5D III Dynamic Range

[RMC33]

I have missed many many exposures, I still do from time to time, I don't blame the camera in those situations, and I don't rely on it saving my butt, I blame my competence.

Pretty much every DSLR out today is capable of good shots in the hands of the right and patient photographer. So should we all settle for 1100Ds, then?

You want more than 12 MP resolution? Fine, then stitch and stop blaiming your camera. You want higher framerates? Quit bitching and learn to press the shutter button at the right time. You want better motion-tracking AF? Stop being a looser and manual focus like a proper pro. Do you see where I am getting? We could blame ourselves for our human weaknesses all day, in the end we are all humans.

If one camera can given me somewhat better images at whatever level of photographic competence I am at any one point in time, then that is a "better" camera to me, and that camera has qualities that I would hope other camera manufacturers would duplicate.

I have missed many exposures with my 7D (and previously my 350D), and having 2 stops more of headroom/footroom (even if only at low ISO) would have  saved some of those. Is it worth $2000 to me? No. Do I try to convince myself that it is worthless to me only because the system that I chose somewhat randomly 8 years ago is not performing as well as its main competitor on this single (out of many) parameters? No.

-h

I don't know many pro's who use MF for action~

No kidding.  Thanks for the tip.  I'll MF from now on.  Afterall, then I'm a real pro, right?

I think my sarcasm was lost in the interwebs.

No I was adding on to yours .

Figured as much. I WILL say. I do use MF on my 200 f/2.... for portraits.

[CarlTN]

RMC33, the 200 f/2 is just a super lens, I only rented one for a few days.

Bdunbar79, I wasn't aware that the Mk2 has a lot of distortion.  I thought it had almost none.  In any case, if I needed a f/2.8 on a full frame, I would buy the Tamron over the Canon Mk2, or even try the old Sigma (if I didn't need sharpness or to make larger prints).  Both the Tamron and the Canon M2 have "onion" bokeh, where the Canon Mk1 has very smooth bokeh.  Not sure about the Sigma, although it supposedly has a lot of problems (and softness).  If Sigma ever bring in a new one, it would probably kill them all.  I would just wait on that one.  I won't even own a FF till this Fall at the earliest.

Honestly if I was going to just blow a huge wad of money on a wide lens for a FF camera, I would probably buy several primes instead, like the Zeiss 15 f/2.8, etc.  I already have the 50mm I want, so that leaves a 35...probably go with Sigma.  I've rented the Canon 24mm f/1.4 Mk2 on my crop camera...didn't care much for it.  It wasn't sharp at the edges until f/5.6.  So that leaves the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon, with its mustache distortion...it's supposedly still the best lens around this focal length.

And somebody needs to make a really good 28mm f/1.4, or dare I ask, an f/1.2.  (Cosina) Voigtlander supposedly make a 35mm f/1.2 in Leica M mount...although seems like I've read it doesn't actually have the brightness of a 1.2.

Another Leica lens appeals to me, the 75mm f/2 Summicron.  It's a shame the front half of a Canon camera has to be chopped off, in order to use M lenses...I guess Leica simply need to start making autofocus EF lenses...won't hold my breath.

[RMC33]

Bdunbar79 and RMC33, from what I gather, the 24-70 Mk1, has better bokeh...and for portraiture, you don't always want ultimate sharpness.  Not sure I see myself buying a used Mk1 when I go full frame, though.  Also won't buy the Mk2.  Since I don't do much portraiture, I probably stick with the 24-105 kit, and maybe get a Tokina 16-28 at some point.  I feel the 24-105 is (or can be) sharper than the 24-70 Mk1...at least based on my cousin's RAW landscape files I've worked on (he has the 24-70 Mk1 on a 5D3)...and comparing them to my own files from renting the 24-105 with a 1 series body.  The 24-105 has more CA in the periphery, though, and possibly a lot more barrel at the wide end...both easily correctable though.

I honestly love the 24-70 Mk1. The fellow I backup shoot/assist weddings for uses a Mk2 (24-70) and we get similar quality out of our Mk3/mk2 combos we use. I do feel the 70-200 is better then the 24-70 for my style of portraiture but you cant beat the combined length of the two lenses.

[RMC33]

RMC33, the 200 f/2 is just a super lens, I only rented one for a few days.

Bdunbar79, I wasn't aware that the Mk2 has a lot of distortion.  I thought it had almost none.  In any case, if I needed a f/2.8 on a full frame, I would buy the Tamron over the Canon Mk2, or even try the old Sigma (if I didn't need sharpness or to make larger prints).  Both the Tamron and the Canon M2 have "onion" bokeh, where the Canon Mk1 has very smooth bokeh.  Not sure about the Sigma, although it supposedly has a lot of problems (and softness).  If Sigma ever bring in a new one, it would probably kill them all.  I would just wait on that one.  I won't even own a FF till this Fall at the earliest.

Honestly if I was going to just blow a huge wad of money on a wide lens for a FF camera, I would probably buy several primes instead, like the Zeiss 15 f/2.8, etc.  I already have the 50mm I want, so that leaves a 35...probably go with Sigma.  I've rented the Canon 24mm f/1.4 Mk2 on my crop camera...didn't care much for it.  It wasn't sharp at the edges until f/5.6.  So that leaves the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon, with its mustache distortion...it's supposedly still the best lens around this focal length.

And somebody needs to make a really good 28mm f/1.4, or dare I ask, an f/1.2.  (Cosina) Voigtlander supposedly make a 35mm f/1.2 in Leica M mount...although seems like I've read it doesn't actually have the brightness of a 1.2.

Another Leica lens appeals to me, the 75mm f/2 Summicron.  It's a shame the front half of a Canon camera has to be chopped off, in order to use M lenses...I guess Leica simply need to start making autofocus EF lenses...won't hold my breath.

How do you like the Zeiss 50 1.4? Im CPS renting the Canon 50 1.2 and Zeiss 1.4 to replace my old 50 1.4 Canon.

[David Hull]

agierke,

You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are.

From the images I have seen to back up the claims that Canon sensors are "unusable" I would have to say it is the complainers who are severely misguided.

I know of working sports pros who are still more than happy with their 1D MkIII's too. Sure MkIV's and 1Dx's are "better", but at what point is the gear good enough often enough to stop coming out with nonsense like we have had here.

I am still waiting for one person to post a single optimally exposed image where the Canon DR ruined the shot but the Nikon made a worthwhile one.

Another one is Pete Souza who for some reason chose to use a 5DII (and now a 5DIII) when I suspect that he can probably use anything he wants as well.  The fact is that there is more than ample proof that people who know how to use the gear can get rather stunning results from it.  Sadly, this is a bit more than we can say for some of the more vocal detractors.

FWIW:  Fashion shooters probably never worry about the DR of their gear, I didn't watch the videos (I will when I get a chance) but Anne Libowitz can also afford all the lights, reflectors, assistants, etc. that she needs to make sure the shot is perfect.  Souza is a little different, having less control over his lighting.  All this said though, the DR is only an issue if you make it one which is what most of these guys are out to do.  I have yet to see anything in this thread that I could not be done just about any decent DSLR regardless of the brand if used properly.   

[Aglet]

It's probably because your photos are awful and nobody gives a S___ about what some hack "photographer" has to say. The 5D2 is a venerable piece of equipment that has served many, many people very well. Let us know how much better your D800 is at recovering the shadows when you underexpose your next subject's black pants.

you missed the part where a -3EV exposure shows pattern noise with +1 EV
no way that can be described as a good performing camera, no matter what the subject.
SNR on that thing is far worse than DxO published measurements convey because they don't accurately evaluate detectable noise pattern

if you expect me to show you SNR problems at higher EV levels you don't understand how this works.

I am still waiting for one person to post a single optimally exposed image where the Canon DR ruined the shot but the Nikon made a worthwhile one.

you just SAW one example, not gonna waste my time providing others.

If people can't infere or extrapolate real world performance from an example or controlled tests then the camera's IQ isn't the only problem.

I would not say the 5d2 is useless, but it is very limited in its usefulness.
I did say that it was a very disappointing product for the price and even compared to its forerunners, never mind comparing it to the competition.

[David Hull]

It's probably because your photos are awful and nobody gives a S___ about what some hack "photographer" has to say. The 5D2 is a venerable piece of equipment that has served many, many people very well. Let us know how much better your D800 is at recovering the shadows when you underexpose your next subject's black pants.

you missed the part where a -3EV exposure shows pattern noise with +1 EV
no way that can be described as a good performing camera, no matter what the subject.
SNR on that thing is far worse than DxO published measurements convey because they don't accurately evaluate detectable noise pattern

if you expect me to show you SNR problems at higher EV levels you don't understand how this works.

I am still waiting for one person to post a single optimally exposed image where the Canon DR ruined the shot but the Nikon made a worthwhile one.

you just SAW one example, not gonna waste my time providing others.

If people can't infere or extrapolate real world performance from an example or controlled tests then the camera's IQ isn't the only problem.

I would not say the 5d2 is useless, but it is very limited in its usefulness.
I did say that it was a very disappointing product for the price and even compared to its forerunners, never mind comparing it to the competition.

For a camera with such limited usefulness, it somehow garnered a huge user base – essentially eclipsing its competition.  I think you are going to see the same from its successor as well which seems to be doing quite despite its rather steep price.  While YOU may think the camera is a POS it would appear that the majority of buyers and users have not found themselves in agreement with your assessment.

[J.R.]

That means ?

Like ishdakuteb says, it means that your original post could result in an all out polarization on this thread leading to at least two well defined poles and possibly a third one that represents the "neutral/do not care" segment with a very low possibility of a fourth segment trying very hard to keep technical responses of this thread on track...

The third group keeps quiet while the fourth group either does what you suggest or reports the posts to the mods!

[J.R.]

I would not say the 5d2 is useless, but it is very limited in its usefulness.
I did say that it was a very disappointing product for the price and even compared to its forerunners, never mind comparing it to the competition.

Aglet, this borders right on paranoia. The 5D2 is a pretty useful camera to thousands of pros who still use it, unless of course, you have an axe to grind!

[agierke]

You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are

no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

there seems to be a certain degree of nonsense that comes out in these types of conversations. to suggest the 5D mrk2 is a garbage camera for any reason only serves to discredit those making that claim. stop the nonsense or post a picture proving that the camera is the sole reason holding you back from taking great pictures.

the DR conversation is a bit of a non starter for me for two reasons.

firstly there are a number of work arounds to increasing the dynamic range of a scene that have been around for a long time. i can get all the range i need in my 5Dc. i do the same on the Mrk 2. would extra DR in camera be nice? yes....but it doesn't come even close to negating the cameras usefulness.

secondly, most great photographers seek out great light. the gear they use to record the image is almost superfluous if great light is not present! i have to shoot in all kinds of light due to circumstances and i accept that not all shots i take are going to be the pinnacle of my ability. not because my gear is the shortcoming...but because i am not afforded the luxury of finding the quality of light i know will create a phenomenal photograph.

14 stops of DR will not turn crappy light into great light. it will only marginally improve a photograph that is taken in crappy light. why is that so exciting? you are still left with crappy light.....

i dont get it.   

[RMC33]

I would not say the 5d2 is useless, but it is very limited in its usefulness.
I did say that it was a very disappointing product for the price and even compared to its forerunners, never mind comparing it to the competition.

Aglet, this borders right on paranoia. The 5D2 is a pretty useful camera to thousands of pros who still use it, unless of course, you have an axe to grind!

Could not agree more. I love my Mk2.

[Aglet]

Well, I've yet to see someone post some 5d2 test shots that show it is NOT noisy.  I've sample some other raw files that seemed to be less noise-patterned than the ones my camera created, including the samples at imaging-resource.

There's a fair possibility that the particular body I had was a lemon. Why don't we, and I mean you, find out?
I only had the one 5d2 and it was so bad I did not buy a second, unlike various other bodies i've used.

So, for those who actually HAVE a 5d2. kindly take a white or gray card, use a long lens and the largest f# you can use on it, light it evenly, and shoot a metered shot in raw.  then shoot it again at -3,-4, -5 EV from metered.

Take the -3,4 & 5 EV shots into ACR or LR (or even DPP) and apply + exposure compensation.
Tell me how far you can go before you see any pattern noise showing up.
Simple as that.
Post your results here if you've got the 'nads.

As for those still haranguing about my sample shot being 2 stops underexposed, DAMN RIGHT IT IS!
And I'll take responsibility for -2/3 of that underexposure.  The rest is camera metering.  (sarc)Can't blame any of that on the gear tho, everything Canon makes is perfect. (/sarc)
Give some thought to all the dark subject matter and use of CWA metering, for those who may not know how that works.

[RLPhoto]

I'm out of popcorn. :|

Edit: Btw Aglet, I could do a better job with a D30 than what you've shown as samples.

[TrumpetPower!]

Take the -3,4 & 5 EV shots into ACR or LR (or even DPP) and apply + exposure compensation.

Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?

As for those still haranguing about my sample shot being 2 stops underexposed, DAMN RIGHT IT IS!
And I'll take responsibility for -2/3 of that underexposure.  The rest is camera metering.

I'm sorry, but 'tis a poor workman who blames his tools, and an incompetent photographer who misses proper exposure by two stops. One stop, sure, happens to the best of us (and, in the age of digital, should be caught and fixed promptly). But two? That's well into the territory of "couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from ten paces."

And five stops?

Seriously?

Somebody please tell me this is a joke post, or a troll, or something like that. Even so, it's a very bad example of such, but it's nowhere near as scary a thing to contemplate as a straight reading....

Cheers,

b&

[Dantana]

You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are

no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

there seems to be a certain degree of nonsense that comes out in these types of conversations. to suggest the 5D mrk2 is a garbage camera for any reason only serves to discredit those making that claim. stop the nonsense or post a picture proving that the camera is the sole reason holding you back from taking great pictures.

the DR conversation is a bit of a non starter for me for two reasons.

firstly there are a number of work arounds to increasing the dynamic range of a scene that have been around for a long time. i can get all the range i need in my 5Dc. i do the same on the Mrk 2. would extra DR in camera be nice? yes....but it doesn't come even close to negating the cameras usefulness.

secondly, most great photographers seek out great light. the gear they use to record the image is almost superfluous if great light is not present! i have to shoot in all kinds of light due to circumstances and i accept that not all shots i take are going to be the pinnacle of my ability. not because my gear is the shortcoming...but because i am not afforded the luxury of finding the quality of light i know will create a phenomenal photograph.

14 stops of DR will not turn crappy light into great light. it will only marginally improve a photograph that is taken in crappy light. why is that so exciting? you are still left with crappy light.....

i dont get it.

+ as many as I can +

There's a reason that Magic Hour is Magic Hour. There's a reason that people spend huge amounts of time learning to light a shot or how shape available light.

It's comical to me to read posts about how horrible the 5DII is (especially in a thread about the Mark III). There have been so many amazing images captured with the 5DII and now the 5DIII it's ridiculous to call either of them garbage. I wish I could afford either of them right now. Instead I will make due with my old crop body until that time comes.

That's not to say that extra DR wouldn't be nice. I'm not an idiot. I remember being in college, amazed at the latitude of every new Kodak stock that came out and the ways it could be used. Of course that doesn't mean that I couldn't still go back and get some great images with a roll of Plus-X or a load of 7248.

If the 5DII or III doesn't have what you are looking for, then buy a different camera. It's the beauty of the competitive marketplace. Just don't tell me that all the great images that I've seen created with the 5D's were created with an unusable camera. It just doesn't make sense.