5D MK3 vs. D800 - fredmiranda

[Astro]

stop the off topic crap about "techheads" and "photographer".

it has nothing to do with this thread.
make your own thread about it.

[PhilDrinkwater]

This doesn't mean that the D800 sensor isn't still "better" (whatever that means in reality), but the BS about it being capable of low ISO DR miracles that the 5D Mk III sensor can't even get close to, is just that: BS.

I would say it's very very early to make a statement like that..

[sarangiman]

Well yes and no. It has been shown in another thread that LR is responsible for many of the "soft shot" complaints aboout the 5D3.

Hmm... skitron-- are you sure you aren't referring to the DPP problem where 'high quality' vs. 'high speed' changed the sharpness of the conversions? I don't remember hearing anything about LR...

I beg to differ. If a photog with the chops to take advantage of the D800's DR, like smirkypants, encounters these situations in his own shooting, and uses that DR to improve his images, it's a legitimate issue. On top of that, he's using this DR advantage to generate additional revenue. That's as legit as it gets.

However, if you're some tech head (this isn't directed at you) that posts links to other people's blogs as examples of why you personally need 14 stops of DR, and anything less is unacceptable, you have no credibility. You're basically implying that if you shot in X situation, then you'd need 14 stops of DR, but since you don't here's a link to someone else's blog. This implies that these people are more in love with the idea of having more DR than actually needing more DR in real life shooting scenarios. That's kinda lame, don't you think?

• No, that's not lame, b/c some people are just into optimization
• You seem to speak of the knowledge of any given photographer as static. What if he/she's technique exceeds that of a lesser camera within a short period of time? Or what if the extended abilities of a better sensor help he/she realize a unique style to his/her photography that would've been otherwise unrealized? Or any of a # of other scenarios.
• Why require a so-called 'tech head' to produce photos to prove his/her discussion is legit? Why are you assuming he/she is bad until proven otherwise? It baffles me. I never walk into forums assuming someone is a bad photographer to begin with. Because when you assume, you run the risk of making an...
• For example I didn't assume you were a bad photographer just b/c you didn't care at all about the sensor tech talk way back a few weeks ago. And good thing I didn't: because I love your work! You've found a way to make very well balanced images despite what looks like potentially difficult lighting in a # of your shots. It works for you. Great. The Canon system generally works for me as well. But I've run into a # of situations where I didn't feel comfortable printing large or raising shadows b/c I saw the banding all the way to the print. I could do without those scenarios, especially if it doesn't require me sacrificing too much else. That's what these discussions are about... optimizing what we work with. In fact, it's precisely b/c of these conversations that I was intrigued enough to do my own tests to see just how much better EXMOR sensors are over my entire 5D line (not all of us have the luxury of shooting Canon & Nikon interchangeably whenever we want, so this has been a learning experience for me). Actually, before doing many of these tests myself, I was disinclined to even believe DXO... my opinion was completely reversed when my own tests confirmed their observations... and these well-controlled tests happen to explain what people are seeing in real-world shooting scenarios. So, in my mind, these discussions are incredibly productive, b/c they solidify the reality of difference between these sensors (a reality that a lot of people were unwilling to accept when DXO initially published their findings). In fact, your statement to the effect of 'yes, now we all know that Nikon's sensors are better than Canon, accept it, move on'... I would argue that, yes, we do seem to know that now... but many more of us know & believe that precisely b/c of these blog postings & these discussions. Remember when LTRLI initially posted his assessment of the DR of the 5DIII? People just blasted him left & right, & boy am I glad I didn't. I questioned his methodology, b/c I also wanted to understand it. Now it seems generally accepted that his estimates were pretty much spot on. So, these discussions can be incredibly productive in helping us all arrive at some objective conclusions. And if you don't care, just leave us be, you know? These tech head vs. photographer discussions are so off-topic and are just adding noise to otherwise intelligent discourse.
  

All the tech stuff can be learned, as can technique, but some people are just born with a natural gift for light and composition that can't be learned.

Ok if that's what you think... but keep in mind that's just your opinion Like LTRLI said: your statement is another topic entirely. Nature vs. nurture is still hotly debated.

[briansquibb]

Feel free to think and believe what you want, but facts are that the D800 has 2.8 e and 5dmk3 has 33e readout noise.
Fact is that 5dmk3 has 11 stops dynamic range and the D800 has 14 stops
Fact is that some raw converters can eliminate banding and pattern noise but they can not do anything about signal to noise ratio

I undersand where you are coming from but:

- does the nose difference show on the print
- does the dr over 11 matter to most people on a print
- when does a 'bad' snr impact the print

??

[V8Beast]

Yeah but that sort of commercial shooting is but only one small segment of photography. That is not my circle at all.

Trust me, I haven't mistaken you for a high-end commercial photog I merely used them as an example because they're about as high up the ladder as you can get in terms of skill, budget and caliber of equipment, but even at that level, if they have the option to optimize their lighting instead of relying on a camera's DR, they'll go with optimizing their lighting every single time. They'll resort to very elaborate and costly methods to achieve that lighting as well. Mind you, these guys very often shoot medium format, which is obviously junk now after the D800's release, but it used to offer what was once considered pretty darn good DR and IQ.

If some of the most skilled, well-equipped, and experienced photogs on earth choose to optimize their lighting instead of relying solely on their camera's DR, why should lesser photogs (which is just about everyone, myself included) be beyond this? Technology is a beautiful thing, but it's something that should complement technique, not replace it. People that think that they can't produce good images with the DR offered by Canon's current sensors probably haven't quite yet honed their technique.

Of course if you have limited to no control of your lighting, then none of this applies and I'll STFU

[V8Beast]

• No, that's not lame, b/c some people are just into optimization

There's nothing wrong with optimization, but how prudent is it for a photog to switch systems for one factor (DR) if that photog hasn't learned to take advantage of that one factor?

• You seem to speak of the knowledge of any given photographer as static. What if he/she's technique exceeds that of a lesser camera within a short period of time? Or what if the extended abilities of a better sensor help he/she realize a unique style to his/her photography that would've been otherwise unrealized? Or any of a # of other scenarios.

Nah, I'd never say that a photographer's knowledge or skill set is static. It's always growing, but most of that growth comes from framing an image, releasing the shutter, taking constructive criticism to heart, refining your technique, and releasing the shutter again. Sure nicer gear raises the ceiling higher for what can be achieved, but you have to be realistic about what features and specs (like DR) you really need vs. what you want but might never use. If I have a complaint about my gear, but then see images that kick the $hit out of mine that were captured with lesser gear, it really makes me question whether or not I'm doing everything I can to get the most out of what's in my camera bag.
 

• Why require a so-called 'tech head' to produce photos to prove his/her discussion is legit? Why are you assuming he/she is bad until proven otherwise? It baffles me. I never walk into forums assuming someone is a bad photographer to begin with. Because when you assume, you run the risk of making an...

I don't assume anything. I've seen some truly gifted photogs get flamed online and treated as if they're novices for no good reason. The tech heads I'm referring to are the guys who talk a bunch of trash about DR and Nikon's and sensor superiority, go out and buy a D800, then post a bunch of underwhelming snap shots to show off how great their gear is.

• The Canon system generally works for me as well. But I've run into a # of situations where I didn't feel comfortable printing large or raising shadows b/c I saw the banding all the way to the print. I could do without those scenarios, especially if it doesn't require me sacrificing too much else. That's what these discussions are about... optimizing what we work with. In fact, it's precisely b/c of these conversations that I was intrigued enough to do my own tests to see just how much better EXMOR sensors are over my entire 5D line (not all of us have the luxury of shooting Canon & Nikon interchangeably whenever we want, so this has been a learning experience for me). Actually, before doing many of these tests myself, I was disinclined to even believe DXO... my opinion was completely reversed when my own tests confirmed their observations... and these well-controlled tests happen to explain what people are seeing in real-world shooting scenarios. So, in my mind, these discussions are incredibly productive, b/c they solidify the reality of difference between these sensors (a reality that a lot of people were unwilling to accept when DXO initially published their findings). In fact, your statement to the effect of 'yes, now we all know that Nikon's sensors are better than Canon, accept it, move on'... I would argue that, yes, we do seem to know that now... but many more of us know & believe that precisely b/c of these blog postings & these discussions. Remember when LTRLI initially posted his assessment of the DR of the 5DIII? People just blasted him left & right, & boy am I glad I didn't. I questioned his methodology, b/c I also wanted to understand it. Now it seems generally accepted that his estimates were pretty much spot on. So, these discussions can be incredibly productive in helping us all arrive at some objective conclusions. And if you don't care, just leave us be, you know? These tech head vs. photographer discussions are so off-topic and are just adding noise to otherwise intelligent discourse.
  

I agree that these discussions can be productive, but there has to come a point where it's more productive to do something about it - whether it's switching systems, experimenting with new technique in the field or in post, etc - rather than arguing with Canonites that are either in denial or completely dismiss Nikon's DR advantage.
[/list]

[PhilDrinkwater]

Yeah but that sort of commercial shooting is but only one small segment of photography. That is not my circle at all.

Trust me, I haven't mistaken you for a high-end commercial photog I merely used them as an example because they're about as high up the ladder as you can get in terms of skill, budget and caliber of equipment, but even at that level, if they have the option to optimize their lighting instead of relying on a camera's DR, they'll go with optimizing their lighting every single time. They'll resort to very elaborate and costly methods to achieve that lighting as well. Mind you, these guys very often shoot medium format, which is obviously junk now after the D800's release, but it used to offer what was once considered pretty darn good DR and IQ.

If some of the most skilled, well-equipped, and experienced photogs on earth choose to optimize their lighting instead of relying solely on their camera's DR, why should lesser photogs (which is just about everyone, myself included) be beyond this? Technology is a beautiful thing, but it's something that should complement technique, not replace it. People that think that they can't produce good images with the DR offered by Canon's current sensors probably haven't quite yet honed their technique.

Of course if you have limited to no control of your lighting, then none of this applies and I'll STFU

In the commercial world this is relatively unlikely to happen I agree. You'd likely have a diffuser over the model to block the light and relight to get the look you really want and balance for the ambient. (PS MF still produces a different look to 35mm, so it's still very relevant...).

However, there are many photographers who have a lot of skill and could accomplish this but still need better quality shadows. I've thrown my high DR wedding example in a few times. Landscape photographers also need better DR as multiframe HDR can be difficult if there's movement in the scene.

I guess the point is that there's:
a) I'm relying on the camera to make up for my lack of knowledge about how to balance DR in a scene.
b) This situation requires a higher DR to achieve my vision and no amount of skill or knowledge will produce the same effect.
c) I don't have the money to build massive lighting setups so I have to use higher DR
d) maybe others...

For people in a), they need to learn how to control light first. For people in b), they need a higher DR and that's it. For people in c), higher DR can give them something approaching more lighting and allow them to produce "something".

Some people who think they're in b) are actually in a) because they don't actually know what options they have

[skitron]

Well yes and no. It has been shown in another thread that LR is responsible for many of the "soft shot" complaints aboout the 5D3.

Hmm... skitron-- are you sure you aren't referring to the DPP problem where 'high quality' vs. 'high speed' changed the sharpness of the conversions? I don't remember hearing anything about LR...

See: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.0

[V8Beast]

However, there are many photographers who have a lot of skill and could accomplish this but still need better quality shadows. I've thrown my high DR wedding example in a few times. Landscape photographers also need better DR as multiframe HDR can be difficult if there's movement in the scene.

I've seen enough of our work to recognize you have plenty of skill to get the most of the the lighting situations you are presented with I do recall those samples you reference, and they could have definitely benefited from greater DR. 

I guess the point is that there's:
a) I'm relying on the camera to make up for my lack of knowledge about how to balance DR in a scene.
b) This situation requires a higher DR to achieve my vision and no amount of skill or knowledge will produce the same effect.
c) I don't have the money to build massive lighting setups so I have to use higher DR
d) maybe others...

For people in a), they need to learn how to control light first. For people in b), they need a higher DR and that's it. For people in c), higher DR can give them something approaching more lighting and allow them to produce "something".

Some people who think they're in b) are actually in a) because they don't actually know what options they have

Great way to summarize the issue. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[briansquibb]

It depends what you mean, as a old photographer I work in Raw and adjust and work with  my pictures  (lighten up shadows, etc.) as in the  lab years ago.
Depending on the subject and how you expose - you can work much better  with an image that has been reproduced with a high dynamic range.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41393266

I guess as a very old photographer I am used to getting the light right in the camera so lab work is at the very minimum - like Cartier Bresson.

High Dynamic Range is something that never worries me in terms of pushing it. It must be the way that I spray light around so the dark spots get a tickle of flash to help it along

Example today. Straight out of the camera - just resized only

First with no flash
Second with 580EX @1/64

[V8Beast]

I'm starting to wonder why the burn tool even exists on Photoshop. Aren't there some situations where you'd want less shadow detail ?

[briansquibb]

Im more an Ansel Adams  type  .  And getting it right in the camera ? which camera? which profile  etc etc etc
Sorry there are no getting it right in the camera, and  have  images that some Japanese programmers believe that the picture should look like is nothing for me.

I see the picture before I take it - so yes I do get it right in the camera, at most it takes minor adjustments - nothing like pushing 3ev, I reckon to get levels all within 1 stop otherwise it is a bad picture. Nothing to do with Japanese programmers as I dont use P mode. On the 1D4 the pseudo manual mode with auto iso and ec gives me and even higher sucess rate

Only thing I dont see is detail in the background so my biggest pp is with the clone/healing tools.

I am always astonished at just how many people reply on pp for quite major localised adjustments when a simple use of flash gets round all the issues and improves the IQ. I rarely use anything above iso400 with the majority at 100/200 so noise doesn't raise its visible head.

[briansquibb]

I'm starting to wonder why the burn tool even exists on Photoshop. Aren't there some situations where you'd want less shadow detail ?

Yes turn a tickle on the rest of the image and the shadow detail drops off - very effective with bg blur as well - like this with a little on the subject de-details the wood on the building - just an example from today - not meant as a gallery picture

Just a single flash with a stophen on manual setting from PW

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Yeah but that sort of commercial shooting is but only one small segment of photography. That is not my circle at all.

Trust me, I haven't mistaken you for a high-end commercial photog I merely used them as an example because they're about as high up the ladder as you can get in terms of skill, budget and caliber of equipment, but even at that level, if they have the option to optimize their lighting instead of relying on a camera's DR, they'll go with optimizing their lighting every single time. They'll resort to very elaborate and costly methods to achieve that lighting as well. Mind you, these guys very often shoot medium format, which is obviously junk now after the D800's release, but it used to offer what was once considered pretty darn good DR and IQ.

If some of the most skilled, well-equipped, and experienced photogs on earth choose to optimize their lighting instead of relying solely on their camera's DR, why should lesser photogs (which is just about everyone, myself included) be beyond this? Technology is a beautiful thing, but it's something that should complement technique, not replace it. People that think that they can't produce good images with the DR offered by Canon's current sensors probably haven't quite yet honed their technique.

Of course if you have limited to no control of your lighting, then none of this applies and I'll STFU

Yeah your last sentence comes to the point. Only a small subset of shoots are amenable to that sort of carefully rigged lighting that you refer to in the first paragraph. In your world the first paragraph may feel like it covers 90% of photography but to someone in another world it may seem like that covers only 1% of photography.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm starting to wonder why the burn tool even exists on Photoshop. Aren't there some situations where you'd want less shadow detail ?

hah, i sometimes use it to tame hotspots that draw too much attention and the like, occasionally to darken up some dark area of garbage that is better sunken to depths or to make something brighter pop out more, etc.