AF might be way better, sensor barely at all, video mode only half fixed(?)

[V8Beast]

and if you were really such a get out and shoot guy you might realize how 3 stops dynamic range can make a huge difference, maybe it doesn't for what you shoot, but then maybe that just shows that some of the pixel peeping geeks actually get out and shoot a lot more things than you huh?

In your attempt to be a smart@ss, you just posted the funniest line I've ever read by a pixel-peeping geek. Yes, I do dabble in photography that requires lots of dynamic range from time to time.









Somehow I manage even with $hitty Canon sensors. Now do you care to share some of your images that illustrate how effectively the DR of Sony's Exmor sensor can enhance your photography ?

i guess the Ferrari test team has no lab huh?

Do you really want to use a car analogy with me? Of course Ferrari has a test lab. The big dog F1 teams like Ferrari and McLaren spend $300-plus million a year on R&D. Wind tunnels, automated dynos that simulate upshifts and downshifts of an entire race, etc. You name it, they test it. During a race, the two-way telemetry on an F1 car wirelessly streams gigabytes of data back to the lab every second so engineers can analyze it in real time.

That said, all that lab work doesn't mean $hit without real-world track testing. Furthermore, the only reason why teams spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lab testing is to they can more effectively develop parts for real-world testing. As it stands, the main reason why F1 teams are spending so much money on testing in the lab is because the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing a few years ago. Teams would much rather spend that money testing their cars on track in real-world racing conditions, but they can't, so they resort to lab testing instead. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in the lab just so they can make the most of the precious few days of real-world track testing that they're allowed. 

On the other hand, pixel-peeping tech geeks seem more interested in lab tests than actually using their cameras.

[Bosman]

and if you were really such a get out and shoot guy you might realize how 3 stops dynamic range can make a huge difference, maybe it doesn't for what you shoot, but then maybe that just shows that some of the pixel peeping geeks actually get out and shoot a lot more things than you huh?

In your attempt to be a smart@ss, you just posted the funniest line I've ever read by a pixel-peeping geek. Yes, I do dabble in photography that requires lots of dynamic range from time to time.









Somehow I manage even with $hitty Canon sensors. Now do you care to share some of your images that illustrate how effectively the DR of Sony's Exmor sensor can enhance your photography

i guess the Ferrari test team has no lab huh?

Do you really want to use a car analogy with me? Of course Ferrari has a test lab. The big dog F1 teams like Ferrari and McLaren spend $300-plus million a year on R&D. Wind tunnels, automated dynos that simulate upshifts and downshifts of an entire race, etc. You name it, they test it. During a race, the two-way telemetry on an F1 car wirelessly streams gigabytes of data back to the lab every second so engineers can analyze it in real time.

That said, all that lab work doesn't mean $hit without real-world track testing. Furthermore, the only reason why teams spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lab testing is to they can more effectively develop parts for real-world testing. As it stands, the main reason why F1 teams are spending so much money on testing in the lab is because the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing a few years ago. Teams would much rather spend that money testing their cars on track in real-world racing conditions, but they can't, so they resort to lab testing instead. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in the lab just so they can make the most of the precious few days of real-world track testing that they're allowed. 

On the other hand, pixel-peeping tech geeks seem more interested in lab tests than actually using their cameras.

Dude! Amazing shots!

[V8Beast]

This one requires a fair amount of DR as well. When you're shooting with natural light, sometimes the light is harsher than you'd like, and it this case, it means you need a lot of detail on the shadow side of the cars and on the buildings. This is plenty of DR for a shot like this. Try to bring up the shadows any more, and the image will look flat, lifeless, two-dimensional, and boring. I suppose there is a lab test that measures for this sort of thing?


Other times, you have more control over the light to decrease the DR demands on a camera. There are these high-tech gizmos called reflectors. I think they were developed by NASA. I've heard you can use them for fill light to great effect.


I don't care how many stops of DR some pixel-peeping geek says a camera's sensor can capture. For shots like this, I'm using a reflector regardless of if whether I'm shooting with a POS Canon or with Sony's vaunted Exmor sensor.

[Bosman]

People need to stop bitching and test them out. Theres all this philosophy and data and bs. If you use nikon buy nikon, if you use Canon then use Canon, both have great cameras you can buy. People really have the 5DM3 now and like myself are really impressed with the camera as a whole. Spec for spec in use it is pure bliss to use. Can't wait to shoot my first wedding with my new camera. The focus locks even in real dark situations too. Thats nice! Oddly enough my testing of all my lenses with it somehow produces dead sharp focus accuracy, its crazy! You all dont believe me because you read some report or saw some video, haha. Ok.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

V8Dude

Your best skill seems to be name calling in laughable manner. 
You are kind of a funny guy.

Believe it or not you are not the only person who has ever used a camera. I've shot the men's NCAA basketball tourney (and no, not from the stands ) among other things.

And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times. And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

And it's a bit hard to use reflectors to fill in the interior of a redwood forest, maybe for some scenes, if you spend 15 hours rigging and thousands in expenses for a single shot, perhaps, sometimes, but then try it for a landscape expanding over a a few hundreds acres and it's a bit trickier still and then try that for every single possible such situation you may come across anywhere and.... and yes, sometimes a tripod a multi-snaps will do and sometimes a grad ND filter will do it, but not always. especially if you want details and not a wax-look.

It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.

[briansquibb]

Bottom line is:

- Do the images produced by the body + glass meet your needs?

I seem to remember the 5DII being slated because it only had 4fps - this has been overlooked in the rush to praise the D800 and criticise the 6fps 5DIII. It doesn't matter what the mps or the dr are if you miss the picture.


Having followed the threads it seems that everyone is fixated on high iso, in which case the argument about DR starts to become irrelevant as the DR is squandered with high ISO.

- does your shooting style with your body + glass meet your DR needs?

- howabout all the other differences? for example silent mode in the theatre?

It is too easy to be blinded by one (great) feature and to ignore features that spoil the experience in the real world. 

[Alker]

V8Dude

Your best skill seems to be name calling in laughable manner. 
You are kind of a funny guy.

Believe it or not you are not the only person who has ever used a camera. I've shot the men's NCAA basketball tourney (and no, not from the stands ) among other things.

And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times. And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

And it's a bit hard to use reflectors to fill in the interior of a redwood forest, maybe for some scenes, if you spend 15 hours rigging and thousands in expenses for a single shot, perhaps, sometimes, but then try it for a landscape expanding over a a few hundreds acres and it's a bit trickier still and then try that for every single possible such situation you may come across anywhere and.... and yes, sometimes a tripod a multi-snaps will do and sometimes a grad ND filter will do it, but not always. especially if you want details and not a wax-look.

It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.

Could you show us some work photographed by you ?
I have read most of your post and like I said before your really must be the best photographer in the world.
Just wondering if all your numbers knowledge can be found back in your pictures.

[V8Beast]

Ah man. I thought we were going to continue our discussion on Ferrari's F1 program, but if you insist on talking cameras....
 

Believe it or not you are not the only person who has ever used a camera.

You're  kidding me. I thought the guys I compete with on a monthly basis to pay my bills and feed my kids were using Etch A Sketches. No wonder they never run out of space on their memory cards. Are there DxO test results for one of those bad boys yet?

I've shot the men's NCAA basketball tourney (and no, not from the stands ) among other things.

I get it now. You're confused and licking the wrong camera's balls. Nikon has a special model for sports shooters called the D4

And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times.

Finally, something we agree on! I'll take all the DR I can get. However, I can't easily distinguish the D800's DR advantage over the 5DIII without resorting to a lab test. I'm apparently in the minority here, but I simply prefer the overall look (color, contrast, sharpness) of the 5DIII's files. The D800's samples look flat in comparison. 

And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

Ooooh, full-time pros. I'd like to say I'm impressed but I'm not. Whenever I talk to pros, those fools are so busy actually using their gear in the real world that most have never even heard about DxO tests. When are they going to learn about the joys of pixel-peeping and DR/ISO lab tests instead of trusting their own eyes and concentrating their efforts on becoming better photographers. I'm sure the first thing their clients do is blow the images their contributors submit up to 100%, and test its DR and noise. I don't see how they could possibly judge a great image from a junk image without doing so.   

And it's a bit hard to use reflectors to fill in the interior of a redwood forest, maybe for some scenes, if you spend 15 hours rigging and thousands in expenses for a single shot, perhaps, sometimes, but then try it for a landscape expanding over a a few hundreds acres and it's a bit trickier still and then try that for every single possible such situation you may come across anywhere and.... and yes, sometimes a tripod a multi-snaps will do and sometimes a grad ND filter will do it, but not always. especially if you want details and not a wax-look.

So we've established that different situations call for different equipment or a camera that excels in different areas. Now we're getting somewhere I have a photo shoot with E.T. scheduled in the redwoods of Northern California next month, so maybe I'll rent a D800 for the day. 

It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.

Please. You're speaking to someone who ordered up a D800. Granted I will probably cancel it on Monday, but my point is that fixating on lab tests to the point where it takes precedence over judging an image based on overall execution, image quality, and artistic value is nonsense. I pity the fool who thinks his camera is great or thinks it's junk based not on the quality of the images it captures, but someone else's lab findings.

Seriously, that kind of fixation can't be healthy. The last time I was that fixated on something, someone ended up slapping a restraining order against me

[briansquibb]

And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times. And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

Difference between a pro and an amateur

The amateur will do anything for the right photo
The pro will do anything for the right money

 

[V8Beast]

Difference between a pro and an amateur

The amateur will do anything for the right photo
The pro will do anything for the right money

 

You have it all wrong. I see lots of amateurs that have much nicer gear than many of my pro photog buddies. That must mean that the main difference between a pro and an amateur is that amateur has more money

[briansquibb]

Difference between a pro and an amateur

The amateur will do anything for the right photo
The pro will do anything for the right money

 

You have it all wrong. I see lots of amateurs that have much nicer gear than many of my pro photog buddies. That must mean that the main difference between a pro and an amateur is that amateur has more money

I am trying to work out how to get a modified golf cart with my gear  to the locations. They are too big to go under the Winebago - perhaps in a trailer behind then - and the gear would be locked away at the same time. Then I have the problem of the boat.

Perhaps the chauffeur can drive a big truck with all the stuff and this means that the butler and maid would not have to sit up front with us

   

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Ah man. I thought we were going to continue our discussion on Ferrari's F1 program, but if you insist on talking cameras....
 

it probably would have been more fun and productive to talk about F1 

It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.

Please. You're speaking to someone who ordered up a D800. Granted I will probably cancel it on Monday, but my point is that fixating on lab tests to the point where it takes precedence over judging an image based on overall execution, image quality, and artistic value is nonsense. I pity the fool who thinks his camera is great or thinks it's junk based not on the quality of the images it captures, but someone else's lab findings.

Seriously, that kind of fixation can't be healthy. The last time I was that fixated on something, someone ended up slapping a restraining order against me

1. saying it's NOT the end of the world, means you are not fixated or at least not entirely
(and the better part of my original post here was actually about nothing more than trumpeting the early AF reports....)

2. Those of us asking for more dynamic range didn't just decide to ask it because we saw a difference on some test chart. Believe it or not the desire was not to be able to post a more impressive graph on our walls. I shoot in the real world and if I run up against some issue THEN I look into it to see what the deal is and if anything else might not have the issue. And I know from real world experience what the charts imply to what I could do in the real world. And I whine and cry about it like crazy not actually to be annoying, but because anything less than a total huge tremendous whine fest of a deal never catches the attention of Canon. I do regularly hit scenarios where I really wish I had the 3 more stops DR (although certainly for many shots it won't make any difference at all, as well). And I think the same goes for most doing the same. And anything less than making a huge production about it means Canon won't even think of paying for patents or building a new fab, etc.

Many people are now raving about the awesome 5D3 AF, and quite a few of the ones who are now going on about how awesome it is are the very same people who called those of us who called out the prior non-1 series AF stuff like pathetic Nikon trolls or silly little people who just need to learn how to shoot properly or told us that is was absurd to ask for top AF in something that wasn't a 1 series. So us know-nothing Nikon trolls perhaps helped get them the very thing they are raving about now and said was impossible to even think of hoping for.

This is the body rumor forum, not a serious how to take better photos forum, so I don't know that it is a bad thing to call Canon out here (plus I was actually tossing them a ton of praise about the AF for the better part of my post), maybe enough gets said, the next cam is better. Maybe if we all kept quiet and said the 5D2 was 10% perfect the 5D3 would have had the 5D2 AF system again or maybe the 7D AF at best?

[V8Beast]

Those of us asking for more dynamic range didn't just decide to ask it because we saw a difference on some test chart.

That might apply to you, but not everyone else. There are tons of posts on here where people are going poo poo over the 5DIII based not on how poorly it performed in the field, and how its poor DR was the difference between capturing a great image and coming home with a junk image, but based on the DxO findings alone. Am I the only one that finds that bizarre? 

I do regularly hit scenarios where I really wish I had the 3 more stops DR (although certainly for many shots it won't make any difference at all, as well). And I think the same goes for most doing the same.

I'd venture to say all photographers run up against situations like this. I do all the time. My point is that there's always a disconnect between lab tests and field results, and right now, I'm having hard time actually seeing the 3 stop DR advantage of the D800 in the sample images that are rolling out. Your results may vary Come on, three stops of DR is HUGE. The difference should be very obvious outside of the lab, should it not?

Getting back to F1, Ferrari has gone from mopping everyone one up in the early '00s to struggling to keep up with McLaren and team Red Bull since the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing. They have their own freakin' track in Fiorana, Italy that they can't even use anymore. I'm sure if they could get back to doing some on-track, real world testing, their F1 program would be much more competitive. Furthermore, one of the new scrub F1 teams designs their cars entirely on computer. They don't do much testing at all, because they don't have the funds to do so. And guess what? They suck, and are always getting lapped within the first half of a race.

Whether it's in photography or F1, there needs to be a balance between lab testing and field testing. Unfortunately, the only thing many people seem to care about are lab results, and last I checked, you don't hang lab results on your wall and you sure as hell don't sell lab results to a client.

Many people are now raving about the awesome 5D3 AF, and quite a few of the ones who are now going on about how awesome it is are the very same people who called those of us who called out the prior non-1 series AF stuff like pathetic Nikon trolls or silly little people who just need to learn how to shoot properly or told us that is was absurd to ask for top AF in something that wasn't a 1 series. So us know-nothing Nikon trolls perhaps helped get them the very thing they are raving about now and said was impossible to even think of hoping for.

This is the body rumor forum, not a serious how to take better photos forum, so I don't know that it is a bad thing to call Canon out here

I have no problem calling Canon out when it needs to be called out. Before the karma system went away, I had the smites the prove it I just find it odd that people are talking about the 5DIII like it's something to wipe your @ss with when you run out of toilet paper based solely on the lab tests conducted by a single group of tech heads. That's not to say lab tests are useless, but rather they're not nearly as useful as determining the strengths and shortcomings of your equipment based on how you actually use it in the field.

I'm sorry, but when some posts images that they took of their girlfriend's hairy arm pit, and marvels at how much detail they can see in every last pungent follicle at 100%, I can't take them seriously. The D800 appears to be a terrific camera, but I doubt that's the intended use Nikon engineers had in mind when they designed it. Maybe that's your idea of creating art if you have a strange armpit hair fetish, but I other strange fetishes to attend to that don't involve photography  

[3kramd5]

Finally, something we agree on! I'll take all the DR I can get. However, I can't easily distinguish the D800's DR advantage over the 5DIII without resorting to a lab test. I'm apparently in the minority here, but I simply prefer the overall look (color, contrast, sharpness) of the 5DIII's files. The D800's samples look flat in comparison. 

Given the choice I'd prefer to record as much DR as possible and manually compress it later to add depth to my liking.

That said, I don't give a rip about DxO or any lab test that I don't fully understand and certainly can't replicate in the field.

Besides, I haven't been out shooting much in the last 9 months, and my old 40D gives me enough DR for my recent subject.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'd venture to say all photographers run up against situations like this. I do all the time. My point is that there's always a disconnect between lab tests and field results, and right now, I'm having hard time actually seeing the 3 stop DR advantage of the D800 in the sample images that are rolling out. Your results may vary Come on, three stops of DR is HUGE. The difference should be very obvious outside of the lab, should it not?

It is a big difference and there are demos comparing the exmor vs the the other sensors, real world demos, and it does show up easily (if your scene has more than 10 or stops of dynamic range, certainly plenty don't and then it makes no difference at all, of course plenty do), that is my point, my point is also that the DR tests I, others and DxO do, DO very much match up to real world use. I don't know why you don't see the difference. I've seen some pretty stunning demonstrations of the difference.

Getting back to F1, Ferrari has gone from mopping everyone one up in the early '00s to struggling to keep up with McLaren and team Red Bull since the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing. They have their own freakin' track in Fiorana, Italy that they can't even use anymore. I'm sure if they could get back to doing some on-track, real world testing, their F1 program would be much more competitive. Furthermore, one of the new scrub F1 teams designs their cars entirely on computer. They don't do much testing at all, because they don't have the funds to do so. And guess what? They suck, and are always getting lapped within the first half of a race.

1. on track testing, is still testing, not 'real world' races and sure it is important, once you get down to a car on the road and drivers you are into a super complex scenario, far beyond measuring single things which is more like what dynamic range is

2. you can bet all the teams would be wayyyy behind where they are if not for lab tests, so many more parts and specific little bits would take so much longer and waste sooo much more money to develop

Many people are now raving about the awesome 5D3 AF, and quite a few of the ones who are now going on about how awesome it is are the very same people who called those of us who called out the prior non-1 series AF stuff like pathetic Nikon trolls or silly little people who just need to learn how to shoot properly or told us that is was absurd to ask for top AF in something that wasn't a 1 series. So us know-nothing Nikon trolls perhaps helped get them the very thing they are raving about now and said was impossible to even think of hoping for.

This is the body rumor forum, not a serious how to take better photos forum, so I don't know that it is a bad thing to call Canon out here

I have no problem calling Canon out when it needs to be called out. Before the karma system went away, I had the smites the prove it I just find it odd that people are talking about the 5DIII like it's something to wipe your @ss with when you run out of toilet paper based solely on the lab tests conducted by a single group of tech heads. That's not to say lab tests are useless, but rather they're not nearly as useful as determining the strengths and shortcomings of your equipment based on how you actually use it in the field.

I'm sorry, but when some posts images that they took of their girlfriend's hairy arm pit, and marvels at how much detail they can see in every last pungent follicle at 100%, I can't take them seriously. The D800 appears to be a terrific camera, but I doubt that's the intended use Nikon engineers had in mind when they designed it. Maybe that's your idea of creating art if you have a strange armpit hair fetish, but I other strange fetishes to attend to that don't involve photography

Not quite sure how this came onto hairy armpits, just recall which of the two of us is the only one to have mentioned "hair armpits" and "fetishes"  .

I hardly think the 5D3 is some trash to chuck in the garbage!
I did spend half of my original post hear going on about all of the early positive reports about the AF.

But the low ISO dynamic range is wayyy behind Exmor sensors though and even quite a bit behind the best non-Exmor stuff Nikon is doing (D4), I really thought they'd have at least gotten it to D4-level.... I do find that quite disappointing. For the landscape-type shooter, the 5D3 really adds virtually nothing over the 5D2 (for stuff relying on AF or better body response it should be much better than the 5D2 though). Some won't care, but some will and there is nothing any less valid about their caring about that than someone not caring about it. (and once again, I DO see a very large difference real world that matches what the lab results suggest)

And the video is in some ways awesome now, free from moire and aliasing messes, but it still ain't the promised 1920x1080p, every video blog I read is getting on it like crazy for this which is not what Canon needed to continue the low-end film-making domination.

It has less reach than stuff like 7D/1D4/D800 for wildlife/sports.

But yeah the 6fps are not bad for the class and the AF is sounding better and better, it's no doubt a better cam the 5D2, no doubt, it certainly has a lot of great stuff going for it.

But their sensor tech does appear to be falling behind, in ways that may matter for some and appear to be doing a bit of video protectionism for the C300 now, which is a shame, why not a C300 2x2 sampled crop video for 5D3 at perfect 1920x1080 if they can't do that over the entire frame? Probably to not step on the C300.... although it's hard to know for sure.

But once again the improved AF does sound pretty awesome going by early reports and coupled with 6fps that's not a bad thing at all! If the old sensor did what you need, then it should be awesome. 22MP, FF, 6fps, top of the line AF, small form factor, video without moire/aliasing, great user interface, certainly not a bad mix. I think it is one step shy of great though, as is, plus more MP, or plus noticeably more dynamic range, or at least with true 1920x1080p video then it's great IMO for $3500, without at least one of those added in $3500 seems steep. It'll be interesting to see if it drops to nearer $3000 in a couple months.