I wouldn't call it a "complaint." Just a statement of fact. In my shooting I've come across circumstances where it is a legitimate issue. (And thanks, privatebydesign, for posting a link to our previous discussion on that with my examples.)
If the 5DIII has insufficient dynamic range for whatever you're doing, whatever you're doing is extreme. Basically, you're either trying to salvage a severely underexposed image, or you're trying to turn deep shadows into midtones (or even highlights -- I've actually seen people try that).Not true. There are circumstances where you cannot properly expose all parts of the image due dyanmic range variations in the shooting conditions. You can expose properly for one part or the other and either blow out the highlights or block up the shadows. The lesser of two evils is to expose so the highlights don't get blown and if you still need to you can lift the shadows...this works ok in a lot of circumstances, but not all. In particular, scenarios where you have larger areas of smooth shadows, pattern noise can become a very real problem that will be visible even on moderate prints sizes.
You know, I keep coming across these complaints, very much like the one you just made, but I've yet to experience anything remotely like this problem in my shooting. Perhaps you could post an example of a properly-exposed image shot with a 5DIII with excessive shadow noise? And, please, not Fred Miranda's infamous page two example. That shot is at least a stop or two underexposed, in harsh noonday Sun, and he's lifting deep Zone II shade almost to midtones. That's the textbook definition of "extreme." And of "bad light." And, too, "poor technique."
My intent is to provide honest feedback on where I've found the limits of the equipment to be. I have no interest in exaggerating the impact of the issue. It's obviously not a deal breaker for me, since I still am shooting Canon. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I do feel there's a bit of a rush to judgement to dismiss anyone who mentions pattern noise as not knowing how to expose properly or such things.
So while the Canon system suits my needs very well for the most part, this is an area where I do think there is room for improvement. I find it unfortunate when opinions are expressed to the effect that everything is fine, there's no need for improvement. Why do we need to rationalize away shortcomings? "Hey Canon, stop worrying about R&D, your sensors as good as they need to be and if someone thinks the competition is better it's just becasue they don't know how to shoot." Why should we send a message to a manufacturer that their product is perfect, we the consumers don't expect anything more?
You have a solid portfolio sir, My hat's tipped through the internet.
I don't do alot of HDR, but they're is another canon user here called A!ex or something like that. He does alot of it and it looks sublime. He once mentioned that the merging program has alot to with how good the final DR is and it seem's your shooting DR scene's excess of what possible with either platform.
I usually use flash for indoor property photography, but I can't say I do it enough to give an opinion.