November 22, 2017, 04:38:58 AM

Author Topic: Canon 5DmkIII  (Read 30474 times)

Flake

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2010, 02:38:41 PM »
The reason people changed from the 1D to the Nikon D3 was mostly down to the auto focus issues which Canon didn't do a quick enough or good enough job at resolving.

Fetishising mega pixels?  how strange you are!  There is no attempt to 'fetishise' anything, small pixels?  How large are the pixels on the D3 then?  trouble is no one knows except Nikon, it's possible to work out the density and the area, but not the size of the pixel chosen to place there.  "only the quantum efficiency of the sensor matters"  This is plainly not true as the image processor has at least if not more influence over noise levels.

You believe that the D3 is a half of one stop better than the D4 but so what?  There's more to a camera than dynamic range and where the noise floor is, as you said yourself it doesn't become an issue until Iso 800, I'd go at least a stop further, but it's very rare I shoot at these higher Isos and most times Dynamic range isn't an issue either!

You see, to be very much in favour of Nikons products, and I have to ask the question if you've actually come to the right forum?  Perhaps Nikon Rumours might be better for you?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2010, 02:38:41 PM »

kubelik

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 823
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2010, 04:21:46 PM »
let's strive to keep things civil and not personally directed here.

it is fair to bring up things that canon can do better - let's face it, there's lots of them.

but in this particular case, the concern of the original poster that the 5DII's files are too large ... I'd have to say I doubt they're much more of a memory/processing hog than the 50D files you're already working with.  and, as the OP himself observed, he can downsample the 5DII's images into even nicer, sharper, lower-res images as part of his workflow.

the question I have is, what's the real complaint?  let's face it, no one is going back to 8-10 MP, not even Nikon at this point.  I know people hate using noise reduction because it destroys detail ... but an 8 MP image is clean and lacks the detail anyway ... so you're really not ending up with anything different.

I do think Flake is getting at an important point, however, which is that sensor density doesn't mean anything unless we know more about the sensor.  I have owned both the 30D and 5DII, which have identical pixel densities and were released fairly soon after one another.  I can tell you the images look nothing alike, even when you are only using the central 3600 x 2400 pixels of the 5DII.  the 30D looks, to be honest, fairly crappy at 1600 or higher.  the 5DII looks fairly usable up to 3200.

carlsanford

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2010, 06:45:24 PM »
The article states that a 5d Mk III may be announced in March.  How long do you think it would take for bodies to actually be available for sale?  Anyone have some knowledge as to how Canon has handled its announcements in the past?

I really want to upgrade now and get a Mk II, but I could wait a bit longer.  However, if it may not actually arrive on the market until closer to Christmas, then I may buy now.

epsiloneri

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 414
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2010, 08:46:43 PM »
I currently own a 40D (and I do love it), but my (lucky) girlfriend owns a Nikon D3, and aside from it being a full 35mm sensor, I just think the images that are shot on that seem so much sharper, more in focus, something.

That is most likely due to the lenses she has, aside from the FF advantage. Lenses are usually more important than detectors in producing a sharp image. I also assume you compared images obtained from both cameras by the same photographer, because image quality problems can also be due to what's behind the camera (I'm not saying it is in your case).

epsiloneri

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 414
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2010, 08:58:53 PM »
Imagine two people buy an acre of land, one of them builds a skyscraper on it, the other a garden shed, by the logic you're using you would view the two as exactly the same, simply because they each have an acre of land.
You don't know how large the pixel sites are, and as they grow larger they become closer to each other.

Imagine that the two sites have no fences, people from each site are free to pass into each others land, but it's further to go from the shed to the boundary.  Imagine a simple wire fence, everyone can see into the neighbouring plot and some are able to climb the fence into it.  Now imagine a huge concrete wall no one can see it, and no one can pass through.  This is isolation, and it's very important, because you can have small plots where little can pass through and cause noise.

Haha, flake... that was one of the most incomprehensible similes I've ever seen :-) And it had no cars in it. But I agree that larger pixels don't necessarily translate to higher S/N. What mostly matters is the number of photons captured. Whether you capture them on one or four pixels doesn't matter. The exception would be in the very low S/N domain, where the noise becomes read-out dominated. Also, since the well capacity scales closely to the area of a pixel (not volume!), the dynamic range does not change much with pixel size either (the well capacity will be smaller for smaller pixels, but that is exactly made up by there being more of those pixels for an equal area).

Flake

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2010, 04:52:13 AM »
Don't forget that a camera is more than its sensor, and the reason the D3 appears to produce sharper images, could be down to a number of different reasons.
For a start Nikon sharpen the image something which cannot be turned off, not every photographer is happy about this.
A weaker anti aliasing filter will produce sharper looking images and a weaker bayer matrix will do the same at the expense of saturation and faithful colour depth.
The D3 is intended to be a fast sports & action camera, it's a pro spec model, whereas the 40D is the next step up from  the entry model, it's not really fair to compare the two.
Yes I know it's a bit of an odd similie but I think it does explain it nicely!  Again don't forget that isolation of pixels from each other is very important as leakage from one to another is a big cause of noise.

Inst

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2010, 06:38:18 AM »
Part of it was that the D3 was simply better; Canon's competitor for the "pro sports shooter" camera was APS-H, and not counting the fact that they opted against gapless lenses to avoid vignetting with wide angle lenses, they had inferior noise performance.

The image processor I believe adds read noise to the system, with the rule being lower read noise is better. However, I do believe that read noise is most important in dynamic range at low ISOs, whereas at high sensitivities sensor noise overwhelms the impact of read noise, which remains relatively constant relative to ISO.

As far as the D3 goes, vs the 1D4 (what kind of Canon fanboy are you? D4 was the rumored successor to the D3 and is now the rumored successor to the D3s), part of the issue was that the 1D3 attempted an innovative autofocus system that failed on the field. Another part of the issue was that the D3 was just a comprehensively better camera than the 1D3; not only did it have superior noise performance it also had better dynamic range at low ISOs, which remains BETTER than the current D3s.

The noise advantage really does matter here, however. The D3 is $4000, as is the 1D4. The D3 is just a lot more capable than the 1D4 at photography because of the high ISO feature; it can take shots where the 1D4 cannot, and when you're paying $4000 for a camera I think the versatility is quite important.


Flake: the easy explanation for why the D3 outperforms the 40D is just that one is full-frame, one is APS-C. All the other factors don't add a lot more to that; the D3 is a lot sharper with various lenses because its requirement for lens sharpness is a lot less than the 40D due to the difference in pixel sizes; the 40D only uses the center half of the image circle, and it demands a lot more from its center than the D3 does of the entire lens.

I was recently looking at used 5D1s, and I think that they might be a bargain right now, compared to say, the D90. The high-ISO performance is antiquated, sure, it's about equivalent to the nearly obsolescent D90, has a poorer AF system, and can't do video, but you're looking at something like twice the lens sharpness of the D90 due to the larger sensor format.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2010, 06:38:18 AM »

NotABunny

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2010, 03:23:36 AM »
8...10 MP. Why? Because large sensels produce larger signals and this will improve the signal to noise ratio, hence allow higher ISOs, a'la the D3s *except* that Canon handles black better than Nikon and also doesn't foul up my images with noise reduction I can't turn off.

At http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=83 ( old linkhttp://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_1d_mark4_review_comparisons.htm ) there are 2 images (JPEGs converted from RAW) of a scene, taken in the SAME light, one with Canon 1D4, one with Nikon D3s, at ISO 12800.

Normalize them for sensor size (you have to cut the inner part of the image taken with D3s to fit the area of the 1D4 sensor size - crop 1.3), then normalize them for resolution (because the output resolution would be the same either on screen or on print), and finally normalize them for black level (Nikon applies some in order get rid of the noise in the shadows).

At the end, you'll have two images whose quality is indistinguishable. So, at least at this technological level, pixel size is not a relevant factor for high ISO and low light photography; however, the sensor size is.

----------------------------------------

This is how to scale the resolutions:

1D4 sensor: 27.9 x 18.6 mm, 4896 x 3264 photosites
D3s sensor: 36.0 x 23.9 mm, 4256 x 2832 photosites



Crop the center part of the D3s sensor to the sensor size of the 1D4:

(4256 x 2832 photosites) * (27.9 x 18.6 mm) / (36.0 x 23.9 mm)

=> 3298 x 2204 photosites (on the D3s sensor correspond to a physical area equal with the area of the 1D4 sensor)



To scale to the same resolution, you just need to scale the larger resolution to the smaller one, so scale the image taken with the 1D4 (4896 x 3264 photosites) to 3298 x 2204 photosites. Now you can compare the images either either in full size, or pixel by pixel.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 11:24:43 AM by NotABunny »

Flake

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2010, 03:54:09 AM »
Sensor size has very little influence on image quality when comparing sensors of APS H and FF, in fact it is possible to get a better image out of an APS-H because it's not using the weak corners and borders of lenses.  If you want sharp images then buy a camera with a weak AA filter, (like the original 5D) , that is going to have more of a bearing on sharpness than the size of the sensor.

Comparing the 7D and the 5D MkII reviewers say it's difficult to tell a difference, and that's when people are aware there is a difference & are looking to find it!

I would suggest to anyone who believes this is a fact, that you have a read of this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml  A little experiment where industry professionals were asked to tell the difference between two large prints.  The fact that they could not distinuguish between one & the other tells a story, but when you consider that one image was taken with a Hasselblad P2 with phase one P45 back, and the other was a Canon G10, that's when you begin to realise that there's an awful lot of BS being talked around the forums.

Truth is as with so many things, photography is being affected by a steeper diminishing returns curve, you spend more & more money to obtain less & less of an improvement.

epsiloneri

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 414
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2010, 04:50:38 AM »
Sensor size has very little influence on image quality when comparing sensors of APS H and FF, in fact it is possible to get a better image out of an APS-H because it's not using the weak corners and borders of lenses.

It depends on the lens. If the central 1.3x of FF is more than 1.3x sharper than the outer 1.3x of FF, then yes, otherwise no. Same thing for APS-H, but then with the factor 1.6x.

The fact that they could not distinuguish between one & the other tells a story, but when you consider that one image was taken with a Hasselblad P2 with phase one P45 back, and the other was a Canon G10, that's when you begin to realise that there's an awful lot of BS being talked around the forums.

I think that comparison makes a good point, but at the same time it's a bit misleading. Sure there are situations where you can do just as well with a G10 as a FF or MF camera. The comparison you link to proves that. But there are also situations when the differences between the cameras become evident - in particular low-light or shallow-depth photography, but also in those instances when you really need 39 MP or higher dynamic range.

Inst

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2010, 08:23:19 AM »
The comparison was based off full prints, not sectional prints. If you dropped the image down to a 25% crop, the difference in image quality would have been a lot more apparent.

Rescaled to 100x150, there is no apparent difference between a picture from a cameraphone and a picture from a 5D2.

Re 5D vs D90; well, actually I have JPEG comparisons where the 5D has comparable performance to the D300, but I'm still hunting down a RAW comparison.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/size_matters.html

why larger sensors have an inherent advantage over smaller sensors

Bob Howland

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2010, 08:23:47 AM »
I would suggest to anyone who believes this is a fact, that you have a read of this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml  A little experiment where industry professionals were asked to tell the difference between two large prints.  The fact that they could not distinuguish between one & the other tells a story, but when you consider that one image was taken with a Hasselblad P2 with phase one P45 back, and the other was a Canon G10, that's when you begin to realise that there's an awful lot of BS being talked around the forums.

Both of those images were taken at base ISO, which for the G10 is 80. I own a G10 and it's a great p&S, but above ISO 200, the differences in noise between it and my 5D become readily apparent. At ISO 1600, most of the uneducated, unwashed photographic masses don't even see noise in the 5D image but do see it in the G10 image. Most don't find it objectionable however. What they do like about G10 images is that everything is sharp, because of the G10's huge depth of field.

I will agree with one thing...there's an awful lot of BS being talked around the forums.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2010, 08:26:57 AM by Bob Howland »

Edwin Herdman

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2010, 12:11:11 PM »
Normalize them for sensor size (you have to cut the inner part of the image taken with D3s to fit the area of the 1D4 sensor size - crop 1.3), then normalize them for resolution (because the output resolution would be the same either on screen or on print), and finally normalize them for black level (Nikon applies some in order get rid of the noise in the shadows).
This strikes me as pretty reasonable.  However, I wonder how many users are actually normalizing their photographs in everyday usage - hopefully somewhere along the 'image supply chain' when an image is shot for media it gets downsampled reasonably.  But many shooters are dependent on images close to the maximum resolution their cameras can output (demanded for posterity if nothing else) and probably the vast majority of shooters simply keep JPEGs straight from the camera, or at most crop RAWs in DPP or ViewNX.

In any case it's an extra step that, while reasonable to expect to be done by pros, is something most folks would just as soon not worry about.

Aside from "out of the camera-croppable" quality, I think the simple price to performance (subjective of course) ratio is the most sensible one when comparing cameras.  The D3s does very well versus the 1D Mark IV in that regard, at least at launch when it was $300 cheaper.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2010, 12:11:11 PM »

Rocky

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 794
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2010, 12:28:20 PM »

I was quite intrigued by the post stating that Nikon has better sensor technology. I currently own a 40D (and I do love it), but my (lucky) girlfriend owns a Nikon D3, and aside from it being a full 35mm sensor, I just think the images that are shot on that seem so much sharper, more in focus, something. It's an intangible that I've been unable to properly express.


Please check your sharpness setting. 40D is well known to be soft at standard setting (sharpness at 3). try to set it at 4. You may change your opinion on the 40D.

NotABunny

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2010, 03:55:56 AM »
Normalize them for sensor size (you have to cut the inner part of the image taken with D3s to fit the area of the 1D4 sensor size - crop 1.3), then normalize them for resolution (because the output resolution would be the same either on screen or on print), and finally normalize them for black level (Nikon applies some in order get rid of the noise in the shadows).
This strikes me as pretty reasonable.  However, I wonder how many users are actually normalizing their photographs in everyday usage

They don't, but the normalization for sensor size only needs to be done in order to see how much the sensor size and photosite size influence the image quality. As visible after all normalizations, the photosite size doesn't (visibly) influence the quality of the full image (since viewed on screen or printed, the images look the same).

But since without sensor size normalization the photo taken with the D3s look better, it becomes clear that the sensor size (visibly) influences the quality of the full image. (Of course, for comparison, the relative subject magnification within the frame, must be the same, which is normally true regardless of the sensor size - this is how people do photography, they just have to get closer to the subject as the sensor size increases, for the same focal length.)


By this I don't mean to say that photosite size never influences image quality. These two images only show that photosite size doesn't influences image quality with the technology used in those sensors / cameras. Perhaps if Canon were to use larger photosites, they might be able to include technology which improves the image quality. (This is just speculation.) I prefer they work to improve the tonal range in low light rather than increase the resolution. Shooting indoors / events with a 40D in natural light is not fun, it's limiting / challenging (even with Fn less than 2).
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 04:16:29 AM by NotABunny »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5DmkIII
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2010, 03:55:56 AM »