5D III Dynamic Range

[RMC33]

I would not say the 5d2 is useless, but it is very limited in its usefulness.
I did say that it was a very disappointing product for the price and even compared to its forerunners, never mind comparing it to the competition.

Aglet, this borders right on paranoia. The 5D2 is a pretty useful camera to thousands of pros who still use it, unless of course, you have an axe to grind!

Could not agree more. I love my Mk2.

 

[Aglet]

Well, I've yet to see someone post some 5d2 test shots that show it is NOT noisy. I've sample some other raw files that seemed to be less noise-patterned than the ones my camera created, including the samples at imaging-resource.

There's a fair possibility that the particular body I had was a lemon. Why don't we, and I mean you, find out?
I only had the one 5d2 and it was so bad I did not buy a second, unlike various other bodies i've used.

So, for those who actually HAVE a 5d2. kindly take a white or gray card, use a long lens and the largest f# you can use on it, light it evenly, and shoot a metered shot in raw. then shoot it again at -3,-4, -5 EV from metered.

Take the -3,4 & 5 EV shots into ACR or LR (or even DPP) and apply + exposure compensation.
Tell me how far you can go before you see any pattern noise showing up.
Simple as that.
Post your results here if you've got the 'nads.

As for those still haranguing about my sample shot being 2 stops underexposed, DAMN RIGHT IT IS!
And I'll take responsibility for -2/3 of that underexposure. The rest is camera metering. (sarc)Can't blame any of that on the gear tho, everything Canon makes is perfect. (/sarc)
Give some thought to all the dark subject matter and use of CWA metering, for those who may not know how that works.

 

[RLPhoto]

I'm out of popcorn. :|

Edit: Btw Aglet, I could do a better job with a D30 than what you've shown as samples.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Take the -3,4 & 5 EV shots into ACR or LR (or even DPP) and apply + exposure compensation.

Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?

As for those still haranguing about my sample shot being 2 stops underexposed, DAMN RIGHT IT IS!
And I'll take responsibility for -2/3 of that underexposure. The rest is camera metering.

I'm sorry, but 'tis a poor workman who blames his tools, and an incompetent photographer who misses proper exposure by two stops. One stop, sure, happens to the best of us (and, in the age of digital, should be caught and fixed promptly). But two? That's well into the territory of "couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from ten paces."

And five stops?

Seriously?

Somebody please tell me this is a joke post, or a troll, or something like that. Even so, it's a very bad example of such, but it's nowhere near as scary a thing to contemplate as a straight reading....

Cheers,

b&

 

[Dantana]

You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are

no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

there seems to be a certain degree of nonsense that comes out in these types of conversations. to suggest the 5D mrk2 is a garbage camera for any reason only serves to discredit those making that claim. stop the nonsense or post a picture proving that the camera is the sole reason holding you back from taking great pictures.

the DR conversation is a bit of a non starter for me for two reasons.

firstly there are a number of work arounds to increasing the dynamic range of a scene that have been around for a long time. i can get all the range i need in my 5Dc. i do the same on the Mrk 2. would extra DR in camera be nice? yes....but it doesn't come even close to negating the cameras usefulness.

secondly, most great photographers seek out great light. the gear they use to record the image is almost superfluous if great light is not present! i have to shoot in all kinds of light due to circumstances and i accept that not all shots i take are going to be the pinnacle of my ability. not because my gear is the shortcoming...but because i am not afforded the luxury of finding the quality of light i know will create a phenomenal photograph.

14 stops of DR will not turn crappy light into great light. it will only marginally improve a photograph that is taken in crappy light. why is that so exciting? you are still left with crappy light.....

i dont get it.

+ as many as I can +

There's a reason that Magic Hour is Magic Hour. There's a reason that people spend huge amounts of time learning to light a shot or how shape available light.

It's comical to me to read posts about how horrible the 5DII is (especially in a thread about the Mark III). There have been so many amazing images captured with the 5DII and now the 5DIII it's ridiculous to call either of them garbage. I wish I could afford either of them right now. Instead I will make due with my old crop body until that time comes.

That's not to say that extra DR wouldn't be nice. I'm not an idiot. I remember being in college, amazed at the latitude of every new Kodak stock that came out and the ways it could be used. Of course that doesn't mean that I couldn't still go back and get some great images with a roll of Plus-X or a load of 7248.

If the 5DII or III doesn't have what you are looking for, then buy a different camera. It's the beauty of the competitive marketplace. Just don't tell me that all the great images that I've seen created with the 5D's were created with an unusable camera. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[David Hull]

You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are

no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

there seems to be a certain degree of nonsense that comes out in these types of conversations. to suggest the 5D mrk2 is a garbage camera for any reason only serves to discredit those making that claim. stop the nonsense or post a picture proving that the camera is the sole reason holding you back from taking great pictures.

the DR conversation is a bit of a non starter for me for two reasons.

firstly there are a number of work arounds to increasing the dynamic range of a scene that have been around for a long time. i can get all the range i need in my 5Dc. i do the same on the Mrk 2. would extra DR in camera be nice? yes....but it doesn't come even close to negating the cameras usefulness.

secondly, most great photographers seek out great light. the gear they use to record the image is almost superfluous if great light is not present! i have to shoot in all kinds of light due to circumstances and i accept that not all shots i take are going to be the pinnacle of my ability. not because my gear is the shortcoming...but because i am not afforded the luxury of finding the quality of light i know will create a phenomenal photograph.

14 stops of DR will not turn crappy light into great light. it will only marginally improve a photograph that is taken in crappy light. why is that so exciting? you are still left with crappy light.....

i dont get it.

Yea... this is pretty much the conclusion I have come to over several years of these sorts of threads as well. I think that "non-starter" is a pretty apt summary of current state of the whole discussion. If the equipment was as bad as folks like aglet would want us to believe, no one would be using it. However, the reality seems to be the exact opposite in that despite these well-known and well documented limitations, somehow, someway competent photographers continue to achieve excellent results. The limitations don’t seem to be too insurmountable for those who know what they are doing and there seem to be a heck of a lot of people who do because there is a veritable plethora of excellent shots available as examples of this.

 

[David Hull]

no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

Sorry, my mistake, typing this stuff out and then reading a reply hours or days later isn't the most fluid or nuanced way of getting your impressions across!

This forum structure doesn't help a lot either.

 

[David Hull]

no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

Sorry, my mistake, typing this stuff out and then reading a reply hours or days later isn't the most fluid or nuanced way of getting your impressions across!

This forum structure doesn't help a lot either.

No but I prefer it to the DPReview style with sub-threads going off everywhere. Can you choose show all in thread anywhere like you can on Photo.Net? However, whilst the mods have done a great job with the moderation of this thread several key posts have been lost so the context of the whole thing is a bit weird too.

I wondeered what was going on. It had been at 11 pages then droped to 7 with some stuff gone, now creaping back up. Oh well, moderation is good even if it is a bit like hearding cats sometimes.

 

[awinphoto]

Cant believe this thread is still puttering along. As far as DR and detail or lack there of... Last night I had a photo review showing with a couple of my models that i did recent photo shoots for and one of them said last night that they almost hate my 5d Mark 3... They said it has so much detail that it shows every imperfection... That, to me, speaks volumes on the quality of the camera more than whether it has 12 or 14 stops of light. Who cares? Back in the film days we had BW film that had very good DR... what did we do? Use contrast filters to kill the DR and make it more punchy or else it was too flat and ugly... this debate is stupid... learn your cameras and stop obsessing about things that really dont matter.

 

[agierke]

^ this...ty.

i would add, learn about good light as well. that is what photography is supposed to be about.

 

[Aglet]

So, as a kind of rebuttal against the DR "issues", I had a play with a file or two.

Image was shot with a 1Ds MkIII, effectively the same sensor as the 5D MkII. Here are two images, they are both screenshots from LR with before to the left and after to the right, first is the full frame the second is a 100% crop, the blue is obviously black warning. It was a test exposure shot at a wedding reception to determine ambient levels, there is no point of focus.

I have included the develop module adjustments panel. The exposure is lifted 5 stops, shadows another 1+ stop, only other adjustment was noise reduction.

Now I don't know about you, but I know I could print this to 8"x10" without issue, particularly if I put some clarity and/or contrast in there and did a white balance etc.

P.S. I have got the nads!

Great, you got nads.
But can you do this with a 5d2?!?
I already know the old 1DS3 is a good/better camera, so is my ancient 40D, as compared to the 5d2 I had. So this contribution is an "irrelevance."

That's the point, comparing my extremely noisy 5D2 to another 5d2. A 1Ds3 is not "close enough." internal guts are quite different and it's not just the sensor in the equation but every bit of copper and silicon between the pixel and raw file.

So, will someone with 'nads AND a 5d2 care to show how well their camera can perform in this simple test?

 

[ishdakuteb]

I'm out of popcorn. :|

Edit: Btw Aglet, I could do a better job with a D30 than what you've shown as samples.

i'll get one for you, who else wants more popcorn i thought that someone was trying to make popcorn-booth though LOL

 

[Aglet]

I'm out of popcorn. :|

Edit: Btw Aglet, I could do a better job with a D30 than what you've shown as samples.

I'll share my twizzlers

and my 40 D can also provide better samples, that's not the point.
Do you still have a 5d2? If so, care to perform the test described and publish your results?

 

[TrumpetPower!]

So, will someone with 'nads AND a 5d2 care to show how well their camera can perform in this simple test?

I don't have anything handy from a 5DII, but here's something from a classic 5D, shot not long after I got it several years ago.

Two copies. First is the JPEG preview the camera embedded in the raw file. Next is after I last re-did the post processing a few years ago. I'll probably re-visit it again at some point in the future. I've made 12" x 18" prints and been most happy with them.

If the dynamic range of any of the 5D line of cameras prevents you from getting the shot, you have nothing to blame but your own incompetence.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Aglet]

Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?

totally serious, but you misunderstand.
i'm not asking to recover a -5EV shot to 0, or the -4 or the -3.
I'm asking you to try this and see how far you can push your 5d2's -3, -4, or -5EV shot before visible pattern noise shows up on a smooth subject. IT IS SIMPLE.
In the real world this can by sky, water, various man-made surfaces so it's completely appropriate.

Sorry, I'm not accepting any blame for the camera's metering. i didn't build it or calibrate it.
If you know how it works, look at the subject and shooting conditions, you should realize why.
Apparently you did not read/comprehend all the info provided. Take more time to understand than to ridicule, it's better all around.

if you have a 5d2 and care to contribute, follow the instructions. If not, sit back, have some popcorn and join the rest of the peanut gallery to watch the drama. ;D

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?

totally serious, but you misunderstand.
i'm not asking to recover a -5EV shot to 0, or the -4 or the -3.
I'm asking you to try this and see how far you can push your 5d2's -3, -4, or -5EV shot before visible pattern noise shows up on a smooth subject. IT IS SIMPLE.

Who gives a flying leap how much noise you've got after pushing exposure five stops? And when on Earth would you push exposure five stops other than if you had forgotten to take the lens cap off?

It's like you're complaining that Michael Jordan was an incompetent athlete because he couldn't throw a 110 mph curveball over the strike zone with a football while wearing a goalie's uniform.

If you seriously think you're being serious, I seriously recommend the help of a licensed mental health professional.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Aglet]

I don't have anything handy from a 5DII, but here's something from a classic 5D, shot not long after I got it several years ago.

Two copies. First is the JPEG preview the camera embedded in the raw file. Next is after I last re-did the post processing a few years ago. I'll probably re-visit it again at some point in the future. I've made 12" x 18" prints and been most happy with them.

If the dynamic range of any of the 5D line of cameras prevents you from getting the shot, you have nothing to blame but your own incompetence.

Cheers,

b&

nice, but another irrelevant comparison/sample.

and again, I'm not talking about dynamic range (DR), altho it is directly affected by noise content
I'm purely interested in the highly offensive appearance of Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) which is much more of a problem than reduced DR.

Again, anyone with a 5d2 care to contribute appropriate test shots, technique as outlined?

 

[Aglet]

Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?

totally serious, but you misunderstand.
i'm not asking to recover a -5EV shot to 0, or the -4 or the -3.
I'm asking you to try this and see how far you can push your 5d2's -3, -4, or -5EV shot before visible pattern noise shows up on a smooth subject. IT IS SIMPLE.

Who gives a flying leap how much noise you've got after pushing exposure five stops? And when on Earth would you push exposure five stops other than if you had forgotten to take the lens cap off?

It's like you're complaining that Michael Jordan was an incompetent athlete because he couldn't throw a 110 mph curveball over the strike zone with a football while wearing a goalie's uniform.

If you seriously think you're being serious, I seriously recommend the help of a licensed mental health professional.

Cheers,

b&

I'm only quoting this whole pile above so everyone can clearly see you actually did not understand what I told you.

As such, any further commentary from you will be disregarded until you display adequate comprehension of the problem and can provide valid input. You seem more interested in a brawl than actually exchanging knowledge.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I don't have anything handy from a 5DII, but here's something from a classic 5D, shot not long after I got it several years ago.

Two copies. First is the JPEG preview the camera embedded in the raw file. Next is after I last re-did the post processing a few years ago. I'll probably re-visit it again at some point in the future. I've made 12" x 18" prints and been most happy with them.

If the dynamic range of any of the 5D line of cameras prevents you from getting the shot, you have nothing to blame but your own incompetence.

Cheers,

b&

nice, but another irrelevant comparison/sample.

and again, I'm not talking about dynamic range (DR), altho it is directly affected by noise content
I'm purely interested in the highly offensive appearance of Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) which is much more of a problem than reduced DR.

Again, anyone with a 5d2 care to contribute appropriate test shots, technique as outlined?

So, I give you a nighttime shot with a classic 5D with a very wide dynamic range and shadows lifted at least a couple, maybe a few stops (I honestly don't remember)...and that's not enough to tell you what you need to know?

What, do you think the 5DII has worse noise than the classic? Do you only shoot grey cards and not actual photographs? Have you ever actually wanted to lift shadows more than the extreme amount I did in that shot?

May I recommend? Go learn about the First Rule of Holes before posting further in this thread. It's high past time you did so.

Cheers,

b&

 

[RLPhoto]

Aglet, why u no Nikon already? My take after eating my popcorn.

Aglet - There is FPN on 5D2 files.

General response - Don't lift the shadows +3 stops. 5D2 is a fantastic camera.

Aglet - Here is a file that shows the FPN.

General Response - Don't lift the shadows +3 stops. 5D2 is a fantastic camera.

Aglet - Well Prove me wrong! supply me photos!

General Response - Here's some photos. Don't lift the shadows +3 stops. 5D2 is a fantastic camera.

Aglet - That doesn't mean nothing!

Rlphoto - :| Pass the popcorn.