5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

[awinphoto]

If it's going to be for web only, most photos are scaled down to 1/4 size roughly to fit internet screens (ecommerce) and such, screw it, jpeg...  shooting kids running around the yard, jpegs... shooting for my personal enjoyment, jpeg, unless that is I see the possibility of it being portfolio quality, then raw + jpeg...  Lets not fear the power of the jpeg.

If I am going to shoot jpeg I will get out the 7D or G12 and shoot on the green square mode 

Coming from you, that's about the response i would expect... But in the end time is money and I do run a business so on smaller files, i do what I need to do to shave time and frankly, files for the web,  when scaled down, are nearly identical either way if shoot and exposed perfectly, that it doesn't do anything but lengthen my workflow, lose money unless I charge higher which makes it even tougher in an already tight market and economy, and in times like these, isn't worth it unless you really need it...  Since your a professional i'm sure you can understand that.

Hey - did you miss the humour there?   

Gotcha      spring allergies kicking in so i'm kinda on edge haha.   Glad you weren't serious 

[D_Rochat]

It's funny how this thread has evolved from 5D Mk III vs D800/E to RAW vs. JPG. I wonder where it will go next...

[moreorless]

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Who is responsible for this great pearl of wisdom? Ken Rockwell?

It really depends on the kind of shooting your talking about I'd say, Ken Rockwell shoots mostly landscapes were workflow really should not be THAT much of a problem and the potential benefits of using RAW are greater were as my impression was that the guy in the review was shooting mostly news and events in high volume, less time to edit raws and probabley less need to do so.

[briansquibb]

It's funny how this thread has evolved from 5D Mk III vs D800/E to RAW vs. JPG. I wonder where it will go next...

I think this is still on topic as it seems that the 5D3 is better at jpeg than the D800

[awinphoto]

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Who is responsible for this great pearl of wisdom? Ken Rockwell?

It really depends on the kind of shooting your talking about I'd say, Ken Rockwell shoots mostly landscapes were workflow really should not be THAT much of a problem and the potential benefits of using RAW are greater were as my impression was that the guy in the review was shooting mostly news and events in high volume, less time to edit raws and probabley less need to do so.

Then again i dont think even Ken Rockwell even shooted raw...  From what i gathered, although i can be wrong, is he shoots primarily jpeg.  I used to shoot all raw but learned that while it is great to have when you absolutely need a digital negative and you know a certain shot will be worth it to you in the end to have every last drop of detail possible...  Otherwise in camera jpegs tend to be quite nice...  Plus many Roes based photo labs prefer to accept files in jpeg rather than tiffs or psd... kinda says something. 

[Tcapp]

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Who is responsible for this great pearl of wisdom? Ken Rockwell?

It really depends on the kind of shooting your talking about I'd say, Ken Rockwell shoots mostly landscapes were workflow really should not be THAT much of a problem and the potential benefits of using RAW are greater were as my impression was that the guy in the review was shooting mostly news and events in high volume, less time to edit raws and probabley less need to do so.

Then again i dont think even Ken Rockwell even shooted raw...  From what i gathered, although i can be wrong, is he shoots primarily jpeg.  I used to shoot all raw but learned that while it is great to have when you absolutely need a digital negative and you know a certain shot will be worth it to you in the end to have every last drop of detail possible...  Otherwise in camera jpegs tend to be quite nice...  <b>Plus many Roes based photo labs prefer to accept files in jpeg rather than tiffs or psd... kinda says something. </b>

That says more about the limited bandwidth and connection speed rather than file quality. It would take forever to upload a bunch of full size tiffs or psds.

But anyway, raw processed into jpeg is better than ooc jpeg.

[unkbob]

If it's going to be for web only, most photos are scaled down to 1/4 size roughly to fit internet screens (ecommerce) and such, screw it, jpeg...  shooting kids running around the yard, jpegs... shooting for my personal enjoyment, jpeg, unless that is I see the possibility of it being portfolio quality, then raw + jpeg...  Lets not fear the power of the jpeg.

If I am going to shoot jpeg I will get out the 7D or G12 and shoot on the green square mode 

Coming from you, that's about the response i would expect... But in the end time is money and I do run a business so on smaller files, i do what I need to do to shave time and frankly, files for the web,  when scaled down, are nearly identical either way if shoot and exposed perfectly, that it doesn't do anything but lengthen my workflow, lose money unless I charge higher which makes it even tougher in an already tight market and economy, and in times like these, isn't worth it unless you really need it...  Since your a professional i'm sure you can understand that.

The JPEG/RAW argument is a little daft. It's like saying oil paint is better or worse than pastels (yet you don't see courtroom artists using oil paint). Whether JPEG / RAW / both are the best option are dependent on what the image is for, how much time is available and how it will be reproduced. If time is a factor (because of urgency or low payment per image) then of course jpeg has its uses. But for many of us, processing is part of our style / brand and the type of work I do (mostly weddings) allows me to put more emphasis on an individual image. My work is not time sensitive and just about pays well enough per image for me to treat a photograph more like a piece of art than a commodity.

Plenty of fine art, fashion and advertising photography makes my wedding work look like a snapshot with a disposable camera - but for that kind of polished imagery where post production is so important, jpeg is obviously not an option. On the other end of the scale is a picture of a drunk celebrity falling out of a nightclub with a hooker on each arm - an editor could care less about framing, colour, white balance etc - they just want a clean, clearly identifiable shot which tells a story, and they want it now. That's the epitome of photography as a commodity. It takes skill, but not refinement. Nothing wrong with a commodity at all - money is money and we all have to pay the rent. But the less control you have over the final product, because you're letting the camera or an editor do the processing, the more your work becomes a commodity.

>>Plus many Roes based photo labs prefer to accept files in jpeg rather than tiffs or psd... kinda says something.

Yes it kinda says that jpeg files are small. It has zero relevance to the value of jpeg as a starting point for post processing.

[D_Rochat]

It's funny how this thread has evolved from 5D Mk III vs D800/E to RAW vs. JPG. I wonder where it will go next...

I think this is still on topic as it seems that the 5D3 is better at jpeg than the D800

True enough. The D800 jpeg did seem rather boring.

Then again i dont think even Ken Rockwell even shooted raw...  From what i gathered, although i can be wrong, is he shoots primarily jpeg.  I used to shoot all raw but learned that while it is great to have when you absolutely need a digital negative and you know a certain shot will be worth it to you in the end to have every last drop of detail possible...  Otherwise in camera jpegs tend to be quite nice...  Plus many Roes based photo labs prefer to accept files in jpeg rather than tiffs or psd... kinda says something. 

Judging by everything else Ken does and says, I'm sure he never bothered to learn how to use any pp software (other than the saturation slider). Rather than learning it, he just dismisses it. Besides, he was probably too busy writing his version of the birds and the bees to learn anything that would be relevant to his "website".

[awinphoto]

If you guys read my prior posts I was not saying that jpegs are the all to be all, nor was I saying that jpegs were as good as raw files at large sizes, but I am saying that there are times, even for the professional workflow, when a OOC files are more than appropriate... High quantity shooting, editorial, website only clients, small print clients, etc...  Not everything needs to be RAW processed and for the quantity of shooting I can on occasion shoot, if I was to do raw processing for everything, i would be out of business a long time ago.  Yes for large prints... for portfolio work... for times when you want to guarantee maximum quality or when you think you may be doing heavy post processing and want the best files to work with, yes, raw has it's place.  The whole debate of the raw only or your amateur is silly but not respecting the raw ability is just as silly.  Lastly, my comment regarding Roes systems, I know a lot of pro labs use roes systems, they only take jpegs...  My point was if jpeg file formats were that inferior to tiff or psd, they, especially pro labs would demand you give them the tiff/psd...  But in the end what quality jpeg and processing you had to do to get the file OOC jpeg/RAW in order to get the final result is all up to the photographer and his or her techniques and workflow to get there. 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I shot a car race recently, and afterwards, the client wanted to downloaded jpegs straight onto his laptop. I know only amateurs and soccer moms shoot jpeg, but the ability to hand over high quality jpegs on a whim, when you don't have to opportunity to touch raw files up in post, is a huge benefit at times. To me, the out-of-camera Nikon files look like ass. That would bother me a heck of a lot more than, and take up more of my time to fix in post, than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DR.   

The strange thing is that most Pros I know switch to Jpeg once they are shooting events where they are taking large amounts of pictures and not doing dedicated (set up) work like fashion or product photography (when they usually would not use any equipment currently offered by Nikon or Canon ... MF anyone ?), as they also don't have the time to work with hundreds of raws ...

On a side note imagine the following not completely unimaginable scenario: Doing a one to two week photography trip where you would take 5 to 10k pictures ... do you still like 80MB raws afterwards with you limited processing power of a consumer notebook/mac ? I really don't think so and that is for what I need and want my camera to function perfectly ...       

When i shoot sports its always small jpegs. Ya need the buffer and ya don't need a tons of info. Even at 1- 1.5 mg our lab uses fractals and creates nice poster sized images. Our prints really do look excellent. For weddings, i don't worry about buffer or file sizes.
I am tempted to shoot both and use jpegs unless i need help with some files. Like the guy said in the video when he is done with editing the raws they pretty much look like jpegs anyway. The 5dm3 jpegs i am getting havent needed post processing which is pretty dang phenomenal but then i havent shot in a 3 diff light source poorly lit stadium either.

Totally agree. The people who wear T-shirts "I shoot raw" and only shoot raw are generally pro wananbes and not pros. I have worked for clients all over who want JPEGS, and the USATF wanted only Small JPEGs for their national Olympics.

RAW files basically give someone about 6 more bits of leeway if they took the picture wrong. The final used and delivered result never has more than the output from a JPEG, anyway.

When I shoot something critical I use RAW as a back up, but I make sure that my camera settings are set right, and I absolutely NEVER have to do any post processing.

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Actually, I would take that quote a step further: a digital camera has access to MORE than the raw data when it converts to JPEG, so the JPEG you are getting has the potential to be better than the best you could possibly get by developing the raw file on the computer. Just ask yourself how a digital camera can do highlight tone priority, which affects both raw and jpeg output. The camera actually changes sensitivity to a lower ISO and also compresses the full 16-bit image pipeline into the 14-bit raw output. It messes up the dark end, but that is just an example of what cameras can do when developing their own JPEGs that is absolutely impossible to do in post processing.

My point is that I hope some of the self-proclaimed experts on this site will take a moment to think before accusing people who use JPEGs of being soccer moms and amateurs. Shooting JPEGs is something that full-time professionals do. Amateurs might do it too, and they might not. But logically there is no relationship between what one unrelated person does and what a professional photographer does.

umm no

i mean yeah some pros use jpgs but many also use RAW, even non-studio/landscape pros

and no the in camera jpgs do not get access to extra info, HTP doesn't do any of the things you say, all it does is shoot at 1 stop slower ISO and set a few flags in the RAW file for JPG it takes that RAW data and then simply applies a special ton curve at top and slide most of the image back up 1 stop, so you save 1 stop of highlights at the price of losing one stop of shadow detail. You can do the same exact thing by just under-exposing 1 stop yourself and then applying a different tone curve when you process.

[vbi]

Well...it fits my existing Canon lenses better than the D800 

[Tcapp]

Well...it fits my existing Canon lenses better than the D800 

Way to get us back on topic! lol. I almost didn't even know what you were talking about till I went back up to see what the original question was.

[bp]

why bother getting back on topic?  the whole D800 vs. 5D3 topic is so far past the "beaten to a pulp" phase.  This dead horse of a topic has been beaten into a fine mist.

Forum junkies, dxo chart loving spec geeks, nikon fanbois masquerading as current canon users, and ticked off landscape shooters (none of whom have actually tried the camera) will continue to bash the 5D3, while professional shooters who are actually out enjoying their 5D3 will disagree and sing it's praises (wedding/event/low-light shooters especially).  wash rinse repeat 

I don't personally know a single 5D3 owner who isn't happy with it, and I know quite a few... But I'll admit I know more people shooters, who're more likely to be shooting in low available light.  Don't know any landscape shooters.  I love mine.  AF performance alone made it worth the upgrade.  And don't even get me started on the ISO performance.  If you think the D800 is awesome... great, go buy one.   It's apparently a very capable camera, and I'm sure it'll serve you well (especially if you dig ginormous raw files for stills or horrible moire in video.... argh, now i'm stooping to that level aren't I - darnit).

[V8Beast]

(especially if you dig ginormous raw files for stills or horrible moire in video.... argh, now i'm stooping to that level aren't I - darnit).

The file size argument is ridiculous. I started an external hard drive business after the D800 was announced, and since it's release sales have been booming. In fact, I'm about to start a new "Buy a 1TB hard drive, and get 4 gigs of RAM for free" promotion. At this rate, I'll be pimpin' a 1Dx in no time

[LetTheRightLensIn]

why bother getting back on topic?  the whole D800 vs. 5D3 topic is so far past the "beaten to a pulp" phase.  This dead horse of a topic has been beaten into a fine mist.

Forum junkies, dxo chart loving spec geeks, nikon fanbois masquerading as current canon users, and ticked off landscape shooters (none of whom have actually tried the camera) will continue to bash the 5D3, while professional shooters who are actually out enjoying their 5D3 will disagree and sing it's praises (wedding/event/low-light shooters especially).  wash rinse repeat 

I don't personally know a single 5D3 owner who isn't happy with it, and I know quite a few... But I'll admit I know more people shooters, who're more likely to be shooting in low available light.  Don't know any landscape shooters.  I love mine.  AF performance alone made it worth the upgrade.  And don't even get me started on the ISO performance.  If you think the D800 is awesome... great, go buy one.   It's apparently a very capable camera, and I'm sure it'll serve you well (especially if you dig ginormous raw files for stills or horrible moire in video....


argh, now i'm stooping to that level aren't I - darnit).

umm maybe stooping just a few levels of hell lower hah wow