dumb or too lazy to learn. I prefer the old school method of looking at a image, and judging the quality of the technology behind it accordingly.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 13, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Apologies in advance if you think I should take this conversation elsewhere.
> ...



Of course, doing so introduces the human factor.

Both methods (objective and subjective) have their flaws.

Personally, I'm far more interested in the images I am able to produce with a camera than any of its paper stats or what staff photogs are publishing. Hoping my pre-order was early enough that I'll have a "3" in hand late next week. We'll see.


----------



## jrista (Mar 13, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Second, we obviously don't disagree (and, btw, I was not claiming you actually don't use your gear or your software correctly.) The point I've been trying to make, which I believe you have made for me better than I could myself...is low-level differences that require poking around a raw file with open-source editors so you can see special masked off data that is only supposed to be used by code...just doesn't matter.
> ...



I hope! I'm actually interested to see what people do with really high native ISO settings...the shots of Earth from the ISS with the D3X were stunning. I can only imagine what might be possible now...


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 13, 2012)

jrista said:


> I hope! I'm actually interested to see what people do with really high native ISO settings...the shots of Earth from the ISS with the D3X were stunning. I can only imagine what might be possible now...



Me too. I just hope it's a real-world application of high-ISO usage. Shooting at ISO 25,600 in the middle of a sunny day on a tripod at f/22 with a pitch black ND filter is bogus. OK, that's an exaggeration, but you get the idea. IMHO, high ISO test shots that are taken in dark environments where high ISO would normally be used are valid, but shooting at high ISO in bright light just for testing purposes is questionable at best.


----------



## jrista (Mar 13, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I hope! I'm actually interested to see what people do with really high native ISO settings...the shots of Earth from the ISS with the D3X were stunning. I can only imagine what might be possible now...
> ...



Aye, certainly. I read something somewhere...I think a comment to one of Ctein's articles on TOP, that if they had enough ISO, they would take photos of fireflies at night that would "mimic the way they saw them with their own eyes." I think the needed ISO was in the range of ISO 1,000,000...but if you add three native stops to what we have now, H1 would get you 819,200 and H2 would get you 1,638,400 ISO. We might get there in less than a decade (which when you think about it, is actually kind of impressive.)  Others have mentioned that they would take better wide-field night sky/milky way shots without wasting money on an expensive german equatorial tracking mount. Granted, ISO 25600, or in the case of the 1D X, 51200, is probably not quite high enough for those kinds of things...but we just took two big steps closer.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 13, 2012)

V8 Beast - since you already shoot and merge multiple exposures i am interested to hear how you think that the theoretical greater DR of the D800 is going to impact your workflow (I like how you provide specific examples illustrating your arguments) 

I can see where the additional MP might benefit you and more likely to a greater extent the Nikkor 14-24 will give you some serious benfits that well outweigh the D800 benefits (I assume you are going for the E version)

I can see where there will be some marginal real world difference in a single exposure with pushed shdows but in this scenario its really subjective and up to the tolerance to noise of the individual. however as soon as you are merging multiple exposures then the theoretical DR of a single exposure goes out the window as rather than struggling pushing shadows you just take the cleaner data from the relevent exposure

I will reference this tutorial again as a way to blend exposures (I am not sure of your method)
http://goodlight.us/writing/paintinghdr/paintinghdr-1.html


----------



## Aglet (Mar 13, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> I have to admit I have half an academic interest in this & half a real interest in this DR debate because I also have found myself in situations where I've wanted to raise the shadows more in a landscape (where I did already control DR using Singh-Ray grad NDs) but couldn't, b/c of banding or FPN.
> 
> Therefore, I'm with LTRLI's sentiment of 'it's unfair to bash those concerned with these (esoteric?) subjects'.



+2

I like the high ISO abilities of my 5D2 and 7D, they've allowed me to shoot in situations I'd have struggled with in the past.
But I sure wish they could provide me with the clean low-ISO shadows my old 40D still does so effortlessly. (& so did a number of cheap Rebels I had as backups) 
I'm sure the 5D3 will further improve the hi-ISO end of things and perhaps there is less FPN/banding at low ISO. fingers crossed! 
I still need improvements in base ISO far more than I need 12,800 or higher.

Good lighting technique has always been the "real world HDR" effect but big landscapes and many other situations don't afford such luxury of lighting control or even ETTR. Often these situations also benefit from major tone-curve and shadow lift in PP. When the result looks like a corduroy overlay, clients aren't impressed; I certainly wasn't.

You cannot imagine the streak of expletives I expelled upon discovering my 5D2 exhibited some banding even at normally exposed low-ISO midtones! It sat it a drawer for most of a year until upgrades and improvements in NR software made it possible to process raw files with less obvious banding. It suffered a fair bit of depreciation while not earning its keep. I'd sure not enjoy another such purchase.

Despite the many kilo-bux invested in Canon gear, I'm likely to pick up a cheap D5100 and some used glass, just to sample a little cheap weed from the other side of the fence. I've never really liked how Nikons "handled" but I think it won't hurt to explore a little if I can justify the cost.


BTW, does the IRIS software you're mentioning allow individual RGB levels of any given pixel to be read?
I'd sure like to be able to cross calibrate some light metering to the color headroom of some of my cameras.

TIA.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 13, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> V8 Beast - since you already shoot and merge multiple exposures i am interested to hear how you think that the theoretical greater DR of the D800 is going to impact your workflow (I like how you provide specific examples illustrating your arguments)
> 
> I can see where the additional MP might benefit you and more likely to a greater extent the Nikkor 14-24 will give you some serious benfits that well outweigh the D800 benefits (I assume you are going for the E version)
> 
> ...



Great point. For images that are captured on a tripod, or with the camera rigged to the car, there isn't much benefit of 1-2 extra stops of DR when you're merging multiple exposures. In shots that are hand-held, or that capture real action opposed to staged action, merging exposures isn't in option.

Here, I'm sticking my head out the top of an SUV. Even if I tried to keep the camera in the same spot and the composition identical from frame to frame in an effort to create a composite of multiple images, it's just not possible. The camera, the lead car, and the chase car move too much.






So, there's no other option but to make do with what you got, and try to expose the image in a way that will assist in maximizing DR in post production. As you can see, there's a tremendous difference in contrast between the highlights on the grille, and the shadow side of the car. You could always shoot the car front-lit, but that makes the subject flat and two-dimensional, which I hate. Although this approach with the Mustang is far more challenging, I find it far more rewarding. 

The same goes for this shot, but the situation is slightly different. 





Backlighting cars is tough, because they're not exactly translucent, but I love the results when it works. With the sun beating straight into the lens, there was very little detail left in the background, shadows, and midtones. This is another shot where multiple exposures can't be merged effectively, since I'm hand-holding the camera while hanging out the side of my minivan. Again, you have to make do with what you've got, and try to extend the DR as much as possible in a single exposure. 

That said, I'm honestly not that concerned with the DR in the 5DIII. It's 22 mp are more than enough for the editorial work that I do, but there are instances for product or PR photography where extra resolution would come in handy. Extra pixels also give art directors to turn vertical shots in to horizontals, and horizontals into verticals.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 13, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> People keep touting the notion that ISO performance is increased, but DR at low ISO is not. I'm trying to understand how this is possible... is the following valid:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Increased QE due to better microlenses = increased SNR across the board. Coupled w/ lower gain, this decreases per pixel noise (shot noise is decreased). You'd think this'd also increase DR even at low ISO by decreasing noise at the lower end...
> ...



One interesting thing is that I just noticed that some have said that the horizontal banding on the 20D had been more random and the vertical block kind more fixed and if that holds for the 5D3 maybe the vertical can be removed if software were to allow you to feed it a bunch of dark frames and since the 5D3 already seems to have cured the horizontal type, maybe banding could be really cut down. I wonder, if so, if ACR will allow for feeding of dark frame avgs for each person's particular camera? Maybe the banding can be very greatly removed with an advanced RAW converter? Maybe if ACR refuses to put it in a program can be written to pre-process the RAW and then feed that altered RAW to ACR....

it still won't fix the poor read noise but at least most the ugly stuff can be rid and maybe you can 1/2 stop more usable??? (wild guess, not sure exactly how much) and of course it has to be that the vertical sort left on the5D2 is the sort that stays even frame to frame for the most part, not yet certain


anyway

noise = sqrt(read noise^2 + # photons / gain)

if read noise^2 is a much bigger term then photos/gain photon shot noise doesn't matter and for dynamic range we want to test noise at that very floor where photons = zero and all you have left is the noise=read noise

(a little above that floor, noise = read noise + photons/(2*read noise*gain) + more terms as photos/gain gets bigger but bigger than R and when it gets to lighter tones noise = sqrt(photos/gain))

Anyway, I'm tried of all of this. It is what it is. Some will care legitimately and some will care just a tiny bit legitimately and some won't care at all legitimately. At this point it is what is. And you look at DxO, try things out, etc. or not as needed/desired. It's just one of many aspects.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 13, 2012)

Man, V8Beast, I absolutely *love* your photos. The sense of motion and the lighting are spectacular.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 13, 2012)

> One interesting thing is that I just noticed that some have said that the horizontal banding on the 20D had been more random and the vertical block kind more fixed and if that holds for the 5D3 maybe the vertical can be removed if software were to allow you to feed it a bunch of dark frames and since the 5D3 already seems to have cured the horizontal type, maybe banding could be really cut down.



I've thought of this too. There is definitely some banding that remains constant in the 5D2, & I've averaged multiple dark frames to see this. Still trying to work out an algorithm to get rid of the pattern noise & see if it helps. Yeah maybe we'll be lucky & the banding will be fixed (not actually 'fixed', haha) and we'll be able to get rid of it (I'm pretty sure people have already worked out a software algorithm to do this).

LTRLI, dunno if you had a chance to read my other posts, but, in general I think your method for calculating the DR from the black/white files *could* be valid (certainly seems so, as they match up with DXO results, assuming DXO is doing DR tests properly by actually metering scene, or input, illumination)... but could also be entirely invalidated if some strange non-linear function were applied to the data before being written to the RAW file (such as my example of assigning any pixel value <2060 to 0... which'd effectively decrease your measured standard deviation in your black file... and maybe that black file would end up looking like the D7000 file I mentioned, which has an average pixel value of 0.43, a stdev of 0.7, and a max value of 8 ).

Anyway, I should be first in line for a 5D3 so I'll measure myself using the not-so-accurate method of shooting a gray card at many different exposures to estimate the DR.


----------



## jrista (Mar 13, 2012)

Astrogarden said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > There aren't many direct ISO comparisons (ie 1600 vs. 1600) in these samples, but my own worthless opinion is that the 5DIII at 25,600 looks almost as good as the D800 at 6400, and the 5DIII looks substantially better at 6400 than the D800 at 6400. So, my unscientific conclusion is that the 5DIII tops the D800 by 1.5 to 2 stops.
> ...



*All things being equal.* In that case, and really only in that case...yes. Its not that simple though.

The simple fact of the matter is things are not completely equal, even from generation to generation of each sensor. The 36mp Nikon sensor DOES have some distinct advantages over the 5D III, I don't think anyone (including myself) have disputed that. I think at a per-pixel IQ level, the D800's 36.3mp will only be marginally worse than the 5D III's 22.3mp sensor. In a real-world context, I think the only real performance differences that are actually going to mean anything significant on the IQ front are the larger image size of the D800, and the higher ISO capability of the 5D III. Noise will proabably be very comparable between the two. The 5D III will probably have a slight edge on highlight headroom. The D800 will have a solid lead in terms of shadow recoverability.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 13, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Man, V8Beast, I absolutely *love* your photos. The sense of motion and the lighting are spectacular.



Thanks  I'm just trying to keep up with those that are better than me. 

On a different topic, one factor I neglected to mention about the image with the Mustang is that for car-to-car shots, the 5DIII's advantage in FPS over the D800 is huge. If you're a high-end commercial photographer that has the means to get a permit to shut down a public road, then you can get as many cracks at a shot like this as you want, as long as the light doesn't get too harsh. For editorial hacks like me, unfortunately that's not an option. 

For one, this shot was taken on a public road while trying to circumvent traffic. Secondly, I'm sticking my head out of the moon roof of an SUV, which is quite hairy. If a cop sees you doing something like this, he's going to tell you to go home ASAP. Thirdly, the surface was very bumpy, making it very difficult to get the desired motion blur with a low shutter speed while maintaining acceptable images sharpness. These are all factors work against you, and lower your "hit rate." The ability to fire off as many frames in a given amount of time is always helpful in these situations. 

I tried to capture a shot at a very specific point on a bridge, but it didn't quite work out, and this is the best I could get. Oh well, maybe next time.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 24, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > People keep touting the notion that ISO performance is increased, but DR at low ISO is not. I'm trying to understand how this is possible... is the following valid:
> ...


----------

