5D3 Dynamic Range

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It doesn't...
Pixel peepers and gearheads are so brainwashed by all the blog posts and workshops they attend that they forget the simple truth that getting the exposure right is what matters.

The most influential exposure system ever devised was based upon only 10stops of dynamic range.
The Zone System

btw... JPEG shooters need not even enter this argument...If you decide to let some computer programmer in Japan dictate how your image looks out of camera... you give up your right to complain about dynamic range
(that is not directed at you OP)

Tell that to Ansel Adams.

Sure it doesn't matter for many shots, but it certainly can matter for many too. It depends what you are shooting.
And enough with the patronizing nonsense about learn how to expose properly. People thirsting for more DR are surely people who knows about exposing properly.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have a quick question about the dynamic range of the 5D3 which from what I have been reading is behind the D800.  I have never owned a nikon and currently own two 5D3s.  I understand what dynamic range is and how it is important for retaining details in the highlights and shadows of an image.  I guess I would like to know from one who has seen the differences in the two cameras is what am I missing out on?  How does a really high DR (better than the 5D3) help unless I am mostly shooting in high contrast lighting situations or am trying to push or pull and image by more than a couple of stops.  I have always been really happy with the DR of my 5D2 and now my 5D3 and being a wedding photographer I shoot in about every lighting condition possible.  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.  I almost always end up adding contrast to the picture because there is too much DR and the image looks too flat.  I probably won't own a Nikon so I am just curious from those who have seen the difference hands on how big of a difference is it and in what situations will it really be beneficial.  It seems like low ISO high DR performance has become more important than high ISO low noise performance.  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.   

Well if you haven't missed it, ever, then that is your question answered. For you it won't matter at all. For others it might matter quite a bit at times.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

So a D7000 or D800 are super specialist cameras? Back when Canon had better DR all the Canon cameras were super specialist cameras, even the rebel?

[Tcapp]

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

So a D7000 or D800 are super specialist cameras? Back when Canon had better DR all the Canon cameras were super specialist cameras, even the rebel?

I think people consider a D800 a specialist camera because of the resolution, not the DR. At such a high MP, there are certain things its NOT good for, like wedding or event photography where you shoot thousands of photos. The extra mp make processing a more time consuming prospect. Not that it still cant be done!

But yea, if you think about it, every camera has its own strengths and weaknesses, so they are all good for different situations. Super specialist camera? No. Unique camera? Yea!

[jaayres20]

Well thanks to everyone for all of the input.  I guess since I really don't do a lot of post processing anyways then I am not missing out on much.  When you deliver 1000+ images per wedding then you try to limit the amount of time you are editing in lightroom.  The 5D3 may not be the best when it comes to DR but I have sure been very happy with the AF and low light performance.  The colors seem to better than the 5D2 as well.  Just more natural I guess.  Again I have never used a Nikon so maybe I don't know what I am missing there as well.         

[MlQUE]

At such a high MP, there are certain things its NOT good for, like wedding or event photography where you shoot thousands of photos. The extra mp make processing a more time consuming prospect. Not that it still cant be done!

How is that some sort of deal-breaker, that continues to be the most ridiculous point I've seen argued.
People who don't want the extra MP can simply set the image size to (M) which means it'll be shooting 5,520 x 3,680 which is about the same as the 5D2's 5,616 × 3,744 pixels pixels.

[KeithR]

So a D7000 or D800 are super specialist cameras?

You know fine well what he means.

If, for example, the tiny, irrrelevant-to-most difference between their sensors and the Canon alternatives is so bloody important that you can't take a picture without it (which even you must admit is a scenario so "specialist" as to be utter fantasism) then shut up, get out of Canon and use the Nikons.

Otherwise, do your research, understand the strengths and weakness of the cameras out there and buy the one that gets you closest to what you need.

[KeithR]

It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.

So because of one metric - slightly lower DR than in the D800 (which is utterly unimportant to most potential users and which in any event can be significantly equalised by the right conversion and PP decisions) - you're suggesting that the 5D Mk III is somehow a "lesser", uncompetitive camera; and that anyone who sees its strengths (of which it has many) over the D800 and prioritises them over the D800's DR "advantage", is being naive?   

[KeithR]

The D800 is the 5D III's chief competitor. No lucid person would think otherwise.

This lucid person thinks otherwise.

They are - patently and self-evidently - in separate niches, and there's precious little functional "cross-over" between them at all.

There's no photographic genre I can think of where it's not utterly obvious which of the two cameras is best-suited; and if there's no debate about that, there's no competition.

That's lucid.

And - for the avoidance of any doubt, assuming output/print sizes both cameras can achieve natively - D800 for landscapes, especially in contrasty, high DR situations where I want easily to dig detail out of shadows (it can take a little more effort to get them out of a 5D Mk III file); and the 5D Mk III for absolutely everything else. 

[sach100]

And - for the avoidance of any doubt, assuming output/print sizes both cameras can achieve natively - D800 for landscapes, especially in contrasty, high DR situations where I want easily to dig detail out of shadows (it can take a little more effort to get them out of a 5D Mk III file); and the 5D Mk III for absolutely everything else.

+2
My thoughts precisely.

[TrumpetPower!]

And - for the avoidance of any doubt, assuming output/print sizes both cameras can achieve natively - D800 for landscapes, especially in contrasty, high DR situations where I want easily to dig detail out of shadows (it can take a little more effort to get them out of a 5D Mk III file); and the 5D Mk III for absolutely everything else.

You're forgetting two things with your landscape scenario: lens and light.

My go-to landscape lens is the TS-E 24 II. It mops the floor with anything vaguely similar Nikon has to offer. The D800 + whatever can't compare to the 5DIII + TS-E 24 II, even considering the few extra megapickles and dynamic range.

Second, if you're shooting landscape and you've exposed properly and you still need to recover so much from the shadows that you find yourself wishing for the extra stop or so that the Nikon might give you, then you're probably shooting in some really bad light and you need to wait for the golden hour. Ether that, or you need to take three seconds to turn on the auto HDR feature and get a 6 FPS bracket with handy-dandy rough preview. And, if even that still won't do the trick, then you're either out of your league because you didn't bring the MF kit or you're an incompetent photographer because you don't know how to use your gear.

Cheers,

b&

[cpsico]

And - for the avoidance of any doubt, assuming output/print sizes both cameras can achieve natively - D800 for landscapes, especially in contrasty, high DR situations where I want easily to dig detail out of shadows (it can take a little more effort to get them out of a 5D Mk III file); and the 5D Mk III for absolutely everything else.

You're forgetting two things with your landscape scenario: lens and light.

My go-to landscape lens is the TS-E 24 II. It mops the floor with anything vaguely similar Nikon has to offer. The D800 + whatever can't compare to the 5DIII + TS-E 24 II, even considering the few extra megapickles and dynamic range.

Second, if you're shooting landscape and you've exposed properly and you still need to recover so much from the shadows that you find yourself wishing for the extra stop or so that the Nikon might give you, then you're probably shooting in some really bad light and you need to wait for the golden hour. Ether that, or you need to take three seconds to turn on the auto HDR feature and get a 6 FPS bracket with handy-dandy rough preview. And, if even that still won't do the trick, then you're either out of your league because you didn't bring the MF kit or you're an incompetent photographer because you don't know how to use your gear.

Cheers,

b&

Ouch why so harsh?

[Bosman]

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.

In my experience this topic is creating an issue out of one that doesn't exist. The software is the source (not only source but main) where the DR has been lacking, the raw data with software that works with it makes all the difference, up til recently the 5dm3 raw files havent been supported. I watched both videos. The pillow fight i watched to completion and it looked like a blast thanks for sharing! The second video the Hasselblad can't pull detail like the D800 from the shadows on the motocycle. This video has been on the forum in other threads since it came out pretty much. From testing images i see i can pull detail out of blackness when i want and while I do not know someone who i could test the two cameras against each other from what i have gotten I don't see anything i have given up. In my real world shooting it will not impact me at all.
Here some people have been testing things with DR and software. I was able to get incredible sharp detail from a practically pitch dark area. Would I care to do this in any normal situation, no. If i had to have an important shot that the flash didn't fire or something the d800 or 5dm3 will both be difficult to get anything that good.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6235.0

[3kramd5]

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.

BTW, that site:

[Chuck Alaimo]

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.

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.

same price range doesn't immediately make it so.  If strawberries are $4.99 a lb, and asparagus is 4.99 lb, does that mean both are the same?

Yeah, same price range.  But they are two different beasts.  If you primarily shoot landscapes and aren't bound by investments in lenses or overall budget/earnings the d800 is the way to go.  If you are more of an all purpose shooter, the mk3 has many advantages.  And while its not everyones cup of tea, if you shoot events and weddings and landscapes and are using canon systems, me thinks investing in ND and Grad filters would be a good work around to get more DR ---or shoot HDR...its not the best solution, but unless your making most of your income shooting landscapes I'd say switching systems is a frivolous investment...

(note I did not ad architectural work to this mix only because even with the DR of the d800, the canon Tilt shift lenses are much better than what nikon offers...)