5D MK3 vs. D800 - fredmiranda

[Astro]

more fuel:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_embarrassment_of_riches.shtml

Image Quality-A Game Changer

I now have to report the exciting news: For me the Nikon D800/D800E is a game changer. Why? Because it is the first 35 mm size camera that exceeds my threshold of image quality for exhibition prints. I have shot hundreds of tests, and in test after test the image quality is surprisingly good. The D800 delivers not just high resolution, but also outstanding dynamic range, extremely low noise and world class color accuracy and sensitivity. I would not hesitate to make 40 or even 50 inch wide exhibition prints from D800 files. Believe me, to go from a large format film view camera to a D800/800E for exhibition prints in a little over a decade is a bit shocking, but such is the incredible pace of innovation in our medium.

I believe that this camera represents the first product of a new era in digital photography.

if your interested in buying the D800 you should read the "However.........." part too.

 

[V8Beast]

more fuel:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_embarrassment_of_riches.shtml

From the same article:

"I have also noticed a similar effect when shooting handheld. Shooting at the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens is not good enough-even with a VRII lens. I would recommend multiplying the focal length of the lens times 3X and using the reciprocal of this number as the minimum shutter speed for maximum handheld quality."

Hey smirky, can you comment on this man's advice? I'd think that 2x the reciprocal would be plenty fast enough on the shutter speed to prevent camera-shake induced blur, but then again, I don't own a D800

The engine shot in that article is pretty killer, and something I can relate to. Usually, to get shadow detail like that, I'm usually popping off-camera flashes and bouncing flash off a reflector.

That said, for hand-held action shots, I'm using holding open the shutter as long as possible, sometimes a 1/2 to 1/3 the reciprocal of the focal length, so obviously a D800 might not be the best tool for that job.

 

[smirkypants]

Hey smirky, can you comment on this man's advice? I'd think that 2x the reciprocal would be plenty fast enough on the shutter speed to prevent camera-shake induced blur, but then again, I don't own a D800

I guess his "however" boils down to "this camera is so good it'll prove how much you suck." Way to aim high. Seriously, that's what he came up with?

I think he has the shakes or something. I shoot a 7 pound lens and the d800 with battery grip and 8 batteries inside handheld, and I get dead sharp shots (as you can see by all the tiny details in the sunglasses... look at those colors! not just detail, colors!!).

Anyway, I shoot f4 and set the minimum shutter speed to 1/1600 and I'm fine... and that's with hauling over ten pounds. I guess if you're shooting in bad light you have to be more careful. If you drink too much coffee, maybe you should consider a different camera.

 

[V8Beast]

Anyway, I shoot f4 and set the minimum shutter speed to 1/1600 and I'm fine... and that's with hauling over ten pounds. I guess if you're shooting in bad light you have to be more careful. If you drink too much coffee, maybe you should consider a different camera.

I do in fact drink too much coffee, but when shooting with IS glass and the 7D - which has even more pixel density than the D800 - I've found that the old 1x the reciprocal of the focal length rule is plenty for sharp images. This isn't the best example, or image for that matter, but I shot this at a 1/15 shutter speed out the back of a bouncy truck on a very bumpy road at 24mm. So once you take the crop factor into account, the shutter speed is 1/2 to 1/3x the reciprocal of the focal length. Sure it's not the most demanding subject in terms of gauging sharpness, but I had a hunch that recommending a shutter speed 3x faster than normal sounded a bit fishy.

 

[risc32]

"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."


Aren't you saying this is a problem, and it's in every picture? While I do have more Canon gear than other makes right now, I'm no fan boy. They have been on the back foot with Nikon since the D3. After a week or using my mk3 i've pulled the fuji 6x9 off the shelf. Or maybe i should use my pentax, graflex, or panasonic, or...

I think this competition is great. that sensor is great. Sure i see the shadow noise in these comparisons. it's an order of magnitude better on the nikon. Cool, I want that. Get to it Canon.

I can't help but wonder, once Sony gets a tighter grip on the market, would you want to be Nikon?

 

[jordanbstead]

If you're accurately exposing - i.e. for the highlights in an image - why in the world would you need to push your shadows five stops? When would you ever push shadows five stops? Even if it did look "good" in terms of noise performance, you're essentially talking about an HDR image at that point.

...And then the conversation is over, because we're talking about HDR.

 

[smirkypants]

If you're accurately exposing - i.e. for the highlights in an image - why in the world would you need to push your shadows five stops? When would you ever push shadows five stops? Even if it did look "good" in terms of noise performance, you're essentially talking about an HDR image at that point.

...And then the conversation is over, because we're talking about HDR.

No. You need to think about this rationally. I pointed the camera at a girl in broad daylight and exposed it properly. The top part of her face was black from the brim of the helmet. There is nothing any photographer can do to fix that absent artificial lighting without completely blowing out the background. I then gently applied the adjustment brush to the top of her face and recovered just that part of the photo. It's not HDR, it's more like dodging on steroids.

Call it what you will. I call it extra cash in my pocket.

 

[V8Beast]

If you're accurately exposing - i.e. for the highlights in an image - why in the world would you need to push your shadows five stops? When would you ever push shadows five stops? Even if it did look "good" in terms of noise performance, you're essentially talking about an HDR image at that point.

...And then the conversation is over, because we're talking about HDR.

No. You need to think about this rationally. I pointed the camera at a girl in broad daylight and exposed it properly. The top part of her face was black from the brim of the helmet. There is nothing any photographer can do to fix that absent artificial lighting without completely blowing out the background. I then gently applied the adjustment brush to the top of her face and recovered just that part of the photo. It's not HDR, it's more like dodging on steroids.

Call it what you will. I call it extra cash in my pocket.

Are all polo chics that hot ? Please post some more pics.

 

[smirkypants]

Are all polo chics that hot ? Please post some more pics.

Just one more. The sun was at her back and her face was completely in shadow. Absent off camera flash, this isn't possible without the extended dynamic range. Everything else about the photo was properly exposed. Of course I pumped up the saturation to fit with the "beach" theme. EXIF is there.

I made a lot of money this past weekend from extended dynamic range.

 

[V8Beast]

I presume the answer is "yes."

I'm digging the shot. Nice color.

 

[sarangiman]

Nice shots smirkypants!

I see banding even when pushing exposures 1.5-2 stops w/ my 5D Mark III. I'm actually switching to Nikon for the time being, b/c the lack of sensor improvement was the colloquial 'last straw' for me. 9-blade apertures standard on Nikon lenses & the 14-24 f/2.8 & the faster AF on the 85mm prime being the other major factors.

Since these cameras/lenses hold their value, the nice thing is that a switch doesn't cost too much monetarily. More so in terms of learning a new system/ergonomics, and I admit I like Canon ergonomics much better.

As well as their entire radio-triggered wireless flash setup with the 600EX-RT...

As well as their cross-type AF sensors all over their field.

As well as their Live View implementation.

As well as their... oh dangit!

WHAT DO I DO??

 

[87vr6]

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.

Well, I'm sure this ensures you pick the right camera for all those NatGeo contest winning Stouffer Transmission Wedge pictures everybody is clamoring for!! Call the NY times!! Wedge pictures here, get yer wedge pictures here!!

God pixel peepers are a joke. Ansel Adams surely never questioned this type of crap.

 

[xps]

Waiting for an big megapixelcamera from Canon

On Friday I was allowed to use the D800, as the Institution I´m working at, is testing cameras (we need a lot of them for our photographers). The 5DMk3, we tested some days ago is very good, when you don´t have much light and you are not allowed to use an flashlight. But my heart stopped beating, when I saw the quality of the D800s pictures we took in the operating theatre, outside of the building (landsape,...) and shooting portraits. The quality is great! Really great! The product specialist of the selling company used lightroom to optimize the imagequality. But the result was amazing.
I took some pictures of flyinging birds around the builiding and landing helicopters. As the helicopters were approaching fast and I had just some seconds to take the shot, I can say, that the AF is very fast.

As I´m owning just Canon cameras, I´ll pray for an pedant from Canon (or an payable 7D MKII)

 

[Astro]

Well, I'm sure this ensures you pick the right camera for all those NatGeo contest winning Stouffer Transmission Wedge pictures everybody is clamoring for!! Call the NY times!! Wedge pictures here, get yer wedge pictures here!!

God pixel peepers are a joke. Ansel Adams surely never questioned this type of crap.

said the ostrich..... oh... narrow minded fanboy i wanted to say.

 

[Canon-F1]

God pixel peepers are a joke. Ansel Adams surely never questioned this type of crap.

mentioning ansel adams doesn´t make you one.

when it´s from nikon it can not be good .. right?
in fact people who can´t admit that other companys build great cameras are a sad joke.

if someon had posted the same test but with a great result for a canon camera, i bet you (and others) would be all praise and glory. it´s ridiculous.

especially as this is clearly a forum/website focused on the GEAR side of photography.
only when nikon, sony etc. gets some praise the "ansel adams posse" make an appearance with the "but gear does not make good pictures" argument.

well yeah im sure we all heard it a trilion times by now... it´s not as if these people tell something new. :

 

[spinworkxroy]

I wish i had the money….i'd have gotten BOTH the 5D3 and D800E
I love the detail on the Nikon but i also love the ISO on the Canon..if only i had both cameras haha..
Again, i guess Canon shooters will stay with Canon and Nikon with Nikon…it's just like the Mac vs PC argument…and i use both daily so…i wish i could do the same for cameras..if only someone made universal lenses (no adapters)
However i must admit something, even on the 5D3, i'm shooting at mJpg and mRaw..i;m not sure what i'll do with a 36mp file I'd most likely also shoot at under 10mp on the D800..kinda pointless to get it don't you think..

 

[gecko]

The D800 has left the station..........and Canon passengers are standing on the platform with only a rumour of their train coming.......sometime.

 

[psolberg]

The image from the Canon sensor is as noisy as all hell (splotchy? banded?) whereas the Nikon one is noise free. That tells me that Canon still haven't fixed the noise issues that were integral with the 5D2.

Yes I was quite shocked by it too. That EXMOR sensor is ridiculously for that.

I wish i had the money….i'd have gotten BOTH the 5D3 and D800E
I love the detail on the Nikon but i also love the ISO on the Canon..if only i had both cameras haha..
Again, i guess Canon shooters will stay with Canon and Nikon with Nikon…it's just like the Mac vs PC argument…and i use both daily so…i wish i could do the same for cameras..if only someone made universal lenses (no adapters)
However i must admit something, even on the 5D3, i'm shooting at mJpg and mRaw..i;m not sure what i'll do with a 36mp file I'd most likely also shoot at under 10mp on the D800..kinda pointless to get it don't you think..

I'm not The D800 is the 5DmkIII camera I was hoping canon would make so that's why I'm getting a D800. Nikon has had a fast FPS low MP, full frame body with real AF that is under 3K since 2008. But that's not what I'm after. I mostly shoot in good gorgeous big and soft light and low ISO and what the most detail, DR, and quality possible. Maybe canon will win me back in a few years with the 5Dmk4. But for now, nothing canon makes even remotely approaches the quality of output of the D800 at that price point.

 

[skitron]

From that review, it is this page:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

That is most interesting. Why?

Because about half way down, they take the same shot from the D800/5D3 and 100% crop of the shadows.

The image from the Canon sensor is as noisy as all hell (splotchy? banded?) whereas the Nikon one is noise free. That tells me that Canon still haven't fixed the noise issues that were integral with the 5D2.

All that post did was make me go test my lowly 5D2 the same way, push shadows the same degree, and conclude one of two things:

Either Lightroom totally blows chunks,

OR

FM is not a site I will be visiting again due to lack of credibility.

Sorry, but recovering shadows with Capture One 6 gave me very pleasing results with 5D2 with none of the artifacts I see on the FM post. The D800 is better than what I get from my 5D2, but the difference is nothing even remotely like what is posted on that site.

 

[sarangiman]

God pixel peepers are a joke. Ansel Adams surely never questioned this type of crap.

That's pretty comical, especially if you've read any of Ansel Adams' (very scientific) writing.

skitron: I'm not at all surprised by your observations. I own the 5Dc, 5DII, & 5DIII, & have taken numerous photos with friends' 5D/5DII. Banding often varies from body to body, I find. For example, it's not too offensive on my own 5DII. But it's easily seen on my 5DIII, albeit only in the vertical direction (landscape orientation).

As for comments on having two systems: Nikon for landscapes & Canon for everything else... true extended DR is extremely useful for landscapes, but often I find myself wanting to lift shadows in other types of photography where something wasn't ideal (wrong exposure b/c of backlight, flash created unwanted shadow because of suboptimal placement, or I don't have time/ability for an off-camera flash setup yet want the background landscape as well as the people in the shot). For these types of shots, the Nikon would undoubtedly be more forgiving. In fact, low read noise downstream of ISO gain application allows for more aggressive exposure compensation in post (i.e. I believe the D800 is a step in the direction of the theoretical ISO-less camera).