5D III Dynamic Range

[RLPhoto]

Don't blame the tools for poor craftsmanship. Infact, since the d800 is doing so well for you, let's see some photos you've taken with it. Please do post.

I've posted heavily adjusted d800 shots on here last year. They're awesome.
Can't do that with a 5d2!! no bloody way at all
I could tell you where to look ... but...

Let's see you post something from your fabulous 5d2... Like some of those test shots I requested.

I don't shoot test charts like youself, but I will post these.

Now please, indulge me in your d800 art aglet.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

I posted a shot that I had recovered over 6 stops with a camera with the SAME SENSOR as the 5D MkII, even allowing for your "copper wire and silicone" comment how much DR do you honestly believe they actually added? DxO, and whatever you make of their overall results I believe their testing is accurate, says variation between the two is so small that you wouldn't be able to see the differences unless they were greater to the order of 5-15 times, indeed the difference is so small it almost certainly falls within testing errors.

Stop trying to get around the subject. If you expose properly then you everybody else can get superb results from it.

As I have said many times.
Rule 1 for a photographer: Get the exposure right. If you are working for a client that means KNOW WHAT YOUR CAMERA NEEDS BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE METER READING NO EXCUSES).
Rule 101 for Canon shooters shooting RAW: ETTR, if you move to -EV compensation you better have a VERY good reason for doing it.
Rule101-2: Canon RAW files will give you MUCH better overall image quality if you overexpose and then lower exposure in post. The rights and wrongs of this are immaterial, if it is a question of DR or shadow detail refer to Rule 101.
Rule101-3: In post, if you have a dark file DO NOT lift Blacks and Shadows, lift exposure and lower Whites and Highlights.

IF you can't do these very simple things, buy a Nikon. If you buy a Nikon and still find loads of time on your hands because nobody is purchasing your "Art", join a Canon forum and try to cover up your inabilities with trollish nonsense, deny the observations and images others present, hide behind the contrived examples of Nikon "superiority" (which is laughable because everybody here agrees Nikon's have better DR), and, most relevantly, fail in the simple request to provide an optimally exposed real world image where the DR of a Canon actually let you down.

I wish I had written that.

 

[insanitybeard]

RL, love the third picture!

 

[TrumpetPower!]

nobody's asked to recover 5 stops in this thread.

Actually, you have (and did so again right here), but never mind.

I found my camera would show FPN with less than TWO stops of push on shades as high as -3EV to start with, even worse on a -5EV shade pushed 2 stops.

So, you underexposed your shot by three stops, and you're upset that you weren't able to push your Zone II detail-less shadows to midtones. And then you underexposed another shot by five stops, and you're upset that you weren't able to push your maximum-density clear-negatives pure blacks to light shadows rich in detail.

Sorry, but I ain't got nothin' for ya, except to suggest that you really should take an introduction to photography class.

Here's another hint: if your scene has large dark expanses of areas with little detail, you really shouldn't be trying to lighten those areas. Indeed, those are perfect candidates for crushing them to near-black to enhance the image's overall contrast. Trying to lighten them is going in the exact worng direction.

Cheers,

b&

 

[RMC33]

I posted a shot that I had recovered over 6 stops with a camera with the SAME SENSOR as the 5D MkII, even allowing for your "copper wire and silicone" comment how much DR do you honestly believe they actually added? DxO, and whatever you make of their overall results I believe their testing is accurate, says variation between the two is so small that you wouldn't be able to see the differences unless they were greater to the order of 5-15 times, indeed the difference is so small it almost certainly falls within testing errors.

Stop trying to get around the subject. If you expose properly then you everybody else can get superb results from it.

As I have said many times.
Rule 1 for a photographer: Get the exposure right. If you are working for a client that means KNOW WHAT YOUR CAMERA NEEDS BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE METER READING NO EXCUSES).
Rule 101 for Canon shooters shooting RAW: ETTR, if you move to -EV compensation you better have a VERY good reason for doing it.
Rule101-2: Canon RAW files will give you MUCH better overall image quality if you overexpose and then lower exposure in post. The rights and wrongs of this are immaterial, if it is a question of DR or shadow detail refer to Rule 101.
Rule101-3: In post, if you have a dark file DO NOT lift Blacks and Shadows, lift exposure and lower Whites and Highlights.

IF you can't do these very simple things, buy a Nikon. If you buy a Nikon and still find loads of time on your hands because nobody is purchasing your "Art", join a Canon forum and try to cover up your inabilities with trollish nonsense, deny the observations and images others present, hide behind the contrived examples of Nikon "superiority" (which is laughable because everybody here agrees Nikon's have better DR), and, most relevantly, fail in the simple request to provide an optimally exposed real world image where the DR of a Canon actually let you down.

Well said. Great advice.

 

[RMC33]

Shot with a MKII.

Love that body for landscape

 

[Aglet]

I don't shoot test charts like youself, but I will post these.

you otta, you can learn a lot from doing so which can spare you from some surprises later. Wish I'd have shot the heck out of test charts w my 5d2 when I first got it, would not have been so disappointed if I'd have returned/sold it.

I don’t like the first shot at all, about 40% of the image is deliberately crushed to black, complete RGB=000, a style I’ve seen you use too often for my tastes. I’d have preferred to see a hint of texture in the t-shirt and collar at least. but if that’s what you and your subject are happy with, so be it.

2nd shot is good, i like it and it doesn’t have to be crushed like 1st eg to look good.

3rd is enjoyable and, if I remember the last time you posted that, didn’t you say it was heavily pushed from your 7D?.. I don’t remember seeing the original or any 100% crops so we can tell if there’s any FPN tho it looks adequate for printing a 5x7 to 8x10 at least.

4th doesn’t do anything for me altho if I happened upon such a scene I’d likely have shot it similarly.

Now please, indulge me in your d800 art aglet.

look at my profile, posts, attachments - dsc prefixes are definitely Nikon, as are likely some others with file numbers < 1000.
But posted here is not necessarily my art, but educational examples, some w artistic merit.

But you will not DARE to wade into this croc’-pond with some specific test shots requests, will you?
Bummer, i was hoping to compare how bad my 5d2’s FPN was to others’ 5d2s.
Educational opportunities here seem mostly afforded only by the brave.

 

[dlleno]

As I have said many times.
Rule 1 for a photographer: Get the exposure right. If you are working for a client that means KNOW WHAT YOUR CAMERA NEEDS BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE METER READING NO EXCUSES).
Rule 101 for Canon shooters shooting RAW: ETTR, if you move to -EV compensation you better have a VERY good reason for doing it.
Rule101-2: Canon RAW files will give you MUCH better overall image quality if you overexpose and then lower exposure in post. The rights and wrongs of this are immaterial, if it is a question of DR or shadow detail refer to Rule 101.
Rule101-3: In post, if you have a dark file DO NOT lift Blacks and Shadows, lift exposure and lower Whites and Highlights.

IF you can't do these very simple things, buy a Nikon. If you buy a Nikon and still find loads of time on your hands because nobody is purchasing your "Art", join a Canon forum and try to cover up your inabilities with trollish nonsense, deny the observations and images others present, hide behind the contrived examples of Nikon "superiority" (which is laughable because everybody here agrees Nikon's have better DR), and, most relevantly, fail in the simple request to provide an optimally exposed real world image where the DR of a Canon actually let you down.

+ many and profoundly stated sir. I would only add "optimally exposed real world compelling image worthy of critical review . otherwise we will again see that stunning image shot directly into the sun that violated all of the rules you eloquently stated.

 

[Aglet]

I posted a shot that I had recovered over 6 stops with a camera with the SAME SENSOR as the 5D MkII..

There’s more to a camera’s IQ than it’s sensor, one of the reasons 1-series cost so much more.
comparing 1ds3 to 5d2 is like comparing a PnS to a rebel.

I appreciate the effort you’re expending but.. If you have a 5d2, pony-up.
otherwise there’s nothing I can learn from you.

And again, I’m not discussing DR, I’m discussing FPN.
FWIW, I’d consider buying the 6D, even tho it has about the same rated DR, because it has much lower FPN than the 5d2. Please understand the difference in noise structures and how they can affect efforts in post.

 

[bdunbar79]

I shot with a 5D2 for a long time. I never had any trouble with it. Then again, I guess I knew what I was doing.

 

[Aglet]

nobody's asked to recover 5 stops in this thread.

Actually, you have (and did so again right here), but never mind.

I found my camera would show FPN with less than TWO stops of push on shades as high as -3EV to start with, even worse on a -5EV shade pushed 2 stops.

So, you underexposed your shot by three stops, and you're upset that you weren't able to push your Zone II detail-less shadows to midtones. And then you underexposed another shot by five stops, and you're upset that you weren't able to push your maximum-density clear-negatives pure blacks to light shadows rich in detail.

Sorry, but I ain't got nothin' for ya, except to suggest that you really should take an introduction to photography class.

Here's another hint: if your scene has large dark expanses of areas with little detail, you really shouldn't be trying to lighten those areas. Indeed, those are perfect candidates for crushing them to near-black to enhance the image's overall contrast. Trying to lighten them is going in the exact worng direction.

Cheers,

A -3EV from metered zero is still pretty darn gray.
The point is, my 5d2 still produced FPN visible at this high a level if pushed one mere stop.
I don’t need lessons from people on how to expose properly, thanks anyway for offering.
I’m merely pointing out my 5d2 was so affected by FPN that something even just below midtones showed banding. At times it also showed visible banding artefacts in upper midtones rigth out of the camera! That is pathetic performance for a body that cost me nearly $3k when it came out!
i have used 8 bit PnSs that produced cleaner shades at those levels.

The inherrently high levels of FPN of my 5d2 made it useless if I wanted to do any work in post where I had to affect + exposure adjustments or localized/micro-contrast enhancements even at midtones.

If you haven't experienced this, (first, you don't have a 5d2) then you're not exactly pushing the boundaries of your equipment, are you? A better tool is not sought by those content with what they have.

 

[J.R.]

I shot with a 5D2 for a long time. I never had any trouble with it. Then again, I guess I knew what I was doing.

One of the best comments I've seen on this thread.

 

[ishdakuteb]

I don't shoot test charts like youself, but I will post these.

you otta, you can learn a lot from doing so which can spare you from some surprises later. Wish I'd have shot the heck out of test charts w my 5d2 when I first got it, would not have been so disappointed if I'd have returned/sold it.

I don’t like the first shot at all, about 40% of the image is deliberately crushed to black, complete RGB=000, a style I’ve seen you use too often for my tastes. I’d have preferred to see a hint of texture in the t-shirt and collar at least. but if that’s what you and your subject are happy with, so be it.

2nd shot is good, i like it and it doesn’t have to be crushed like 1st eg to look good.

3rd is enjoyable and, if I remember the last time you posted that, didn’t you say it was heavily pushed from your 7D?.. I don’t remember seeing the original or any 100% crops so we can tell if there’s any FPN tho it looks adequate for printing a 5x7 to 8x10 at least.

4th doesn’t do anything for me altho if I happened upon such a scene I’d likely have shot it similarly.

Now please, indulge me in your d800 art aglet.

look at my profile, posts, attachments - dsc prefixes are definitely Nikon, as are likely some others with file numbers < 1000.
But posted here is not necessarily my art, but educational examples, some w artistic merit.

But you will not DARE to wade into this croc’-pond with some specific test shots requests, will you?
Bummer, i was hoping to compare how bad my 5d2’s FPN was to others’ 5d2s.
Educational opportunities here seem mostly afforded only by the brave.

your posted images in here are NOT? really, i thought number of those images being tried to sell on your website (http://www.a2bart.com). however, i am here to throw to your face number of images taken with canon 5d mark ii from "colby brown" - www.colbybrownphotography.com...

my words to your images... as bad as your photography skills.

 

[insanitybeard]

I am astonished that so many fellow Canon users rush to flog whoever mentions that Nikon have been doing one single parameter of sensor design better than Canon for some years. Rather, I would hope that you should welcome the debate and fair criticism in the hope that Canon listens and improves their system.

-h

I have no issue with acknowledging the fact that Nikon etc have superior DR etc at low ISO with their sensors compared to Canon. I do not mind the debate. The trouble is the debate is soured by those who constantly 'bang on' about the superiority of Nikon. Some of the comments would have you believe you could hardly take a decent picture with a Canon camera. It is therefore not surprising many people have grown tired of the same old arguments. The topic of this thread is 5DIII dynamic range. The topic being debated by Aglet in some of his previous posts, by his own words is fixed pattern noise and banding, which is not the same thing. I do not have experience of the 5DII and the banding/FPN issues to make any informed comment on that.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

Soooo.
After shooting and printing my favorite shots for 4 years with the 5d2, now 5d3:
I never had a picture which disqualified by to much banding, too low DR or whatsoever.

Thats all, folks.

 

[skitron]

Below is the link to show you the good way:
HDR Ep 115: Take & Make Great Photography with Gavin Hoey: Adorama Photography TV

+1 This is a great little tutorial and the most relevant contribution to this thread. I've bookmarked it. Thanks.

-PW

+1 here too

Thanks for posting that link ishdakuteb, very informative...4th post in the thread no less. Any popcorn left?

Too bad for me I actually only viewed this thread today and went thru it from most recent to oldest...

 

[CarlTN]

RMC33, nice image! And you're welcome.

I would be interested in an AF/real world comparison, more between the Tamron and the Canon 24-70 Mk2, rather than Mk1 and Mk2, but then that wouldn’t help so much on your end I guess.

I agree, a tilt shift is essential for real estate. If you do enough to justify getting one, I’m somewhat envious. The real estate photography on the ground in my area, is mostly done by non professional realty agents with smartphones, who don’t really care about quality, and obviously rely on sex appeal to make sales. But the best aerial real estate photography in my area, is done by me :-D.

 

[Aglet]

insanitybeard: thank-you too, for recognizing what my topic is about, even if I did misplace it in this thread. It’s gonna happen somewhere. Kinda like (insert great historical battle of your choice).

hjulenissen: thank you for stating your understanding of the topic
be careful you don’t fall under attack for providing a supporting point of view to mine around here.

beyond criticism and fair debate, the most vocal opponents I have in this argument repeatedly show themselves to be condescending, hypocrites, and even insulting. Add to that, unwilling or unable to back up their viewpoint with appropriate and valid samples, as outlined at least 6 pages ago. Yet they demand my samples and I oblige.

All this, when all I’m asking for is samples from their 5d2, if they have one, so I could make a simple comparison to the one I had. Doesn’t sound like such an onerous request, considering the amount of effort they expend hurling invective, nonsense and unrequested advice on this thread. (some of occasionally even invalid)

It would be hilarious if it were a comedy sketch.. if you like the 3+ Stooges taking on the lone voice standing up for logic and reason.

JR: I did not say 5d2 was useless, I said it’s usefullness was LIMITED.
Go back and read it.

ishdakuteb: posts his latest idol of the day. I don’t care who you want to emulate.
Do you have a 5d2?

alexanderferdinand: finally, somewhat useful contribution, this person’s had no problems with his 5d2. i don’t know how he uses his files but he’s happy with it. OK by me.

bdunbar79: happy w his 5d2, proudly credits his own skill. Another one that’s fine w me. But no 5d2 samples from him here either, plenty of 5d3 and 1dx as he learns their quirks.

trumpetpower: expending yet more effort providing a useless comparison wasting his time, upsetting himself in the process.
Dude, if you'd have actually shot the actual exposure series, with a 5d2 instead of creating a fake in photoshop, you'd have something close to a valid contribution.
And how do you think I came to this if I did not actually shoot the series with my 5d2 when i had it. go back to (is it still on?) page 6 and re-read it.


but still no 5d2 samples for me to compare.. from anyone?...

 

[CarlTN]

Trumpet seems very angry and is taking things personally. Photography should be fun. Why spend so much time on a Canon-related forum, if you prefer another brand anyway? A forum like this should be less antagonistic...it's not a shoot-em-up video game. Go out and take pictures...be a photographer, not a rageaholic. Trumpet, I admit I have some rage myself. As I've gotten older, it has moderated in some ways. Hope that continues, and hope yours can.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

but still no 5d2 samples for me to compare.. from anyone?...

Exactly.

Since none of us bother trying to recover images where the flash didn't fire, none of us have ever had problems with noise in Zone -2 shadows. And none of us care what kinds of noise may or may not lurk in Zone -2 shadows.

You're the guy claiming that brand X car is complete junk because it can only do 45 MPH in first gear, while brand Y car is totally awesome because it can do 50 MPH in first gear. All the rest of us are telling you you're an idiot for waiting so long to shift gears, and that we're not at all interested in seeing how fast we can drive in first gear.

And then you have the nerve to insult us for not bothering to test-drive our cars way past redline for you to see just how fast we can get them to go in first gear.

(Of course, the car analogy breaks down at this point, as there's no danger from exposing images in a pointless manner. But why bother wasting our time on something as stupidly pointless as seeing what kind of noise there is in a lenscap-on shot with enough digital gain to put it in Zone III?)

Cheers,

b&