September 21, 2014, 06:35:16 PM

Author Topic: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3  (Read 7119 times)

Invertalon

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2012, 09:12:32 PM »
The DR of the 5D3 files have been great for me. I don't see all that much more DR with D800 files to be honest. The only benefit is extreme pushing of the shadows. Both are excellent. The techradar data looks much more believable.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 09:15:35 PM by Invertalon »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2012, 09:12:32 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3716
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2012, 10:38:08 PM »
The DR of the 5D3 files have been great for me. I don't see all that much more DR with D800 files to be honest. The only benefit is extreme pushing of the shadows. Both are excellent. The techradar data looks much more believable.

The way you say that you don't see much DR difference and then say that the only benefit for the D800 is cleaner shadows makes wonder. Since the cleaner shadows are what gives the better DR and fits DxO and the measurements of numerous others. And the Fredmiranda review sample test (again that guy is a long time Canon shooter so don't cry foul or troll on him).

I didn't see Nikon users having half this much trouble back say 2004 admitting that their sensors didn't match Canon sensors and back then they didn't match them in any way, not for low ISO, not for high ISO, neither DR nor SNR and sometimes not even for MP either.

Musouka

  • Guest
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2012, 01:50:20 AM »
I didn't see Nikon users having half this much trouble back say 2004 admitting that their sensors didn't match Canon sensors and back then they didn't match them in any way, not for low ISO, not for high ISO, neither DR nor SNR and sometimes not even for MP either.

Actually, I remember some people saying "who needs Full Frame!" among other things back in the day. I don't have the statistics to decide which camp is more hung up on their respective brand nor do I care. People will always try to defend their purchases. It's part of their nature.

That said, I don't see where is the big deal in telling the story as it is. You can't always win if life  ;D

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3716
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2012, 02:35:41 AM »
I didn't see Nikon users having half this much trouble back say 2004 admitting that their sensors didn't match Canon sensors and back then they didn't match them in any way, not for low ISO, not for high ISO, neither DR nor SNR and sometimes not even for MP either.

Actually, I remember some people saying "who needs Full Frame!" among other things back in the day. I don't have the statistics to decide which camp is more hung up on their respective brand nor do I care. People will always try to defend their purchases. It's part of their nature.

That said, I don't see where is the big deal in telling the story as it is. You can't always win if life  ;D

I think it was Nikon who were saying who needs FF right before they snuck their FF up on Canon.

I do recall running into a Getty shooter decrying how bad the Nikon sensors were and envying Canon and talking about switching.

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2043
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2012, 03:58:05 AM »
Reading that test only makes me cry over just hoe lucky that dude is who lives that close to those landscapes.

Where I live I can't shoot a small bush without catching a powerline or a dumpster or cars. Envy!

Spend your money on subjects and location, not gear...  ::)
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

mmeysarosh

  • Guest
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2012, 04:17:32 PM »
The item to note in DXO's testing is the 14.4 Ev's of dynamic range greater then the AD converters specifications. The file format and image processing does permit 16 bits and indicates what DXO is picking up is Nikon's software at work. In the end, they really can't provide a sensor performance test, but more of a system performance result. The initial result can not be technically above 14Ev, but after some processing, room remains in the file format and processing to make it happen.

In truth, all of these tests are subject to lens choice, software in camera, and system settings. I do not believe that any company computer display that can actually allow you to fully view the dynamic range and color depth afforded by either camera. Printers also tend to be a greater limit as their Dmax is somewhere closer to 10 stops worth and gamuts tend a bit narrow in comparison.

So while we can see the readouts from the files that explain the detail is there, we really can not print or see it on screen as that part of the workflow still has a bit of catching up to do. The situation is fine as I would always rather have a source that has greater depth then trying to extract from a lower quality to output a higher quality. The Nikon will be superior in well lit conditions with images intended for very large prints. The Canon will be able to match or surpass it in almost other conditions and will provide its user a bit more flexibility in more challenging lighting.

Now the limit of the quality of images is not often limited by the camera, but more in the photographers ability in the art and understanding of tools and technology.

Happy shooting!

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3716
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2012, 07:29:41 PM »
it only scores that 14.5 at 8MP print equivalent normalized that is how they get above 14.

The item to note in DXO's testing is the 14.4 Ev's of dynamic range greater then the AD converters specifications. The file format and image processing does permit 16 bits and indicates what DXO is picking up is Nikon's software at work. In the end, they really can't provide a sensor performance test, but more of a system performance result. The initial result can not be technically above 14Ev, but after some processing, room remains in the file format and processing to make it happen.

In truth, all of these tests are subject to lens choice, software in camera, and system settings. I do not believe that any company computer display that can actually allow you to fully view the dynamic range and color depth afforded by either camera. Printers also tend to be a greater limit as their Dmax is somewhere closer to 10 stops worth and gamuts tend a bit narrow in comparison.

So while we can see the readouts from the files that explain the detail is there, we really can not print or see it on screen as that part of the workflow still has a bit of catching up to do. The situation is fine as I would always rather have a source that has greater depth then trying to extract from a lower quality to output a higher quality. The Nikon will be superior in well lit conditions with images intended for very large prints. The Canon will be able to match or surpass it in almost other conditions and will provide its user a bit more flexibility in more challenging lighting.

Now the limit of the quality of images is not often limited by the camera, but more in the photographers ability in the art and understanding of tools and technology.

Happy shooting!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2012, 07:29:41 PM »

grahamsz

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2012, 11:24:41 PM »
I'm curious why people aren't more intrigued by this review seeing as it doesn't exactly put the DxO test on it's ear, but it certainly shows that in RAW (with TIFF conversion) the results are rather different.

There's an interesting comment from them at the bottom of the page.

The version of the DXO software they have isn't able to read Canon raws from the 5d3 so they convert both to TIFF using the manufacturers' software and analyze that. It's definitely interesting that this is yielding a different result from dxo's own tests - although I'm not really sure what to make of it

kbmelb

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2012, 01:18:33 AM »
Interesting. From the their Raw DR stats it appears ISO 200 is the native ISO and 100 is pull. Guessing since the DR is lower at 100.

sarangiman

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2012, 01:34:41 AM »


That is utterly, utterly, wrong. If for no other reason than the simple fact that the 5D Mark II is in no way worse than the 5D Mark III in terms of DR.

jlev23

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2012, 01:57:05 AM »


That is utterly, utterly, wrong. If for no other reason than the simple fact that the 5D Mark II is in no way worse than the 5D Mark III in terms of DR.
nothing wrong about it, i have far less dynamic range in my MK2. i did a photo shoot with both bodies, the proof is in the pudding.
5D MKIII

sarangiman

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2012, 02:07:01 AM »
Quote
nothing wrong about it, i have far less dynamic range in my MK2. i did a photo shoot with both bodies, the proof is in the pudding.

So did I, with an actual Stouffer Transmission Wedge. I'm attempting to compile the results into a post right now...

spinworkxroy

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2012, 06:57:26 AM »


This is avery interesting test…it's a known fact that below ISO800, the D800 will trump over any camera in the market..everyoen knows that..that's why it makes such a good studio/landscape camera…above ISO800..i'll take the 5D3 any day.

However, what i'm more interested in this graph is not the DR on high ISO…it proves one thing that i've always believed in, the 5D3 (or any Canon camera for that matter), performs at it's best at ISO160! Just look at the results..ISO50 and 100 wasn't as good at 160…unlike Nikons that perform well at ISO50…
It's surprising how close the 5D3 is to the D4…

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2012, 06:57:26 AM »

jrsforums

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2012, 09:30:45 AM »

However, what i'm more interested in this graph is not the DR on high ISO…it proves one thing that i've always believed in, the 5D3 (or any Canon camera for that matter), performs at it's best at ISO160! Just look at the results..ISO50 and 100 wasn't as good at 160…unlike Nikons that perform well at ISO50…
It's surprising how close the 5D3 is to the D4…

Iso 50 and 160 (and other iso's other than 100, 200, etc) are "derived" ISOs'.  Your best results are obtained by shooting at "full" ISO's and using the principles of ETTR.

JOHN

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2012, 09:30:45 AM »