« on: June 08, 2014, 03:12:56 PM »
Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.
Do you buy your camera equipment according to their sales figures?
My purchases are directed by my needs as a photographer. I did not buy the 5DIII after extensive testing - because it just did not bring anything useful to me. So for my money Canon will have to "fight back" or my next DSLR will not be a Canon unless I have a 5DII break down. Simple as that.
What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? As far as I can see the only thing the 5D MkIII doesn't do significantly better than the 5D MkII is low iso shadows, even then it is better, just not significantly better. And seeing as how the "best" competitors are only performing a stop or so better in this one metric I'd like to know what you, personally, would like from Canon. Also, what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.
The best competitors are more like 3 stops not 1 stop better than the 5D3 for low ISO shadows. The 5D3 is basically the same as the 5D2, it actually measures a trace worse for standard DR and has similar banding one direction (far less banding in the other direction though, but so long as you have any in either direction....). At high ISO is where the 5D3 does better than the 5D2 in the shadows.
According to DXO ScreenDR (the ACTUAL dynamic range you get out of a REAL RAW FILE...we don't edit downsampled RAW images, because then it wouldn't be RAW, and we would lose a hell of a lot more editing latitude anyway...so YES, I AM comparing Screen DR, and I believe it is the ONLY valid DR comparison for what most photographers care about: RAW exposure editing latitude):
5D Mark III: 10.97 stops
D800E: 13.24 stops
D800: 13.23 stops
The D800/E are the best still cameras as far as dynamic range goes. That makes the difference 2.27 stops at best, or 2 1/4 stops.
If we did use Print DR, then it's 11.7 vs. 14.4, which is 2.7 stops, or about 2 2/3rd stops. (Mind, Print DR is NOT ACTUALLY MEASURED. It is extrapolated, but not measured...so a 2.7 stops difference is assumed, not guaranteed.) You don't get a full three stop advantage in either case, however as far as editing RAW images goes, Print DR is irrelevant. We CAN NOT EDIT RAW IMAGES THAT ARE DOWNSAMPLED, BECAUSE RAW CANNOT BE DOWNSAMPLED. We edit RAW files as RAW files...as 100% original, unmodified, full size bayer pixel array data. The sole reason we HAVE the kind of editing latitude we have is because we edit RAW. Therefor, Print DR is irrelevant when it comes to discussing our ability to lift shadows (which IS what EVERYONE thinks about when they think "dynamic range"). Shadow lifting ability is different than total image noise levels throughout the entire tonal grade...but no one really cares about total image noise levels. Above 18% gray, noise, even though it is still present to the same degree, is much harder to see...our eyes pick up small differences at lower intensities better than they pick up small differences at high intensities.
Everyone cares about shadow lifting or highlight recovery...editing latitude. At best, the difference in terms of editing latitude is 2 1/4 stops, based on actual DXO DR measurements taken directly from real RAW files.