July 30, 2014, 07:00:21 PM

Author Topic: 5D3 Dynamic Range  (Read 18014 times)

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2012, 06:27:09 PM »
Can't comment on the Mark III, only used the Mark II. Also, disclaimer: I'm shooting Nikon now.

I see the argument that dynamic range doesn't matter, or only matters in edge cases quite often. Well, I guess there is some truth in it. It depends on your work/interests, lots of conditions. DR may or may not be important to you. Instead of going back-and-forth with academic debates, I'll show how it helps in various situations I shoot in - with examples.

I shot the International Pillow Fight Day event here in Saigon. Fun work, for free of course (non-profit, fun-loving people organized it, couldn't resist). The event took place at 3pm, very hard light, in park where the trees didn't offer enough coverage. Yeah, high contrast situation, hard like, dark shadoes, bright patches of sunlight. Now not all photos are like that, but there are quite a few where I pulled at least 1 stop from the shadows without loss of detail, without smudging the colours, and without any visible noise even at 100%. That's what dynamic range is in practice. It may or may not matter to you, it matters to me and probably the people I did it for too. I wouldn't be able to do it without the DR of the d7000. Here: Pillow Fight Day Saigon 2012

Now I don't do many events, I'm an interiour photographer, doing lots of landscapes as a passion (and these year, more and more people, fashion, portraits). In interiour photography, good DR is gold. Ironically, some of the most expensive properties I shot had the worst lighting. Huge rooms, big windows, shooting scheduled for 3pm (and no, I couldn't change it). Hard light coming through windows, rooms too big while lighting not enough to overpower the natural light. This is situation where it's impossible to get a perfect exposure, and HDR is out of question with apartments (too long to explain why). Examples starting here, and the next few pictures: http://molnarcs.500px.com/apartments_villas/photo/16

Landscapes. I don't think I have to explain this one, because its kinda obvious. That said, 90% of my recent landscapes are less than 10 EV, lots of good shots that require minimal post-processing - and in many of them you wouldn't see a difference even if your camera were limited to 8 EV. But that 10% - I'm glad that I had some EV leeway there!

Remember, good DR doesn't mean pulling 6 EVs from shadows. It means pulling 1 EV cleanly - or even half EV. The more DR your camera has the better in the situations above.

Lastly, in commercial photography, there is a good reason top PROs use Hasselblad and medium format cameras. They have phenomenal EV at base ISO, and they are using every single bit of it. Walk through any upscale shopping centre, and you'll see tons of large backlit prints - and it's not just resolution and megapixels. Here's a video comparing the d800 with a Hasselblad. The new "king" of DR in 35mm format can't stand a chance (and why DR does matter in commercial photography).
D800 vs Medium Format with Roth and Ramberg

RichATL, you're wrong on so many levels that I lost count. DR does matter in quite a lot of situations. Now you may or may not shoot in those situations, but saying that only brainwashed "pixel peepers and gearheads" care is a bit over the top. And as to your jpeg argument... ever heard of picture controls? Seeing your "computer programmer in Japan" line I guess not.

Ultimately, everybody has to decide for himself. If you rarely find yourself in a situation where you'd love to brighten the shadows up just a bit more, but you're losing details... I guess it doesn't matter. Sports, indoor events come to mind with constant, even light. Lots of examples where DR doesn't matter that much. That said, it would still be prudent to make your voice heard to Canon instead of going full denial RichATL. Higher DR has tangible, very practical benefits in many situations. Is the gap Canon and Nikon/Sony sensors huge? I honestly don't know. It's there, and its not good in my opinion.


Yes I think you are right in that people are trying to make semi pro cameras behave like top MF/LF. These people will not be happy even with 20ev dr, 200mp, iso100000 and 15fps unless it comes in at $1000.

If you want it for a specialist function - dont buy a general purpose camera

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2012, 06:27:09 PM »

Michael7

  • Guest
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2012, 06:28:17 PM »

There are techniques to avoid shadows in many cases - leaving very few exceptions - yet from the baying of the few anyone would think the 5DIII had a crippled DR system and totally unable to produce a good images.

I don't think it's "baying". This is a camera discussion forum, and these camera's aren't cheap. It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2012, 06:29:27 PM »
Shooting JPEG you will never see a difference

False.
How many stops of dynamic range do you get in jpeg that is different from antone else? Jpeg is 8 bit no matter how many stops you get in raw

For a linear DR it is a DR of 8 - which is why specialist printers are needed to get more.

Tcapp

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
    • Timothy Capp Photography
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2012, 06:32:09 PM »
Shooting raw should help your dynamic range more than a d800.

Also, as a wedding photographer, if you spend a lot of time above 1600 iso, the 5d3 actually has better dynamic range then the d800. Not by a ton, but it does!

5DIII, 5DII, 7D, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8 IS L, 70-200 2.8 IS L II, 2x TC III, 15 Fisheye 2.8, 100 Macro 2.8, 24 1.4 L
http://www.TimothyCapp.com
Follow me on facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Timothy-Capp-Photography/94664798952

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2012, 06:32:42 PM »

There are techniques to avoid shadows in many cases - leaving very few exceptions - yet from the baying of the few anyone would think the 5DIII had a crippled DR system and totally unable to produce a good images.

I don't think it's "baying". This is a camera discussion forum, and these camera's aren't cheap. It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.

Why should you compare the D800 with the 5D3 - apples and oranges - definitely not its chief competitor

As for baying - have you seem the number of threads started up about the 5D3 and how badly if compares with the D800 DR?


justsomedude

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
  • Canon 5D3 and 6D
    • View Profile
    • AK Photo - Denver Photographer
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2012, 06:38:04 PM »

There are techniques to avoid shadows in many cases - leaving very few exceptions - yet from the baying of the few anyone would think the 5DIII had a crippled DR system and totally unable to produce a good images.

I don't think it's "baying". This is a camera discussion forum, and these camera's aren't cheap. It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.

Why should you compare the D800 with the 5D3 - apples and oranges - definitely not its chief competitor

If the d800 is not the 5D3's primary competitor - then what body is?

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2012, 06:40:35 PM »

If the d800 is not the 5D3's primary competitor - then what body is?

Both are in a niche on their own - until the next round of announcements

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2012, 06:40:35 PM »

Michael7

  • Guest
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #22 on: May 04, 2012, 06:42:56 PM »
The D800 is the 5D III's chief competitor. No lucid person would think otherwise.

Tcapp

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
    • Timothy Capp Photography
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2012, 06:43:32 PM »

There are techniques to avoid shadows in many cases - leaving very few exceptions - yet from the baying of the few anyone would think the 5DIII had a crippled DR system and totally unable to produce a good images.

I don't think it's "baying". This is a camera discussion forum, and these camera's aren't cheap. It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.

Why should you compare the D800 with the 5D3 - apples and oranges - definitely not its chief competitor

If the d800 is not the 5D3's primary competitor - then what body is?

D700 Mk II. :P

But seriously, EVERY camera is a competitor. People will decide between 5d3 and a 7d, or a rebel. The 5d3 might lose out due to price. The D700 and 5d2 are competitors. But I would say yea, the d800 is the primary competitor, if only because that is what people are comparing it to. People who are in the market for a $3000 FF camera will look at the 5d3 and d800 and decide between them. that makes them competitors! So yea, they are all apples.
5DIII, 5DII, 7D, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8 IS L, 70-200 2.8 IS L II, 2x TC III, 15 Fisheye 2.8, 100 Macro 2.8, 24 1.4 L
http://www.TimothyCapp.com
Follow me on facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Timothy-Capp-Photography/94664798952

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #24 on: May 04, 2012, 06:45:29 PM »

There are techniques to avoid shadows in many cases - leaving very few exceptions - yet from the baying of the few anyone would think the 5DIII had a crippled DR system and totally unable to produce a good images.

I don't think it's "baying". This is a camera discussion forum, and these camera's aren't cheap. It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.

Why should you compare the D800 with the 5D3 - apples and oranges - definitely not its chief competitor

If the d800 is not the 5D3's primary competitor - then what body is?

D700 Mk II. :P

But seriously, EVERY camera is a competitor. People will decide between 5d3 and a 7d, or a rebel. The 5d3 might lose out due to price. The D700 and 5d2 are competitors. But I would say yea, the d800 is the primary competitor, if only because that is what people are comparing it to. People who are in the market for a $3000 FF camera will look at the 5d3 and d800 and decide between them. that makes them competitors! So yea, they are all apples.

Might as well say the 1D4 then as the 5DIII is only a little less.

Tcapp

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
    • Timothy Capp Photography
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #25 on: May 04, 2012, 06:50:15 PM »

There are techniques to avoid shadows in many cases - leaving very few exceptions - yet from the baying of the few anyone would think the 5DIII had a crippled DR system and totally unable to produce a good images.

I don't think it's "baying". This is a camera discussion forum, and these camera's aren't cheap. It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.

Why should you compare the D800 with the 5D3 - apples and oranges - definitely not its chief competitor

If the d800 is not the 5D3's primary competitor - then what body is?

D700 Mk II. :P

But seriously, EVERY camera is a competitor. People will decide between 5d3 and a 7d, or a rebel. The 5d3 might lose out due to price. The D700 and 5d2 are competitors. But I would say yea, the d800 is the primary competitor, if only because that is what people are comparing it to. People who are in the market for a $3000 FF camera will look at the 5d3 and d800 and decide between them. that makes them competitors! So yea, they are all apples.

Might as well say the 1D4 then as the 5DIII is only a little less.

My point exactly. People are ridiculous to say they one camera isn't a competitor to another. They all are!



5DIII, 5DII, 7D, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8 IS L, 70-200 2.8 IS L II, 2x TC III, 15 Fisheye 2.8, 100 Macro 2.8, 24 1.4 L
http://www.TimothyCapp.com
Follow me on facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Timothy-Capp-Photography/94664798952

helpful

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • Ecclesiastes 3:11
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #26 on: May 04, 2012, 07:16:33 PM »
Shooting JPEG you will never see a difference


False.

How many stops of dynamic range do you get in jpeg that is different from antone else? Jpeg is 8 bit no matter how many stops you get in raw


For a linear DR it is a DR of 8 - which is why specialist printers are needed to get more.


I hate to say anything critical to anyone, and you are both correct. JPEG has 8 bits of data per channel. And a statement involving the word "it" can always be assumed true--we have no idea about the object to which "it" is referring.

However, you are saying something correct and then jumping to a completely unrelated conclusion. Here's the missing information:

* JPEG is not encoded with linear gamma, and never has been with any digital camera.

"If images are not gamma encoded, they allocate too many bits or too much bandwidth to highlights that humans cannot differentiate, and too few bits/bandwidth to shadow values that humans are sensitive to and would require more bits/bandwidth to maintain the same visual quality."

* One bit and one stop have nothing to do with each other. It's also completely ridiculous to define dynamic range in terms of bits--it is only meaningful if defined in terms of stops.

If you have ever taken a class about encoding mechanisms, one of the first things one learns is, "The first thing to remember is that bit depth and dynamic range are NOT the same thing. It is going to sound much the same, but it's not."

The terminology used on this forum is sometimes as silly as someone saying, "I am going to itch my mosquito bite" when they mean "scratch my mosquito bite."

If you have ever taken a picture with part of it dark or part of it bright, you are seeing the effect of dynamic range. It has absolutely nothing to do with the file format. RAW extends the dynamic range provided that the same gamma curve is applied in the image encoding.

An increased dynamic range in the camera has a proportional effect on the dynamic range of both the JPEG and the RAW image. You can understand this if you will be patient enough to consider the example of an interval of real numbers.

The RAW image corresponds to the interval [-x, x]. The JPEG image corresponds to the interval [-cx, cx], where c is between 0 and 1. A change in the dynamic range corresponds to a change in x. The effects on both the RAW and JPEG images are proportional to one another.

One good article to read is this one:

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/

It also talks about noise in addition to dynamic range. There are books to read about this subject as well.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 07:46:45 PM by helpful »
5DIII, 5DII, 7D x5, 6D, T2i, T3, 1D X, 10-22mm, 16-35mm II, 18-55mm II, 18-135mm IS x2, 70-200mm f/2.8L II, 24mm f/1.4L II, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm 1/1.8 II x2, 85mm f/1.8 x2, 100mm f/2 x2, 135mm f/2L x2, 200mm f/2.8L II x2, 1.4X III, 2.0X II, 60mm f/2.8 Macro, etc. only had room to list a few Canon items

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #27 on: May 04, 2012, 08:06:44 PM »
There's another way to put this in perspective.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the 5DIII has 12 stops of DR and the D800 has 14 stops, both at ISO 100.

And let's also say that you take a picture of an incredibly contrasty scene where you want to boost the shadows by four stops, and that you can't (for whatever reason) fix the light or shoot HDR. We're talking a noontime shot of a garden, including a shed where you need the interior of the shed to look like you've got a flash hidden in the shed even though you don't.

Conceptually, that's roughly equivalent to making two simultaneous exposures, one at ISO 100 and the other at ISO 1600, and combining them with HDR techniques. The camera will certainly be cleaner when actually exposed at ISO 1600 than by boosting the exposure in post, but it's the same basic idea.

What those two extra stops (if they really exist, and I'm not entirely sure they do) mean, in this situation, is that the pushed-four-stops shadows of the D800 for ISO 1600 equivalent will have roughly the same noise and detail as pushed-two-stops ISO 400 equivalent of the 5DIII. Or, conversely, the pushed-four-stops ISO 1600 equivalent of the 5DIII will be as noisy as pushed-six-stops ISO 6400 equivalent of the D800.

Now, I'm sure we've all seen the high ISO comparisons between these cameras, and there just isn't a whole lot of difference between two stops in the cameras -- at least, not until you get to insane six-digit ISOs. There are differences, sure, but not a whole lot in real-world terms.

All you Nikon fanboys out there, tell me: does ISO 6400 on the D800 suck donkey balls compared to ISO 1600 (still on the D800)? No? I didn't think so. I certainly don't think so -- I think ISO 6400 on the D800 is mind-blowingly good. But that's the degree of image quality difference you're saying the dynamic range differences makes the 5DIII suck donkey balls in comparison to the D800.

So, feel free to continue to claim that the 5DIII is the worst camera on the planet. All you're doing is making it plain to everybody who's actually a photographer and who's ever actually done any kind of post-processing that you've never actually held one of these cameras in your hand.

They're both amazing, fantastic, incredible cameras. And anybody picking the one or the other based purely on megapickle counts or DxO numbers is an idiot. There's plenty to distinguish the two cameras -- lens systems, framerate, autofocus performance, ergonomics, and maybe a few other things. Image quality is pretty much the least significant differentiating quality between the two.

And, as always, if the image quality of the 5DIII won't cut the mustard, neither will the image quality of the D800. You need to look to the world of 80-megapickle (and more) medium format systems before you get a meaningful difference in image quality. Are those cameras insanely expensive? Not to those who use and need them; for them, the equipment almost comes out of the petty cash budget.

Cheers,

b&

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #27 on: May 04, 2012, 08:06:44 PM »

Redreflex

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #28 on: May 04, 2012, 08:49:43 PM »
I think we are still far off from the point where the camera sees detail in the shadow that the eye can't.


Most likely, but the d800 still amazes...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

(In full disclosure, I am a Canon shooter and own a 5D3.  But, I must admit the d800 is pretty fascinating with respect to its DR)


Dynamic range of the human eye is something like 18 to 24 stops, depending on lighting conditions etc. The latest 2012  camera range don't even come close to 18 stops of DR.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 10:17:47 PM by Redreflex »

Aglet

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 908
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #29 on: May 04, 2012, 10:48:39 PM »
I'll try to actually answer your quick "?" with a relevant answer. :)

I have a quick question about the dynamic range of the 5D3..what am I missing out on? ..

Not a lot, under most conditions.

I always shoot JPEG with highlight tone priority enabled and do my best to get the exposure and WB spot on.  I also shoot in Faithful picture mode with the contrast turned down one notch.  I end up with pretty flat images out of the camera with plenty of details in the highlights and shadows.  Unless I really mis the exposure I have never been unhappy with the DR.

considering that you're not shooting raw, and your typical subject matter, your approach is a reasonable and practical one that's working for you.
It'll take more effort, card memory and time to post process raw files to extract a little more from them under the harsher lighting conditions where it may benefit some shots.

However, shooting raw and more PP work would likely give you more of an improvement than shooting jpg on a D800.  Then again, Nikon's active D-Lighting can work quite nicely on jpg only output too so also worth considering; you may prefer how it would impact your current workflow.

High end cameras like the 5D3 and D800 do a pretty good job of fitting the DR of the scene into a fairly pleasing jpg output.  Altho they both do pretty a similar job, they do it slightly differently so each camera's jpg output of the same scene will look a little different and there'll also be a wide variation on each body's rendering of the shot depending on all those jpeg-relevant options you select in each camera.

If you have the opportunity, you should try shooting some test shots alongside your usual method using a D800 and trying some of its settings to see how it changes the jpeg output.  You could also try a D7000 or even a D5100 as they all have similarly high DR at base ISO and more than Canon's.

I remember reading someone recently posting on one of CR's forums here how much better he thought the D800 did in hi contrast, sunlight sitations where he was able to not only recover nice luminance information, from people's faces in a mix of sunlight and shade on one face, but that there was more COLOR and detail information to be had from the D800 in this situation too.  He claimed this was the difference between selling a shot or not.  He posted an example but honestly I can't confirm that this would be correct since I didn't buy a 5D3 and I don't know how long I still have to wait for my D800. Considering that the shadow area adjacent to a sunlight area on the same surface is only a few stops difference at most I can't see the 5D3 having any trouble accomplishing the same thing.

The greater color information, extractable from the darker areas, CAN be better with the D800 than with most of Canon's cameras because of the lack of noise in the D800's shadows compared to the Canon's.  Canon's dark noise tends to include a lot of red channel noise; when shadows are boosted you may have to subdue it by reducing some color saturation in the shadow areas which can yeild a less pleasing image.  You typically have to push very dark areas very far before this is a problem and the 5D3 did make some slight improvements in this area over the 5D2 so it's even more pushable than the old 5D2.

So, should you buy a D800 based on this kind of shooting?...  Probably not.  but it might be worth a try anyway just to see if you prefer the kind of output you get from it.  Many people have also said they prefer Canon's rendition of skin tones over Nikons and I might agree a bit there too.  I've generally always preferred the "look" of a Canon image which is why I also use DPP to do most of my raw file image processing.

It's probably a better first step to shoot raw with your 5D3 and see what you can do with it in post.  Under very contrasty conditions, yet not so bright as mid day, I'd also opt to turn off the HTP as it won't help your raw files and can actually hinder shadow recovery.  Process with DPP (or LR4) for ease of tweaking.

I've converted a few long time and very experienced jpeg event shooters into raw shooters after they saw how much more they could do with that raw file!


I am not trying to start another debate over the two cameras I just want to know how much better it is and how much of a difference it would really make.   

You seem to have unleashed another round of that argument, but that's a good thing.  I'm glad more Canonites are discussing this issue and more are getting a good grasp of it while some are still steadfastly unconvinced.  That latter group is likely to see the dark one of these days.. and it won't have reddish banding in it.  ;)  Aw heck, if they haven't seen the red noise lurking in the shadows yet they're just not pushing the limits of their gear.  :P

I hope I've been able to answer some of your question.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 10:50:53 PM by Aglet »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« Reply #29 on: May 04, 2012, 10:48:39 PM »