5D III Dynamic Range
- Thread starter bestimage
- Start date
- Status
RMC33 said:
No kidding. Thanks for the tip. I'll MF from now on. Afterall, then I'm a real pro, right?
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
true enough. even the poster child example of direct sunlight with blown highlights and lifted shadows that was underexposed 4 stops only showed that a D800 had more usable data in the shadows. It didn't show the D800 producing a particularly compelling image in that situation -- only one that faired better in the shadows. I would have prefered to see the Canon used to produce the best example, and the Nikon used to produce the best example, and then compare the processes.
on edit: better yet, make the example one that clearly demonstrates the potential for a truly great shot
Upvote
0
M
mbpics
Guest
Aglet said:
It's probably because your photos are awful and nobody gives a shit about what some hack "photographer" has to say. The 5D2 is a venerable piece of equipment that has served many, many people very well. Let us know how much better your D800 is at recovering the shadows when you underexpose your next subject's black pants. :
agierke said:
Nonononono NO! You have it all wrong. It's obviously Read Noise >> Ability to push shadows 10 stops >> Subject > Quality of Light! God, all of you idiots are wasting your time taking brilliant photos with your horrendously unusable Canon equipment when you could be out there taking photos of black pants or the shed in your backyard!
privatebydesign said:
That's because it doesn't exist.
Upvote
0
Bdunbar79 and RMC33, from what I gather, the 24-70 Mk1, has better bokeh...and for portraiture, you don't always want ultimate sharpness. Not sure I see myself buying a used Mk1 when I go full frame, though. Also won't buy the Mk2. Since I don't do much portraiture, I probably stick with the 24-105 kit, and maybe get a Tokina 16-28 at some point. I feel the 24-105 is (or can be) sharper than the 24-70 Mk1...at least based on my cousin's RAW landscape files I've worked on (he has the 24-70 Mk1 on a 5D3)...and comparing them to my own files from renting the 24-105 with a 1 series body. The 24-105 has more CA in the periphery, though, and possibly a lot more barrel at the wide end...both easily correctable though.
Upvote
0
CarlTN said:
If you don't need f/2.8, then yeah, get the 24-105L. I always crop a little bit anyways, no matter what, so all of my edges are always gone. The 24-70L II has incredible distortion, that's not easily corrected.
Upvote
0
RMC33, the 200 f/2 is just a super lens, I only rented one for a few days.
Bdunbar79, I wasn't aware that the Mk2 has a lot of distortion. I thought it had almost none. In any case, if I needed a f/2.8 on a full frame, I would buy the Tamron over the Canon Mk2, or even try the old Sigma (if I didn't need sharpness or to make larger prints). Both the Tamron and the Canon M2 have "onion" bokeh, where the Canon Mk1 has very smooth bokeh. Not sure about the Sigma, although it supposedly has a lot of problems (and softness). If Sigma ever bring in a new one, it would probably kill them all. I would just wait on that one. I won't even own a FF till this Fall at the earliest.
Honestly if I was going to just blow a huge wad of money on a wide lens for a FF camera, I would probably buy several primes instead, like the Zeiss 15 f/2.8, etc. I already have the 50mm I want, so that leaves a 35...probably go with Sigma. I've rented the Canon 24mm f/1.4 Mk2 on my crop camera...didn't care much for it. It wasn't sharp at the edges until f/5.6. So that leaves the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon, with its mustache distortion...it's supposedly still the best lens around this focal length.
And somebody needs to make a really good 28mm f/1.4, or dare I ask, an f/1.2. (Cosina) Voigtlander supposedly make a 35mm f/1.2 in Leica M mount...although seems like I've read it doesn't actually have the brightness of a 1.2.
Another Leica lens appeals to me, the 75mm f/2 Summicron. It's a shame the front half of a Canon camera has to be chopped off, in order to use M lenses...I guess Leica simply need to start making autofocus EF lenses...won't hold my breath.
Bdunbar79, I wasn't aware that the Mk2 has a lot of distortion. I thought it had almost none. In any case, if I needed a f/2.8 on a full frame, I would buy the Tamron over the Canon Mk2, or even try the old Sigma (if I didn't need sharpness or to make larger prints). Both the Tamron and the Canon M2 have "onion" bokeh, where the Canon Mk1 has very smooth bokeh. Not sure about the Sigma, although it supposedly has a lot of problems (and softness). If Sigma ever bring in a new one, it would probably kill them all. I would just wait on that one. I won't even own a FF till this Fall at the earliest.
Honestly if I was going to just blow a huge wad of money on a wide lens for a FF camera, I would probably buy several primes instead, like the Zeiss 15 f/2.8, etc. I already have the 50mm I want, so that leaves a 35...probably go with Sigma. I've rented the Canon 24mm f/1.4 Mk2 on my crop camera...didn't care much for it. It wasn't sharp at the edges until f/5.6. So that leaves the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon, with its mustache distortion...it's supposedly still the best lens around this focal length.
And somebody needs to make a really good 28mm f/1.4, or dare I ask, an f/1.2. (Cosina) Voigtlander supposedly make a 35mm f/1.2 in Leica M mount...although seems like I've read it doesn't actually have the brightness of a 1.2.
Another Leica lens appeals to me, the 75mm f/2 Summicron. It's a shame the front half of a Canon camera has to be chopped off, in order to use M lenses...I guess Leica simply need to start making autofocus EF lenses...won't hold my breath.
Upvote
0
CarlTN said:
I honestly love the 24-70 Mk1. The fellow I backup shoot/assist weddings for uses a Mk2 (24-70) and we get similar quality out of our Mk3/mk2 combos we use. I do feel the 70-200 is better then the 24-70 for my style of portraiture but you cant beat the combined length of the two lenses.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Another one is Pete Souza who for some reason chose to use a 5DII (and now a 5DIII) when I suspect that he can probably use anything he wants as well. The fact is that there is more than ample proof that people who know how to use the gear can get rather stunning results from it. Sadly, this is a bit more than we can say for some of the more vocal detractors.
FWIW: Fashion shooters probably never worry about the DR of their gear, I didn't watch the videos (I will when I get a chance) but Anne Libowitz can also afford all the lights, reflectors, assistants, etc. that she needs to make sure the shot is perfect. Souza is a little different, having less control over his lighting. All this said though, the DR is only an issue if you make it one which is what most of these guys are out to do. I have yet to see anything in this thread that I could not be done just about any decent DSLR regardless of the brand if used properly.
Upvote
0
mbpics said:It's probably because your photos are awful and nobody gives a S___ about what some hack "photographer" has to say. The 5D2 is a venerable piece of equipment that has served many, many people very well. Let us know how much better your D800 is at recovering the shadows when you underexpose your next subject's black pants. :
you missed the part where a -3EV exposure shows pattern noise with +1 EV
no way that can be described as a good performing camera, no matter what the subject.
SNR on that thing is far worse than DxO published measurements convey because they don't accurately evaluate detectable noise pattern
if you expect me to show you SNR problems at higher EV levels you don't understand how this works.
privatebydesign said:
you just SAW one example, not gonna waste my time providing others.
If people can't infere or extrapolate real world performance from an example or controlled tests then the camera's IQ isn't the only problem.
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.
Upvote
0
Aglet said:mbpics said:It's probably because your photos are awful and nobody gives a S___ about what some hack "photographer" has to say. The 5D2 is a venerable piece of equipment that has served many, many people very well. Let us know how much better your D800 is at recovering the shadows when you underexpose your next subject's black pants. :
you missed the part where a -3EV exposure shows pattern noise with +1 EV
no way that can be described as a good performing camera, no matter what the subject.
SNR on that thing is far worse than DxO published measurements convey because they don't accurately evaluate detectable noise pattern
if you expect me to show you SNR problems at higher EV levels you don't understand how this works.
privatebydesign said:
you just SAW one example, not gonna waste my time providing others.
If people can't infere or extrapolate real world performance from an example or controlled tests then the camera's IQ isn't the only problem.
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.
For a camera with such limited usefulness, it somehow garnered a huge user base – essentially eclipsing its competition. I think you are going to see the same from its successor as well which seems to be doing quite despite its rather steep price. While YOU may think the camera is a POS it would appear that the majority of buyers and users have not found themselves in agreement with your assessment.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
