Messages

1261

EOS Bodies / Re: Am I crazy to even think of switching to Nikon? Here's my gear...

« on: March 13, 2012, 01:58:30 PM »

Here's my website where you can see our work to get a sense of our style...     This is our latest shoot...

http://www.thebeeskneesphotographyco.com/2012/03/theodorasbirthday/

Amazing work! You guys have real talent!

You most certainly won't see any improvement over that with the D800 or any other Nikon camera.

1262

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chuck Westfall & the 5D Mark III

« on: March 13, 2012, 12:52:45 PM »

I have to say, I'm not overly impressed with Westfall's interview.

I found his response to the question about high ISO performance with RAW files more than a bit unsatisfying:
"These figures are not being disclosed, but of course they will be lower than the noise reduction achieved with in-camera JPEGs and EOS Movies."

It sounds like the camera has a great autofocus system and I know that's what most 5D II people wanted, but as a 7D owner hoping for improvements in sensor technology, his comments aren't giving me a lot of confidence.

I literally laughed out loud when I read "These figures are not being disclosed". Really?!? REALY!!!? He has got to be kidding us. For the life of me I cannot understand why canon would not want to disclose this. It's not like we're not going to find out in a few weeks anyways (I know, double negative). It just makes it seems like Canon his trying to hide something. If they are so proud of their improved jpeg performance, why not improved raw performance. It's the raw performance that the vast majority of 5d3 owners actually care about.

I'm a little baffled.

They are not trying to hide something. Results with RAW are entirely subjective and depend on the kind of post-processing applied, and how much effort you put into post processing. Given that the same RAW data was used to produce the JPEG's in the first place, there is really nothing to prevent a clever and hard working photographer from creating final output that is just as good as the in-camera JPEG. Its just that it could take a LOT of effort, and many photographers will be unwilling to expend the amount of energy necessary. As such, they can't publish any specific numbers, as results will vary from photographer to photographer.

Thats in contrast to the JPEGS. They know exactly what kind of processing they have put into them, and exactly what that processing can achieve. They also know that the results oscillate within a fairly narrow range. Only then can a company like Canon legitimately and safely (for their own sakes, to keep themselves from getting sued) claim any particular improvements.

We'll know soon enough what the low-level hardware is capable of from DXO. Around the same time we'll also know what we can expect in a more real-world context from DPR (i.e. without pushing the hardware to its absolute limits and expending a tremendous amount of time and energy in post to extract every last ounce from every last pixel). It may not improve by the full 2.5 stops we all want it to, but I believe it will improve adequately one way or another.

1263

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

« on: March 12, 2012, 11:31:09 PM »

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.

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.

1264

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

« on: March 12, 2012, 10:54:57 PM »

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

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...

1265

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

« on: March 12, 2012, 09:43:45 PM »

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.

1266

EOS Bodies / Re: Am I crazy to even think of switching to Nikon? Here's my gear...

« on: March 12, 2012, 09:23:11 PM »

@LetTheRightLensIn:

Here is the simple fact of the real world: Wedding photographers, event photographers, landscape photographers, studio photographers, etc...have all been making FANTASTIC photos, for many years, with digital cameras that have far worse specs than the 5D III. It didn't matter if they had 8 stops, 10 stops, 12 stops or 13.8 stops of DR. It didn't matter if the read noise was 30 or 8 or 3 electrons. It didn't matter if ISO was limited to 800!

An extra stop or two of DR is not the end of the world, and it won't change things much in the real world. Your still going to have to use that reflector or fill flash. Your still going to have to slap on that GND filter. Your still going to need to expose properly, and if you need more saturation for a given aperture and shutter, your still going to have to use a higher ISO rather than a lower one. Your still going to have to be a cunning photographer. 

It amazes me how all this craziness has ensued (mostly on DPR, but also here) over the LEAST significant bits of ONE particular ISO setting that only matters to a FRACTION of the total number of shots that CERTAIN photographers may take SOME of the time. Seriously, ppl.

I think this thread is particularly indicative of the danger of making such a big deal out of something that really isn't. Poor @tonyp here, who's business is pretty heavily invested in some very expensive Canon lenses, is so worried that the 5D III is an actual DUD that he's literally thinking of switching brands...because the grass on the other side has been hyped up so much one would think it was quite literally a vibrant, neon green that glowed in the dark and tasted of ambrosia! I call that...the worrying of the average joe/pro so much that they actually consider wasting money to switch brands...a true disservice to your fellow photographer.


@tonyp: Keep your gear! Save you and your wife a LOT of money. There is absolutely no reason to worry that Canon is going to do you, your wife, or your business a disservice, now, next year, or far off into the future. They are an excellent company, they make excellent gear, they provide excellent service (speaking from personal experience, due to my own hands fault on several occasions, it really is EXCELLENT, FAST service), and they DO MAKE A COMPETITIVE PRODUCT.

Save yourself some worry, and realize that you have some fantastic gear already...the 5D III won't be any different. It'll certainly be an improvement over the 5D II on many levels.

1267

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

« on: March 12, 2012, 08:59:53 PM »

@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.)

1268

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

« on: March 12, 2012, 06:39:48 PM »

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 

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

1269

EOS Bodies / Re: Am I crazy to even think of switching to Nikon? Here's my gear...

« on: March 12, 2012, 04:54:51 PM »

Well what's happened is I'm reading all these forums about dynamic range, dynamic range, banding banding and it's messing with my mind man!  LOL

Thats exactly why I'm trying to combat all that blather! Don't listen to it...it has no bearing whatsoever on the cameras ability to take excellent photos...its just a bunch of tech heads who like to tear apart hardware and data at a low level and find its flaws (or lack thereof, if that tickles their fancy.)

Its all meaningless in the grand scheme of things! Learn how to use your camera, use it effectively and efficiently, and those issues will only affect a very small percentage of your total photos. If you need real evidence of whether any one of the cameras on the market today, including the 5D II and by extrapolation the 5D III, just look for photos created by them on sites like 500px.com or 1x.com. You'll never see any banding, fixed pattern noise, or DR issues.

To try and set your mind at ease a bit more, we've all been bickering about DR at an extremely low level, and in terms of extreme situations, where you might need to recover shadows by more than 4 stops. Unless you have rather unique photographic practices where you are regularly photographing scenes with unbelievable DR and can't use an GND filter to balance contrast, its highly unlikely you'll need to recover that much low-ISO shadow DR...ever. Using the more real-world DR numbers from DPR (as contrasted with the very low-level numbers from DXO that have been involved in most of the DR discussions on these forums lately), here is how cameras compare today, in stops of DR @ ISO 100:

Sony Alpha A900	9.4
Nikon D7000	9.2
Canon 1D IV	8.6
Canon 1Ds III	8.6
Nikon D3s & D3X	8.5
Canon 5D II	8.4
Canon 7D	8.3
Nikon D700	7.8

The grand total difference from the worst current Canon body, the 7D, and the best current Nikon body, the D7000, is less than a full stop. The difference is even less, from the 1D IV to the D7000, of about half a stop. In terms of more realistic, real-world shooting...you shouldn't concern yourself with the low-level nature of read noise and how it may affect the technical specification of DR.

1270

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

« on: March 12, 2012, 04:32:32 PM »

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:

• 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

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!

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

1271

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 same max dynamic range as the 5D2???

« on: March 12, 2012, 04:23:31 PM »

given that there appears to be practically no fixed patter noise in 5D III sample images, and at worst minor vertical banding noise...I'd venture a guess that it eliminates fixed pattern noise.

I don't know about that... please see my previous post. That particular model of the 5D III has as bad or worse vertical banding than my 5D II...

There are slight differences in banding vs. fixed pattern...I believe they are caused by different gains at different parts of the pipeline. The fixed pattern stuff is finer and cross-hatched, and pretty much always the same in every frame. Whatever causes banding is different, and the banding can change frame to frame. As far as I can tell, the fine, FIXED PATTERN noise is gone in the 5D III. There does appear to be some vertical banding, however I've seen inconsistent results. Some samples seem to exhibit it, while others don't seem to exhibit any at all. I have been curious if that was due to differences in pre-production samples or something like that? Anyway, I think banding and fixed pattern noise are separate types, caused by effectively the same thing, just at different parts in the read pipeline...and banding does not exhibit the same in every frame where as fixed-pattern (by definition) would.

1272

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

« on: March 12, 2012, 01:44:18 PM »

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.

1273

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

« on: March 12, 2012, 12:54:05 PM »

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

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.

1274

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

« on: March 11, 2012, 11:54:24 PM »

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:

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.

1275

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

« on: March 11, 2012, 11:37:27 PM »

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 

Hey, hey, none of that!    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.