5D MK3 vs. D800 - fredmiranda

[PhilDrinkwater]

I would quite happily accept more dr. It'd allow me to do single frame HDR at weddings. That would give me some me options.

Can I live without it? Yep. Would I prefer to have the option? Yep.

 

[Astro]

I continue to find it interesting that the technical people of these forums (Canon Rumors, DPReview, FM, etc.) only focus on Fred's pictures of the shadows from the buildings. I will be the first to say it is extremely impressive what Sony/Nikon has done with the sensor, but if you continue to read Fred's review and look at all of the pictures he takes for the articles, he points out some serious flaws in focus with the Nikon.

well this thread is about 5D MK3 sensor vs. D800 sensor so it should not suprise you.

we are not talking about the cameras in general here.

 

[V8Beast]

When will this debate go away? The D800 has one heck of a sensor that can pull a staggering amount of shadow detail. Canon boys need to accept this and move along If it makes you feel bad, buy a D800.

Personally, I very rarely have the need to push the shadows that much, and the 5DIII is a better balanced machine for my needs. I just don't see why I should get upset about one aspect of camera performance (DR) that doesn't affect what I shoot all that much. Sure, more DR would be nice, but I can work around my Canon's limitations and the areas in which the 5DIII excels outweighs its DR disadvantage for my usage.

I understand that landscape photogs need all the DR they can get. I also understand that all of a sudden everyone seems to be a landscape photographer. Many of these self-proclaimed landscape photogs don't have portfolios or sample images that show how much their images would benefit from improved DR, but what do you expect on the internet ;D?

So if DR is that important to you - whether it's for practical reasons or just to placate your ego - admit that Canon is inferior at the moment, and buy yourself a D800

 

[smirkypants]

So if DR is that important to you - whether it's for practical reasons or just to placate your ego - admit that Canon is inferior at the moment, and buy yourself a D800

I think it's important that we all bitch a bitch so that Canon hears loud and clear. DR is very important to me. I shoot people wearing helmets with brims during the mid-day sun. High DR means being able to turn dark shadows into colorful, natural-looking faces. Hell, just today I sold three photos where I pushed the hell out of the shadows and got really nice looking outdoor event shots that looked like portraits. This is actual money in my pocket that I would not have had shooting with a Canon, and I charge a bit for my photos. Unless you can control the light, there will always be situations where you need to bring color out of shadows.

I didn't even realize how important the extended DR was until just this week. Right now it's like a secret weapon for me. Don't kid yourself, this stuff is very important and Canon needs to wake up or more and more photographers will come to have the same epiphany I recently had.

I am now seriously considering selling all of my Canon gear.

 

[hyles]

I think that the 2 camera are really different and aimed at different market. Canon probably was thinking that DR of 5DII was OK and looked for improvement in other areas.
It is allway been like that, with nikon having more DR and canon more suited for Hight ISO. Maybe increasing low ISO DR would lead to loss something sowhere else and they just designed theire camera this way. They wanted their camera behave this way. If you really need LOW ISO DR... go for nikon, if you shoot always 800ISO and more go for canon. If you have a system... keep with wour brand.
Diego

 

[CANONPRO123]

just got home from shooting with a buddy who uses a d800, i have a 5d3... after looking through the features of both, ive concluded that both are absolutely unbelievable cameras... the d800 crop mode is amazing, i wish canon would implement a similar offering. whereas the 5d3 high iso is just so much better.. maybe its because im a canon guys so im used to them, but the 5d3 ergonomics are so much better. so confused with the layout of the d800.. also the extra fps really made a huge difference.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I shot a Stouffer Transmission Wedge (13.2 stops DR total) with a 5DII, 5DIII, & a D7000.

The 5DIII required 1/3EV less exposure than 5DII to keep any channel (meaning: green, since that blows first) from blowing out in the brightest patch of the wedge. The D7000 needed 2/3EV less exposure than 5DII (i.e. 1/3EV less exposure than 5DIII) to keep any channel from blowing out.

But regardless of the highlight handling, the D7000 retained a SNR>1 down to the darkest patch, giving it ~13EV DR if your lower limit is SNR of 1. The 5DIII was stuck somewhere around 11.3EV DR (again, assuming lowest acceptable SNR is 1), b/c its SNR went to 1 at patch #35 (whereas D7000 maintained SNR>1 down to patch 42). These patches are 0.1 density increments, so you can calculate the DR by doing the following calculation:

DR = log2[(10^#of patches for which SNR>1)/10)

So that pretty much debunks the whole theory that the Canon sensors might still have really good DR b/c of how they handle highlights.

In fact the whole talk abut cameras handling highlight better is kind of a false premise to begin with for the most part (perhaps the way the color filter array is designed might be a real world difference if it had some weird balance for typical lighting or something). Any standard digital camera handles them the same way (if you compared to one of those dual fuji sensors it might be a more complex story) for any one given channel certainly, the channels goes from unblown to blown, instantly. Differences are never in the highlights, any that seem to be there are just because the standard tone curve chosen was set higher or lower for middle gray. But the sensor capture linearly so what you do is expose so that whatever the brightest thing you want to preserve gets preserved and then dynamic range depends only on dark tone retention.

 

[V8Beast]

I think it's important that we all bitch a bitch so that Canon hears loud and clear. .

I am now seriously considering selling all of my Canon gear.

Money speaks louder than words. You make money with your images, and the D800 allows you to capture and sell images that you couldn't get with the 5DIII. From a business perspective, you absolutely made the right move. If there are enough disgruntled Canon users that jump ship to Nikon because they find the DR of Canon sensors inadequate, they will get the message loud and clear and address the situation.

Until then, in Canon's eyes people on message boards are just a bunch of fanatics that enjoy debating about how sensors perform in a lab, and how those test results might impact their photography if they had the talent to utilize their gear. You have a very impressive portfolio and obviously have the skill set necessary to benefit from the D800's DR advantage over any Canon body on the market. Surely, you must realize that for every pro photog like you, there are many more tech geeks either praising or lamenting about the D800's DR that haven't a clue how to shoot anything beyond a snap shot

My point is that the D800's has a clear advantage in DR, so there's no sense for Canon guys to cry about. Admit it and move on, and if DR is that important to you, switch systems. No need to be in denial, or get so emotional about it If Canon loses enough business over this, they will get the message.

 

[V8Beast]

You misunderstand. The clean shadows means very low (almost non-existent) read noise on the sensor.

That read noise is going to be in every capture, it is only in shadows where it can be most easily demonstrated.

In effect, what this means that even a photo of a blue sky and beach (no shadows or anything) is going to be cleaner on the D800 than the 5D3, even if the signal drowns it out.

So does this mean the D800 is going to make me any more money? I have a pretty good handle on the strengths and weakness of my gear for my type of shooting, and I can emphatically answer no. I also have a pretty good handle on my strengths and weakness as a photographer, and what I need to work on to get the most out of that gear.

When I start losing business because of the read noise in my images, or there is potential to earn more business due to the reduced read noise of the D800, I will switch systems in a heartbeat. Realistically, there are far more variables involved in terms of both camera hardware and shooting technique, that will determine whether or not a client wants to hire me. Everyone has different needs, so if DR is very high on the priority list, purchase the best tool for the job on the market, the D800, and move on.

 

[briansquibb]

Personally, I very rarely have the need to push the shadows that much, and the 5DIII is a better balanced machine for my needs. I just don't see why I should get upset about one aspect of camera performance (DR) that doesn't affect what I shoot all that much.

You misunderstand. The clean shadows means very low (almost non-existent) read noise on the sensor.

That read noise is going to be in every capture, it is only in shadows where it can be most easily demonstrated.

In effect, what this means that even a photo of a blue sky and beach (no shadows or anything) is going to be cleaner on the D800 than the 5D3, even if the signal drowns it out.

Now I understand why when processing raw files from Canon cameras the "black" value is considered to be 2048 (anything under 2048) on a scale of 0-16383 (for each of red, green and blue).

Noise isn't relevant unless it is visible when printed or displayed

 

[risc32]

I ALMOST can't believe we are being told to worry about noise on all of our imagines that we admittedly can't see. That reminds me about the release of the DVD format. All the Laserdisc guys went on and on about the invisible noise from the digital mombo gumbo tricks that are going on, and how it's everywhere and our pictures will suck for it. yeah?

 

[cpsico]

I can honestly see in real world situations where the d800's high Dynamic range would be very welcome. I did some fall shots with some deep shadows that would have been much easier to tweak in photo shop if the 5dII didn't have the amount of shadow noise as it does. Weddings on beach's also come to mind, etc.

Now in the case 5d Mark III it seems to be a well rounded camera capable of sports, studio, great video and in my eyes from the samples i have seen has great color rendition.

I could see the d800 being another tool in my camera bag, but hardly a reason to jump ship. Cameras are tools, and the d800 is a very specific one at that.

 

[pete vella]

so as i see it on nikon forums none are complaining about the dr. they are saying they wanted a camera more like the mkiii in function. so we got the body, and they had to subout the the sensor to sony to get the tech. so nikon has to piece meal their camera together, has to play nice with sony to do it. while canon has to now increase the low iso dr to make us happy. not so bad i think.

 

[pete vella]

tests from dxomark and techradar.
I agree i would be great to improve dr across iso. I also take pride that canon feels they can be master of their own destiny when it comes to camera/sensor making.http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/120_megapixel_apsh_format_cmos_sensor.do For me other than the nikon d3 i dont like the feel of their cameras. Like holding the wrong brush in your hand when painting. Some times it come down to how well you can use it not just how well it works on the spec sheet. Nikons are great cameras and the d800 looks like it may have the best sensor for now; However, I belive for my use the mkiii is the better all around camera.

"The bottom line, is that these are both amazing tools for photography. There are good points and bad points to both. Nothing is ever perfect and the best advice I can give, is for you to evaluate your needs and make your decision based on what you primarily shoot. There are workarounds to every problem but ultimately a photographer needs to know the camera's strengths and weaknesses in order to get the most out of it. " -www.fredmiranda.com

 

[gecko]

So if DR is that important to you - whether it's for practical reasons or just to placate your ego - admit that Canon is inferior at the moment, and buy yourself a D800

I am now seriously considering selling all of my Canon gear.

First time for me too to consider this in 20 years. Not that I have a great deal of stuff.

I was going to buy the 5DIII, but have decided that I don't need the upgrade. Plan B was to use the money saved on a new lens (TS-E 24mm).

5dII plus the TS-E 24 sounded like a great option, but the stellar performance of the D800 is making me wonder......though the Nikon ergonomics tend to put me off.

 

[psolberg]

the low ISO noise on the shadows on the 5DMK III is troubling. Why would this guy shoot mostly a drive way with the D800? I'm sort of dissapointed.

I guess he'll be waiting to see nikon's newly discovered upcoming 17mm TS, and 10mm f/4 lenses

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/27/nikon-patents-for-17mm-f4-tilt-and-shift-10mm-f4-16-30mm-f4-5-5-6-and-28mm-f1-4-lenses.aspx/

I am now seriously considering selling all of my Canon gear.

+1. I am selling once I know I can buy a D800. NO stock anywhere.

so as i see it on nikon forums none are complaining about the dr. they are saying they wanted a camera more like the mkiii in function

the way I see it they already have it. D700 does really good at 8fps and it costs about the same as a 5DMKII. And if you don't need 36MP, 12MP is plenty then. The rumored D600 is also interesting. 24MP sensor with the D800 processor could make it very very fast and push the ISO to 5DmkIII levels or beyond. If they keep that 14stops of DR then they could have a true D700 successor.

 

[Astro]

I ALMOST can't believe we are being told to worry about noise on all of our imagines that we admittedly can't see. That reminds me about the release of the DVD format. All the Laserdisc guys went on and on about the invisible noise from the digital mombo gumbo tricks that are going on, and how it's everywhere and our pictures will suck for it. yeah?

he?

people complaining about the 5D MK2 shadow noise forever, that is nothing new... and has not changed with the 5D MK3.

so i don´t know what your talking about?!

it´s very visible in images when you push the shadows a bit.

if you don´t see how much cleaner the D800 is in the shadow areas then i strongly advice you to go and see an eye doctor.

but i guess it´s the usual ostrich-like fashion.. don´t see what you don´t like.


btw: some people here intermix "read noise" and DR in a way that is wrong.

the D800 has a better DR because the read noise is lower.
not the other way around. a sensor maker has influence on the read noise.

dynamic range = full well capacity (electrons) / read noise (electrons)

so saying we need better DR to have less noise is to put the cart before the horse.

 

[KeithR]

and has not changed with the 5D MK3.

Yeah, about that...

It has changed.

I've downloaded and processed a number of 5D Mk III files, and I've been able to recover a massive amount of data from the shadows with no significant (certainly no unmanageable) noise penalty, and none of the 5D Mk II-style pattern noise the LuLa review managed to dig out.

Frankly I've no idea how Michael Reichmann got such poor results: I've used the new shadows slider in Lr 4 and can easily dig out 4+ stops from the shadows - more if I take a bit of extra care in PP.

Yes, the D800 is still "better" for digging into the shadows, but the 5D Mk III's files are a damn' sight better than they're being given credit for - presumably by people who haven't actually tried for themselves but are happy to pile onto the bashing anyway.

 

[Astro]

and has not changed with the 5D MK3.

Yeah, about that...

It has changed.

to clarify myself....
the difference has not changed between canon and nikon.

the 5D MK3 is a bit better.. but the D800 seems to do a lot better.

so people still complain about the worse shadow noise performance.

people complaining about the 5D MK2 shadow noise forever, that is nothing new... and has not changed with the 5D MK3.

that´s the complete quote.


people can argue about "good enough" as long as they want.
fact is, canon and nikon are in a competition.

who is saying "ok the yankees played good enough"?
you want your team to win.

and if you pay with your hard earned money you want the best you can get.
both are very human feelings.

otherwise lamborghini would not sell a single car outside germany (no speed limit on some highways).

and none of the 5D Mk II-style pattern noise the LuLa review managed to dig out.

Frankly I've no idea how Michael Reichmann got such poor results

what luminous landscape article you are talking about?
or do you mean the fred miranda article?

 

[smirkypants]

I've downloaded and processed a number of 5D Mk III files, and I've been able to recover a massive amount of data from the shadows with no significant (certainly no unmanageable) noise penalty, and none of the 5D Mk II-style pattern noise the LuLa review managed to dig out.

It's night and day, Keith. I'm sorry, it really is. Once again, I'm not trying to just whine or complain needlessly... This is real world stuff here that affects my bottom line.

I'm attaching a file so that people can see. This is a picture I ended up selling. It was shot with a d800 and a 200-400/f4. This is a much smaller part of a larger picture, obviously. The top was the unprocessed raw file and the bottom was the detail brought out from the sunglasses. I have a 5D3, but it can't do this to nearly the same degree.