Go with the Sigma 1.4. For me it is more versatile and just as sharp.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'd caution strongly against expose to the right
Expose properly, ideally with a well-calibrated incident meter.
If you've still got crushed shadows and blown highlights in critical areas of the image, you either need better light or you need to go to HDR -- and that's assuming that the crushed shadows and blown highlights are a problem in the first place...the kinds of photography where it's a problem but you can't either fix the light or use HDR are basically nonexistent.
Don't forget that there's a great deal more DR to be had in any well-exposed RAW image than what comes right out of the converter with the default settings.
If you want to get the most detail from your images, then the major area of your image's histogram should be towards the right.
Thanks for pointing that out, I only discovered this fact after some try and error - maybe they should have put a sentence like this in the manual :-p
The concept is termed ETTR.
The concept is termed ETTR.While it might not make me seem like a pro (hey, I am not!): I didn't know about that, thanks again dr. neuro!
The only thing left for me to wonder when shooting at low light is if it's better to have a properly exposed histogram at higher iso or a histogram that leans to the left at lower iso. Using lr4 and its smart shadow recovery, I'm tending towards the latter with my aps-c sensor, because higher iso than 800 really ruins the picture while 1ev underexposure does not.
Ok, my point is I'm looking at the DPReview comparisons and actually seeing a better looking image with the 5DII at ISO 800. And we don't know what they used to do the comparisons, or what settings.
I have a 5DIII sitting at home waiting for me, so I'll do my own test tonight against my 5DII using the ACR RC and Lightroom to evaluate. Hopefully I get better results than what I'm seeing on DPReview!
Yeah, I know all that. And you can't compare the JPEG's generated by the cameras, because most people who want quality already know to shoot RAW and have their computer comvert to JPEG. Comparing in-camera generated JPEG's is not even close to comparing apples to apples if you want to gauge how the new sensor does at differen't ISO's, as the new Digic 5+ processor is some 30X more powerful than the one in the 5DII, and thus has time to do good conversions of the RAW data.
Unless you shoot JPEG, make sure you select RAW to compare the two cameras.
With RAW selected, and ISO 800, the 5DII actually looks sharper than the 5DIII... I wonder what method they used to do the conversion?
I'm actually a little disappointed from these noise tests with raw files. It beats the D800, 7D, and 5D mark II but not by much. Looks like the Mark 3 is the best by about .5 stop (and only at high ISO), then the mark II, then the D800, then the 7D which is about a stop below the mark 3. The biggest differences seem to be a usable 12,800 iso vs the other cameras that are not...but on the raw files, the difference isn't huge. This is no Nikon D3S but then again it is 22MP which is still very large.
Are we looking at the same images? Looking at their 100% crop of the coins... 5D3 at 25K looks about the same as the 7D at 3200. And, the 5D3 at 12.8K looks much better than the 7D at 3200.
In general, I've noticed that looking at 100% crops of the 5D3 reveals obvious noise at high ISOs, but it's of a much more palatable variety and maintains much better contrast and sharpness than any other camera, especially my 7D.
I see myself using ISO 12,800 regularly and 25K in a pinch on the 5D3 where I am not happy with the noise at 3200 on my 7D and try to stick to max of 1600 ISO there. That's an effective 3 stop improvement for me.