5D MK3 vs. D800 - fredmiranda

[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.

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.

Ironic you mention Ansel Adams who was the ultimate pixel peeper of his time and someone who spent countless hours doing special dark room processing and picking the right films and manipulating them in every possible effort to handle dynamic range better.

He was a total tech head and he spent endless hours in the wet lab.

He was the guy who questioned that sort of stuff MORE than perhaps anyone of his time. ;D

He was an artist AND a tech head.

 

[MattBicePhotography]

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.

Amen,

Let me blow your mind a little. Converted using DPP and pushed in CS5.5

AND......

obviously these could not have been taken by a 5D3............. : : :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbicephotography/ here is my photostream so you can go look at the pictures at full size. I think LR4.1 RC certainly works better with Nikon.

 

[V8Beast]

Ironic you mention Ansel Adams who was the ultimate pixel peeper of his time and someone who spent countless hours doing special dark room processing and picking the right films and manipulating them in every possible effort to handle dynamic range better.

He was a total tech head and he spent endless hours in the wet lab.

He was the guy who questioned that sort of stuff MORE than perhaps anyone of his time. ;D

He was an artist AND a tech head.

That's kinda the point. Tech heads are often poor photographers, and great photographers are often clueless when it comes to the technical aspects of photography. The best photogs are both artists and tech heads like you say, but unfortunately, there seems to be an overwhelming number of tech heads around these parts

 

[sarangiman]

Matt, that's very interesting! Do you think DPP is just doing more noise reduction, or perhaps using the top rows of the RAW data to offset vertical banding? Those shadows look much cleaner than what LR is producing, as you yourself have noted.

I haven't even tried DPP yet... perhaps it is time to.

 

[Fishnose]

That's kinda the point. Tech heads are often poor photographers, and great photographers are often clueless when it comes to the technical aspects of photography. The best photogs are both artists and tech heads like you say, but unfortunately, there seems to be an overwhelming number of tech heads around these parts

Uh, no. There is no correlation whatsoever between techiness (or not) and artistry.

Being a tech head and being artistic are in no way connected. You can be one or the other, or both, or neither.

 

[sarangiman]

Uh, no. There is no correlation whatsoever between techiness (or not) and artistry.

Being a tech head and being artistic are in no way connected. You can be one or the other, or both, or neither.

+1.

These posts attacking so-called 'tech heads' on a forum topic initially started to discuss the low ISO sensor performance of the 5DIII vs. the D800 baffle me. It's just noise injected into an otherwise intelligent conversation where we're just trying to understand & discuss the magnitude of the differences between these sensors.

Let's keep the conversation productive.

 

[MattBicePhotography]

Matt, that's very interesting! Do you think DPP is just doing more noise reduction, or perhaps using the top rows of the RAW data to offset vertical banding? Those shadows look much cleaner than what LR is producing, as you yourself have noted.

I haven't even tried DPP yet... perhaps it is time to.

Im no photo-software writer. I got no clue. All I know is Canon probably knows how to handle their own files best and, I am getting much cleaner results using this technique. There is quite a bit of detail there as well. I mean look at the painted over surface of the bricks. You can see all the holes and flaws in the brick quite clearly. Here is a crop of the same area boosted in LR4.1 RC.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Ironic you mention Ansel Adams who was the ultimate pixel peeper of his time and someone who spent countless hours doing special dark room processing and picking the right films and manipulating them in every possible effort to handle dynamic range better.

He was a total tech head and he spent endless hours in the wet lab.

He was the guy who questioned that sort of stuff MORE than perhaps anyone of his time. ;D

He was an artist AND a tech head.

That's kinda the point. Tech heads are often poor photographers, and great photographers are often clueless when it comes to the technical aspects of photography. The best photogs are both artists and tech heads like you say, but unfortunately, there seems to be an overwhelming number of tech heads around these parts

The point is that some of the supposed pure artists who eschewed all sorts of technical 'nonsense' were actually tech heads who did anything but and that is dangerous to make assumptions.

I haven't noticed that tech heads are any more often poor photographers anyway. I will also say that even if a given tech head is a terrible photographer, even then, so what? That has little bearing on anything even in the cases where it is true.

 

[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.

Amen,

Let me blow your mind a little. Converted using DPP and pushed in CS5.5

AND......

obviously these could not have been taken by a 5D3............. : : :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbicephotography/ here is my photostream so you can go look at the pictures at full size. I think LR4.1 RC certainly works better with Nikon.

LOL, so the 5D3 totally sucks at DR and has nothing but noise and banding in the shadows.

Well at least according to FM and every parrot on the internet.

And all you have to do to "unlock" that nasty "feature" is use Adobe Lightroom.

Plus with LR your 5D3 files get the bonus feature of that soft look.

...glad i don't own that POS (LR that is).

 

[sarangiman]

Plus with LR your 5D3 files get the bonus feature of that soft look.

...glad i don't own that POS (LR that is).

I hope that was a joke

Well I just tried DPP 3.11.26. Initially I thought the image looked cleaner but that's because it's applying luminance noise reduction which actually makes the image appear softer than in LR. You can get a similar effect in LR by applying luminance NR. The banding is still there in my images, even in DPP. I doubt it's doing any additional intelligent subtraction to get rid of banding (or if it is, LR is doing just as much, since I see pretty equivalent amounts of banding). DPP's sharpening is useless & introduces weird artifacts (puts a weird texture all over the image when raised).

Anyone else want to give this DPP vs. LR comparison a try to see how shadows are handled?

Matt, it's possible your particular 5D3 sensor just has less banding...?

 

[MattBicePhotography]

Plus with LR your 5D3 files get the bonus feature of that soft look.

...glad i don't own that POS (LR that is).

I hope that was a joke

Well I just tried DPP 3.11.26. Initially I thought the image looked cleaner but that's because it's applying luminance noise reduction which actually makes the image appear softer than in LR. You can get a similar effect in LR by applying luminance NR. The banding is still there in my images, even in DPP. I doubt it's doing any additional intelligent subtraction to get rid of banding (or if it is, LR is doing just as much, since I see pretty equivalent amounts of banding). DPP's sharpening is useless & introduces weird artifacts (puts a weird texture all over the image when raised).

Anyone else want to give this DPP vs. LR comparison a try to see how shadows are handled?

Matt, it's possible your particular 5D3 sensor just has less banding...?

The banding is certainly there when really pushed. It just seems much cleaner. I just adjusted the Luminance NR and it does get rid of a lot of that noise. it seems to get rid of some of the banding too which I think is made far more obvious by the presence of noise.

 

[skitron]

Plus with LR your 5D3 files get the bonus feature of that soft look.

...glad i don't own that POS (LR that is).

I hope that was a joke

Well yes and no. It has been shown in another thread that LR is responsible for many of the "soft shot" complaints aboout the 5D3.

As for Adobe, I have full confidence they will release something with very good output and a not so great workflow and UI. At least that is my experience and perception.

 

[V8Beast]

The point is that some of the supposed pure artists who eschewed all sorts of technical 'nonsense' were actually tech heads who did anything but and that is dangerous to make assumptions.

Never disagreed with you on that, bud Like you said, the best photogs are often great artists and tech heads. However, there are LOTS of tech heads at the professional level who are very tech savvy, yet produce very mediocre images. So when people online start talking a bunch of trash without ever posting portfolios or a single sample image, I get a little suspicious

I haven't noticed that tech heads are any more often poor photographers anyway.

I take it you know a lot of pro photogs that you rub shoulders with and compete with on a daily basis? Next time you meet one in real life (not online), ask what his or her opinion is on Canon's poor DxO scores and Nikon's superior DR. I'd be surprised if they've ever even heard of DxO's sensor testing. Maybe I just hang out with a dumb group of photogs

I will also say that even if a given tech head is a terrible photographer, even then, so what? That has little bearing on anything even in the cases where it is true.

I beg to differ. If a photog with the chops to take advantage of the D800's DR, like smirkypants, encounters these situations in his own shooting, and uses that DR to improve his images, it's a legitimate issue. On top of that, he's using this DR advantage to generate additional revenue. That's as legit as it gets.

However, if you're some tech head (this isn't directed at you) that posts links to other people's blogs as examples of why you personally need 14 stops of DR, and anything less is unacceptable, you have no credibility. You're basically implying that if you shot in X situation, then you'd need 14 stops of DR, but since you don't here's a link to someone else's blog. This implies that these people are more in love with the idea of having more DR than actually needing more DR in real life shooting scenarios. That's kinda lame, don't you think?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The point is that some of the supposed pure artists who eschewed all sorts of technical 'nonsense' were actually tech heads who did anything but and that is dangerous to make assumptions.

Never disagreed with you on that, bud Like you said, the best photogs are often great artists and tech heads. However, there are LOTS of tech heads at the professional level who are very tech savvy, yet produce very mediocre images. So when people online start talking a bunch of trash without ever posting portfolios or a single sample image, I get a little suspicious

OTOH I've noted quite a number of galleries belonging to those who most strongly beat down tech heads that have nothing but a few dozen out of focus, weirdly exposed, photos of cats in their backyard.

I haven't noticed that tech heads are any more often poor photographers anyway.

I take it you know a lot of pro photogs that you rub shoulders with and compete with on a daily basis? Next time you meet one in real life (not online), ask what his or her opinion is on Canon's poor DxO scores and Nikon's superior DR. I'd be surprised if they've ever even heard of DxO's sensor testing. Maybe I just hang out with a dumb group of photogs

I know a few tech heads who easily out shot quite a few people in the arts/journalism. Of course I know some great shooters in the latter as well. Anyway I just haven't noted that tech heads tend to be worse photographers.

I ran into a Getty shooter in Best Buy who was griping about how awful Nikon sensors were and jealously peeping at my Canon and talking about switching (this was quite a few years ago). He seemed to know all about sensors and their relative performance.

I hung around sports guys more when it came to pros and they were more often talking about AF.

I will also say that even if a given tech head is a terrible photographer, even then, so what? That has little bearing on anything even in the cases where it is true.

I beg to differ. If a photog with the chops to take advantage of the D800's DR, like smirkypants, encounters these situations in his own shooting, and uses that DR to improve his images, it's a legitimate issue. On top of that, he's using this DR advantage to generate additional revenue. That's as legit as it gets.

However, if you're some tech head (this isn't directed at you) that posts links to other people's blogs as examples of why you personally need 14 stops of DR, and anything less is unacceptable, you have no credibility. You're basically implying that if you shot in X situation, then you'd need 14 stops of DR, but since you don't here's a link to someone else's blog. This implies that these people are more in love with the idea of having more DR than actually needing more DR in real life shooting scenarios. That's kinda lame, don't you think?

[/quote]

I disagree. Even if they don't shoot great art they can still know what they are talking about and they can still notice that certain types of snapshots they take don't work out as well due to say not enough dynamic range etc. and it's 100% transferable to someone who takes shots with greater artistry. I don't think it is lame at all.
They could easily think of ways a certain wedding or landscape shot could make use of DR and it could even be from their own practice and it doesn't matter whether they have a great eye for style or not.

You could then turn around and say that someone with a great eye but no tech knowledge shouldn't be allowed to talk about needing dynamic range or not because they don't understand how sensors work or something. That doesn't make sense either.

 

[V8Beast]

I disagree. Even if they don't shoot great art they can still know what they are talking about and they can still notice that certain types of snapshots they take don't work out as well due to say not enough dynamic range etc. and it's 100% transferable to someone who takes shots with greater artistry. I don't think it is lame at all.
They could easily think of ways a certain wedding or landscape shot could make use of DR and it could even be from their own practice and it doesn't matter whether they have a great eye for style or not.

I'm not so much talking about style as I am technique. Obviously, if you shoot landscapes you're stuck with what light mother nature gives you. The option of pulling shadow detail is great under certain circumstances, but if you have the ability to manipulate the quantity or quality of light, you'll do it every single time instead of cranking up on the shadows slider. Whether you're using something as simple as reflectors or off-camera flash, or something a bit more advanced like monolights, 30-foot softboxes, or gazillion yard long muslins to diffuse natural light, the quality of light often takes precedence over the quantity of light. Why else would high-end commercial photogs - one of the few remaining groups of photogs that are actually wealthy - bother with monolights, 30-foot softboxes, and gazillion yard long muslins?

The D800 is a beast in terms of shadow recovery, but IMHO, while boosting the shadows changes the quantity of light, it does not affect the quality. Shadow light if pretty $hitty stuff, and if you have the luxury and know-how to manipulate your lighting, it yields far greater results than relying on a camera's DR. Technology is great, but technology is no substitute for technique, and those that can combine technology in conjunction with technique are the badass mofos that hacks like me aspire to be someday ;D

You could then turn around and say that someone with a great eye but no tech knowledge shouldn't be allowed to talk about needing dynamic range or not because they don't understand how sensors work or something. That doesn't make sense either.

This doesn't address your statement directly, but people that naturally have great eyes for composition are awfully tough competition, even if they're clueless when it comes to anything tech related. All the tech stuff can be learned, as can technique, but some people are just born with a natural gift for light and composition that can't be learned. People like me can try as hard as I want, but these folks generally kick my @ss every single time

 

[briansquibb]

I'm not so much talking about style as I am technique. Obviously, if you shoot landscapes you're stuck with what light mother nature gives you. The option of pulling shadow detail is great under certain circumstances, but if you have the ability to manipulate the quantity or quality of light, you'll do it every single time instead of cranking up on the shadows slider. Whether you're using something as simple as reflectors or off-camera flash, or something a bit more advanced like monolights, 30-foot softboxes, or gazillion yard long muslins to diffuse natural light, the quality of light often takes precedence over the quantity of light. Why else would high-end commercial photogs - one of the few remaining groups of photogs that are actually wealthy - bother with monolights, 30-foot softboxes, and gazillion yard long muslins?

I take a lot of portraits/indoor shots. I have been focussing on quality of light as I found the standard umbrellas to be too harsh - my light sources have to be transportable as I go to the subject rather than use a studio.

Possibly my biggest single improvement recently was the move to 7 foot parabola umbrellas coupled with the use of 1/4 cto stophen on the main shoot through light. At about £100/c. 150usd each (I have 3) the quality of light significantly improved for less the cost of a decent lens.

I find that DR (as shown in the DPP histogram) of 8 or more seems to give top IQ - this is about 2/3 of the histogram on the camera. I have found that good quality light plus good exposure means you dont have to push the shadows.

I always have a flash in the bag to help me out with the dark areas in strong sunlight - this is the way we did it with film - and the technique works for digital too - remember those wonderful hammerhead Vivitars? Contra jour was handled with a small (36 inch) reflector to get light onto the face

Clearly there will always be occasions when you have to push the exposure - but good technique will get that down to the very rare exception for the majority of shooters. If this is true for a puchaser of either the 5D3/D800 then the shadow performance will become less important than the other features.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I disagree. Even if they don't shoot great art they can still know what they are talking about and they can still notice that certain types of snapshots they take don't work out as well due to say not enough dynamic range etc. and it's 100% transferable to someone who takes shots with greater artistry. I don't think it is lame at all.
They could easily think of ways a certain wedding or landscape shot could make use of DR and it could even be from their own practice and it doesn't matter whether they have a great eye for style or not.

I'm not so much talking about style as I am technique. Obviously, if you shoot landscapes you're stuck with what light mother nature gives you. The option of pulling shadow detail is great under certain circumstances, but if you have the ability to manipulate the quantity or quality of light, you'll do it every single time instead of cranking up on the shadows slider. Whether you're using something as simple as reflectors or off-camera flash, or something a bit more advanced like monolights, 30-foot softboxes, or gazillion yard long muslins to diffuse natural light, the quality of light often takes precedence over the quantity of light. Why else would high-end commercial photogs - one of the few remaining groups of photogs that are actually wealthy - bother with monolights, 30-foot softboxes, and gazillion yard long muslins?

The D800 is a beast in terms of shadow recovery, but IMHO, while boosting the shadows changes the quantity of light, it does not affect the quality. Shadow light if pretty $hitty stuff, and if you have the luxury and know-how to manipulate your lighting, it yields far greater results than relying on a camera's DR. Technology is great, but technology is no substitute for technique, and those that can combine technology in conjunction with technique are the badass mofos that hacks like me aspire to be someday ;D

Yeah but that sort of commercial shooting is but only one small segment of photography. That is not my circle at all.

You could then turn around and say that someone with a great eye but no tech knowledge shouldn't be allowed to talk about needing dynamic range or not because they don't understand how sensors work or something. That doesn't make sense either.

This doesn't address your statement directly, but people that naturally have great eyes for composition are awfully tough competition, even if they're clueless when it comes to anything tech related. All the tech stuff can be learned, as can technique, but some people are just born with a natural gift for light and composition that can't be learned. People like me can try as hard as I want, but these folks generally kick my @ss every single time

[/quote]

but that is another subject entirely

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm not so much talking about style as I am technique. Obviously, if you shoot landscapes you're stuck with what light mother nature gives you. The option of pulling shadow detail is great under certain circumstances, but if you have the ability to manipulate the quantity or quality of light, you'll do it every single time instead of cranking up on the shadows slider. Whether you're using something as simple as reflectors or off-camera flash, or something a bit more advanced like monolights, 30-foot softboxes, or gazillion yard long muslins to diffuse natural light, the quality of light often takes precedence over the quantity of light. Why else would high-end commercial photogs - one of the few remaining groups of photogs that are actually wealthy - bother with monolights, 30-foot softboxes, and gazillion yard long muslins?

I take a lot of portraits/indoor shots. I have been focussing on quality of light as I found the standard umbrellas to be too harsh - my light sources have to be transportable as I go to the subject rather than use a studio.

Possibly my biggest single improvement recently was the move to 7 foot parabola umbrellas coupled with the use of 1/4 cto stophen on the main shoot through light. At about £100/c. 150usd each (I have 3) the quality of light significantly improved for less the cost of a decent lens.

I find that DR (as shown in the DPP histogram) of 8 or more seems to give top IQ - this is about 2/3 of the histogram on the camera. I have found that good quality light plus good exposure means you dont have to push the blacks.

I always have a flash in the bag to help me out with the dark areas in strong sunlight - this is the way we did it with film - and the technique works for digital too - remember those wonderful hammerhead Vivitars? Contra jour was handled with a small (36 inch) reflector to get light onto the face

Clearly there will always be occasions when you have to push the exposure - but good technique will get that down to the very rare exception for the majority of shooters. If this is true for a puchaser of either the 5D3/D800 then the shadow performance will become less important than the other features.

Well it depends upon the world you come from. You two are doing tons of portraits, commercial set up shots, etc.
Yeah it's a very rare exception perhaps in your circles, fine enough, but there are other circles entirely outside that sort of photography. Believe it or not many people have shot tens of thousands of shots and yet few of them have even touched the sorts of shooting that seems to make up 90%+ of your work. it's one thing to say it is vanishingly rare circumstance that needs more DR in your world but it's not fair to them assume your world is everyone else's world. I don't even personally know any commercial shoot type photographers and I've never dabbled in that myself ever. That is the stuff you deal with all the time so it's easy to think that makes up like 95% of photography, but it doesn't.

 

[briansquibb]

Well it depends upon the world you come from. You two are doing tons of portraits, commercial set up shots, etc.
Yeah it's a very rare exception perhaps in your circles, fine enough, but there are other circles entirely outside that sort of photography. Believe it or not many people have shot tens of thousands of shots and yet few of them have even touched the sorts of shooting that seems to make up 90%+ of your work. it's one thing to say it is vanishingly rare circumstance that needs more DR in your world but it's not fair to them assume your world is everyone else's world. I don't even personally know any commercial shoot type photographers and I've never dabbled in that myself ever. That is the stuff you deal with all the time so it's easy to think that makes up like 95% of photography, but it doesn't.

Well actually I dont do anything commercial and my subjects are anything that finds itself in front of my lens. I shoot anything from birding/wildlife/sports/portaits of animals and humans but I actually used to specialise in street work. I soon realised that there was little difference between a street shot and a soccer shot - just the content, the tech stuff is all the same. 99% of my shots are grab shots

I struggle with pure studio work - the tech stuff is easy but controlling the scene is hard in comparison to watching it unfold.

 

[nightbreath]

Amen,

Let me blow your mind a little. Converted using DPP and pushed in CS5.5

AND......

obviously these could not have been taken by a 5D3............. : : :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbicephotography/ here is my photostream so you can go look at the pictures at full size. I think LR4.1 RC certainly works better with Nikon.

Would someone write them an email with these findings? Would be great if they can improve their algorithms