5D III Dynamic Range

[David Hull]

You know, if the 5DIII had inadequate dynamic range, then there's no way I would have been able to have made the attached image -- an image which includes detail both in the shadows at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and in the Sun itself. Anybody care to guess how many stops that includes? Whatever the number is, if you think you need more dynamic range than I've captured here, you're nuts.

Sure, it's multiple exposures blended together. So what?

Point is, the instances where the 5DIII has insufficient dynamic range to capture a scene in one exposure but where a D800 does are so far and few between that it's insane to base your camera choice just on that one metric alone. Especially considering that, in the overwhelming majority of said instances, the proper solution isn't a camera with more dynamic range but rather to fix or embrace the light.

Think about it.

If it's landscape, either you should be waiting for the Golden Hour or you should be blending exposures (either digitally or with a graduated neutral density filter) or you should be embracing the harshness and working for something extremely contrasty with lots of black, lots of white, and not much gray. Even if you could capture it all in a single exposure, you're still going to need to make intelligent decisions as to which parts of that dynamic range you're going to keep and which you're going to throw away, since there's no output medium that can come close to reproducing anywhere near as much dynamic range as cameras already capture.

If it's portraiture or still life (including product photography), if you can't control the light, you should be fired.

If it's some sort of photojournalism, you either should be accurately representing the scene (which is going to mean some combination of crushed shadows or blown highlights) or you should again be fixing the light.

Now, will there be situations where you can use a couple extra stops of less noise in the shadows and some digital fill to simulate the flash / reflector you didn't have with you on the set? Yes. But will the results be as good as if you had actually properly used a flash and / or reflector? Hell no.

And will there be people doing some sort of photojournalism who want to make the results look more like portraiture? Sure...but I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not interested in that kind of distortion.

Cheers,

b&

Pretty much my point exactly.  Know the limitations of your stuff and how to work around them if need be.    If some limitation turns out to be really annoying, replace that piece with something that works better for you.  Pretty simple really.

[RMC33]

Is everybody sleeping in this morning? 

Can't speak for everyone, but "Nemo" found us and we were finishing digging out from 30" of snowfall during the New England blizzard...   

The 5D Mark III is far from being "inadequate."  It's more than adequate for most photographers. If you need more than what the 5D3 can deliver, you should consider medium format cameras.

+1

I'm sure there are some people for whom one single feature is so critical that it's the only one that matters, but for most, it's important to consider the whole camera...

I think it was once said by an an early philosopher "The whole is greater then the sum of its parts". Could not be more true with a camera.

[mrmarks]

I'm sure there are some people for whom one single feature is so critical that it's the only one that matters, but for most, it's important to consider the whole camera...

+1

The whole system including lenses and flash system

[Ivan Muller]

No, I don't want anything of the sort,..

They loved the end result.
I'm bothered by the crosshatch noise on the ladies pant legs.  And no, it isn't fabric texture.

Ok first of all I thought they were holding a giant graycard...lol...but eventually it dawned on me....

I must say I cannot see the crosshatch at all on my 22 inch monitor. But if it bothered me I would just use some photoshop tools like the 'colour replacement tool' to eliminate 'noise' etc. topaz has a very nice tool to get rid of high iso banding too...maybe coming from an old school B&W film background I take it for granted that I have to do quite a bit of PP to get things right...

[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~

[RMC33]

It is funny, for all the histrionics that these threads throw out, the highest level pros are still using Canon cameras and 24-70 f2.8 MkI's, just today I came across this video of Patrick Demarchelier shooting Beyoncé for Vouge Behind the Scenes Beyoncés March 2013 Vogue Shoot

Or look at any of a multitude of videos of Annie Liebowitz, Behind the Scenes: Meryl Streep by Annie Leibovitz for Vogue US January 2012 that show her happily working successfully for the high end of the photo industry with her faithful 1Ds MkIII's and, again, the 24-70 f2.8 MkI.

I got in several disagreements over the "upgrade" the MkII 24-70 gave, these people have more money than God yet they are more than happy with the quality they are getting from "outdated, outclassed, second rate" gear, well if they can do it with what they have surely we should look to ourselves a little if we can't regularly get exposure to within two stops of normal.

In too many instances increased camera capabilities are used as an excuse, by people with ever lower photographic capabilities, for their inadequacies. Rule 1 get your exposure right, rule 101 for RAW shooting Canon users, ETTR.

Couldn't agree more. I love my 24-70 MK 1. Gets the job done, grabbed it at a bargain price (1200 right before the MK2 released) in perfect condition and I honestly don't feel the price of the MkII can justify it.

[bdunbar79]

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?

[Dianoda]

that means he is waiting for "flame war" with his pop corn... hic.. hic... i am getting tired of that too.  however, back to your question.  below is the link to show you the good way:

HDR Ep 115: Take & Make Great Photography with Gavin Hoey: Adorama Photography TV

Thanks so much for the link.  After putting this technique (multiple exposure to 32 bit tiff and processing again in ACR) into action on a few of the HDRs I've shot, wow, so easy, very powerful, great results.

[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.

[agierke]

It is funny, for all the histrionics that these threads throw out, the highest level pros are still using Canon cameras and 24-70 f2.8 MkI's, just today I came across this video of Patrick Demarchelier shooting Beyoncé for Vouge
Behind the Scenes Beyoncés March 2013 Vogue Shoot   Small | Large


Or look at any of a multitude of videos of Annie Liebowitz,
Behind the Scenes: Meryl Streep by Annie Leibovitz for Vogue US January 2012   Small | Large
that show her happily working successfully for the high end of the photo industry with her faithful 1Ds MkIII's and, again, the 24-70 f2.8 MkI.

I got in several disagreements over the "upgrade" the MkII 24-70 gave, these people have more money than God yet they are more than happy with the quality they are getting from "outdated, outclassed, second rate" gear, well if they can do it with what they have surely we should look to ourselves a little if we can't regularly get exposure to within two stops of normal.

In too many instances increased camera capabilities are used as an excuse, by people with ever lower photographic capabilities, for their inadequacies. Rule 1 get your exposure right, rule 101 for RAW shooting Canon users, ETTR

thats because Subject > Quality of Light > Gear. (i could be swayed to put QoL first but i did this order because Leibovitz is renown for her handling Subject matter above all else) 

[dlleno]

Nobody has every denied having two more stops would be useful on occasions. The dispute has been about how bad the 5D MkII and Canon sensors in general actually are. Some on the forum have said quite clearly that the 5D MkII and current generation of sensors are unusable, that is patently false. Not one of them has ever posted an optimally exposed (or even a correctly exposed) image to back up there claims. I see no shame in exposing that sham.

true enough.  even the poster child example of direct sunlight with blown highlights and lifted shadows that was underexposed 4 stops only showed that a D800 had more usable data in the shadows.  It didn't show the D800 producing a particularly compelling image in that situation -- only one that faired better in the shadows.  I would have prefered to see the Canon used to produce the best example, and the Nikon used to produce the best example, and then compare the processes. 

on edit:  better yet, make the example one that clearly demonstrates the potential for a truly great shot

[mbpics]

Is everybody sleeping in this morning?  Where's the ruckus I expected to find over the 5d2 samples I posted? 

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.

thats because Subject > Quality of Light > Gear. (i could be swayed to put QoL first but i did this order because Leibovitz is renown for her handling Subject matter above all else) 

Nonononono NO! You have it all wrong. It's obviously Read Noise >> Ability to push shadows 10 stops >> Subject > Quality of Light! God, all of you idiots are wasting your time taking brilliant photos with your horrendously unusable Canon equipment when you could be out there taking photos of black pants or the shed in your backyard!

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.

That's because it doesn't exist.

[bdunbar79]

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 .

[CarlTN]

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.

[bdunbar79]

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.

If you don't need f/2.8, then yeah, get the 24-105L.  I always crop a little bit anyways, no matter what, so all of my edges are always gone.  The 24-70L II has incredible distortion, that's not easily corrected.