wickidwombat said:
Marsu42 said:
CarlTN said:
However, I found that the 5D3 has very strong, very large grain luminance noise which shows prominently by ISO 4000. I found an adjustment of the luminance NR slider in LR4, needed to be high up at 80, to have any effect on this noise. And when it did, of course huge amounts of detail were erased along with it.
Luma NR 80 is indeed absolute overkill, even on very noisy sources I seldom use more than global 30 or any detail is lost - you can apply more nr locally with the brush for gradients.
But to the point: From everything I've read (and that's a lot when deciding what ff to get) the 5d3 and 6d sensors are very similar. The 5d3 has a bit more noise, maybe 1/3 stop, but it has a bit higher resolution and some more sharpness (even better: 5d2...) so if you tune that down to 6d level the differences should be much more minor than what you describe - but feel free to prove different by posting your sample shots.
agreed 80 is an insane amount I never use anything like this but at high iso i leave a little noise in anyway since it's more grain like I would guess at iso 4000 i'd only be adding in 30 to 40 luma NR maybe i'd go to 60 at iso 16,000
That was kind of my point. At ISO 4000 on the 6D, 30 to 40 on the luminance slider, essentially gets rid of its luminance noise...at a loss of a very tiny percentage of "resolution". Where with the 5D3's noise, I had to push to 80 to attempt a similar amount of luminance NR. So basically, at 30 to 40 on the slider with the 5D3's file, you still have large coarse grain, which looks the same as it did with the slider at zero. Where the 6D's grain is much smaller and less hard-edged (perhaps less than half the size of the 5D3's), less coarse, and does not interfere with resolution. Then it disappears with the slider at 40, and often is gone enough around 33 that you don't need to go to 40. The grain of the 5D3, is just very large, coarse...and dare I say ugly.
In addition, I always pay attention to the luminance detail and contrast sliders. If you don't get a good combination of them, then there's no point in using the top luminance NR slider at all. To get maximum detail, the luminance contrast slider needs to never go below 60 (and preferably stay above 80), and the luminance detail slider needs to be between 40 and 70. I've found this to be true no matter what camera the file came from. However, with compact cameras (I've had a few), too often the luminance detail slider needs to be near zero. So there goes all that supposed "detail" from a compact camera and its high megapixels.
Of course in the above, I am editing for detail and noise, with the file viewed at 1:1, or 100%.
As for what reviews say...I mean, I just read a "review" in one of the British photo magazines (there are a lot of them, big and brash...they all look alike...but they have some nice pictures!)...that matter-of-factly stated that the D600 had less of both types of noise, than the 6D, throughout the range all the way to ISO 25,600.
And yet the sample photos they printed with the article, of a test chart...clearly show the OPPOSITE. The D600 has MORE of both types...not less...and starting from the middle of the ISO range. Whether or not the D600 resolved more detail, or lines on a chart, at high ISO, is irrelevant...
if those black lines on a white chart....are covered with digital pink puke and grain that looks like dirty clods of hair. Nobody is going to print a picture like that without reducing the noise...and when you do that...there goes any "resolution" advantage of the D600.
As for resolution...in common practice there just is not much of an advantage, between 5D3 and 6D. Certainly there's more resolution from the D600 at the lower ISO settings. So if resolution at low ISO is all you care about, by all means get a D600 or D800. They blow away the 5D3. Just make sure you are accomplished at achieving high sharpness, and you have the Nikon glass to get there (less of it can than Canon glass). Also, make sure your prints are quite large. If we aren't talking prints larger than 20x30 inches, then a high megapixel camera is absolutely unnecessary...unless all you do is crop your shots to 90%.
So, again, I still say the only reasons to buy the 5D3 over the 6D, are video capability, and the bling factor of a detuned and de-balled 1DX autofocus system. Certainly it has its vital uses, not saying it doesn't. But there is little to no resolution advantage, nor is 4.5 vs 6 fps enough of a multi shot speed advantage...over the 6D.
As for the size of the 6D being too small...my hands are a size 10 glove. I assume this is average manhands. My fingers aren't long enough to feel comfortable on any Nikon f/f body. The shutter release feels like it's 3 inches out in front of the front element of, say a 50mm lens. Of course in reality it is not, it just feels that way. My pinkie to thumb reach, is 9.25 inches. Maybe this is smaller than average hands for a man, I just don't know. When I shake hands with other men, I rarely feel my hands are smaller than theirs. Theirs are usually greasier, haha.
I notice the light weight of the 6D, more than the small size. Even the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) feels front heavy on it, where it felt more balanced on my 50D. But this really can only be an advantage. If you need to balance lenses and/or flash better, you are compelled to use a battery grip (which you should be using anyway...for event-type work). Even though the specs say the 6D is only an ounce or two lighter than the 50D I just sold...it feels even lighter than that. I do prefer the ergonomic feel of the 6D to all other Canon bodies. The buttons feel a tad less mushy than the 7D's and the 5D3's.
The smaller size than the 5D3, feels just right to me. I can certainly understand if you have large hands, it would be unusable. And again, in my opinion..."Nikon hands" are connected to women with very long, pointy fingers...the Nikon body just does not fit a man's thicker more muscular palms and fingers. So the perfect Nikon shooter would be a slender woman about 6'1 in height...
