5D3 Dynamic Range
- Thread starter jaayres20
- Start date
- Status
justsomedude said:
D700 Mk II.
But seriously, EVERY camera is a competitor. People will decide between 5d3 and a 7d, or a rebel. The 5d3 might lose out due to price. The D700 and 5d2 are competitors. But I would say yea, the d800 is the primary competitor, if only because that is what people are comparing it to. People who are in the market for a $3000 FF camera will look at the 5d3 and d800 and decide between them. that makes them competitors! So yea, they are all apples.
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
Tcapp said:justsomedude said:
D700 Mk II.
But seriously, EVERY camera is a competitor. People will decide between 5d3 and a 7d, or a rebel. The 5d3 might lose out due to price. The D700 and 5d2 are competitors. But I would say yea, the d800 is the primary competitor, if only because that is what people are comparing it to. People who are in the market for a $3000 FF camera will look at the 5d3 and d800 and decide between them. that makes them competitors! So yea, they are all apples.
Might as well say the 1D4 then as the 5DIII is only a little less.
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:Tcapp said:justsomedude said:
D700 Mk II.
But seriously, EVERY camera is a competitor. People will decide between 5d3 and a 7d, or a rebel. The 5d3 might lose out due to price. The D700 and 5d2 are competitors. But I would say yea, the d800 is the primary competitor, if only because that is what people are comparing it to. People who are in the market for a $3000 FF camera will look at the 5d3 and d800 and decide between them. that makes them competitors! So yea, they are all apples.
Might as well say the 1D4 then as the 5DIII is only a little less.
My point exactly. People are ridiculous to say they one camera isn't a competitor to another. They all are!
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:
I hate to say anything critical to anyone, and you are both correct. JPEG has 8 bits of data per channel. And a statement involving the word "it" can always be assumed true--we have no idea about the object to which "it" is referring.
However, you are saying something correct and then jumping to a completely unrelated conclusion. Here's the missing information:
* JPEG is not encoded with linear gamma, and never has been with any digital camera.
"If images are not gamma encoded, they allocate too many bits or too much bandwidth to highlights that humans cannot differentiate, and too few bits/bandwidth to shadow values that humans are sensitive to and would require more bits/bandwidth to maintain the same visual quality."
* One bit and one stop have nothing to do with each other. It's also completely ridiculous to define dynamic range in terms of bits--it is only meaningful if defined in terms of stops.
If you have ever taken a class about encoding mechanisms, one of the first things one learns is, "The first thing to remember is that bit depth and dynamic range are NOT the same thing. It is going to sound much the same, but it's not."
The terminology used on this forum is sometimes as silly as someone saying, "I am going to itch my mosquito bite" when they mean "scratch my mosquito bite."
If you have ever taken a picture with part of it dark or part of it bright, you are seeing the effect of dynamic range. It has absolutely nothing to do with the file format. RAW extends the dynamic range provided that the same gamma curve is applied in the image encoding.
An increased dynamic range in the camera has a proportional effect on the dynamic range of both the JPEG and the RAW image. You can understand this if you will be patient enough to consider the example of an interval of real numbers.
The RAW image corresponds to the interval [-x, x]. The JPEG image corresponds to the interval [-cx, cx], where c is between 0 and 1. A change in the dynamic range corresponds to a change in x. The effects on both the RAW and JPEG images are proportional to one another.
One good article to read is this one:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/
It also talks about noise in addition to dynamic range. There are books to read about this subject as well.
Upvote
0
There's another way to put this in perspective.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the 5DIII has 12 stops of DR and the D800 has 14 stops, both at ISO 100.
And let's also say that you take a picture of an incredibly contrasty scene where you want to boost the shadows by four stops, and that you can't (for whatever reason) fix the light or shoot HDR. We're talking a noontime shot of a garden, including a shed where you need the interior of the shed to look like you've got a flash hidden in the shed even though you don't.
Conceptually, that's roughly equivalent to making two simultaneous exposures, one at ISO 100 and the other at ISO 1600, and combining them with HDR techniques. The camera will certainly be cleaner when actually exposed at ISO 1600 than by boosting the exposure in post, but it's the same basic idea.
What those two extra stops (if they really exist, and I'm not entirely sure they do) mean, in this situation, is that the pushed-four-stops shadows of the D800 for ISO 1600 equivalent will have roughly the same noise and detail as pushed-two-stops ISO 400 equivalent of the 5DIII. Or, conversely, the pushed-four-stops ISO 1600 equivalent of the 5DIII will be as noisy as pushed-six-stops ISO 6400 equivalent of the D800.
Now, I'm sure we've all seen the high ISO comparisons between these cameras, and there just isn't a whole lot of difference between two stops in the cameras -- at least, not until you get to insane six-digit ISOs. There are differences, sure, but not a whole lot in real-world terms.
All you Nikon fanboys out there, tell me: does ISO 6400 on the D800 suck donkey balls compared to ISO 1600 (still on the D800)? No? I didn't think so. I certainly don't think so -- I think ISO 6400 on the D800 is mind-blowingly good. But that's the degree of image quality difference you're saying the dynamic range differences makes the 5DIII suck donkey balls in comparison to the D800.
So, feel free to continue to claim that the 5DIII is the worst camera on the planet. All you're doing is making it plain to everybody who's actually a photographer and who's ever actually done any kind of post-processing that you've never actually held one of these cameras in your hand.
They're both amazing, fantastic, incredible cameras. And anybody picking the one or the other based purely on megapickle counts or DxO numbers is an idiot. There's plenty to distinguish the two cameras -- lens systems, framerate, autofocus performance, ergonomics, and maybe a few other things. Image quality is pretty much the least significant differentiating quality between the two.
And, as always, if the image quality of the 5DIII won't cut the mustard, neither will the image quality of the D800. You need to look to the world of 80-megapickle (and more) medium format systems before you get a meaningful difference in image quality. Are those cameras insanely expensive? Not to those who use and need them; for them, the equipment almost comes out of the petty cash budget.
Cheers,
b&
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the 5DIII has 12 stops of DR and the D800 has 14 stops, both at ISO 100.
And let's also say that you take a picture of an incredibly contrasty scene where you want to boost the shadows by four stops, and that you can't (for whatever reason) fix the light or shoot HDR. We're talking a noontime shot of a garden, including a shed where you need the interior of the shed to look like you've got a flash hidden in the shed even though you don't.
Conceptually, that's roughly equivalent to making two simultaneous exposures, one at ISO 100 and the other at ISO 1600, and combining them with HDR techniques. The camera will certainly be cleaner when actually exposed at ISO 1600 than by boosting the exposure in post, but it's the same basic idea.
What those two extra stops (if they really exist, and I'm not entirely sure they do) mean, in this situation, is that the pushed-four-stops shadows of the D800 for ISO 1600 equivalent will have roughly the same noise and detail as pushed-two-stops ISO 400 equivalent of the 5DIII. Or, conversely, the pushed-four-stops ISO 1600 equivalent of the 5DIII will be as noisy as pushed-six-stops ISO 6400 equivalent of the D800.
Now, I'm sure we've all seen the high ISO comparisons between these cameras, and there just isn't a whole lot of difference between two stops in the cameras -- at least, not until you get to insane six-digit ISOs. There are differences, sure, but not a whole lot in real-world terms.
All you Nikon fanboys out there, tell me: does ISO 6400 on the D800 suck donkey balls compared to ISO 1600 (still on the D800)? No? I didn't think so. I certainly don't think so -- I think ISO 6400 on the D800 is mind-blowingly good. But that's the degree of image quality difference you're saying the dynamic range differences makes the 5DIII suck donkey balls in comparison to the D800.
So, feel free to continue to claim that the 5DIII is the worst camera on the planet. All you're doing is making it plain to everybody who's actually a photographer and who's ever actually done any kind of post-processing that you've never actually held one of these cameras in your hand.
They're both amazing, fantastic, incredible cameras. And anybody picking the one or the other based purely on megapickle counts or DxO numbers is an idiot. There's plenty to distinguish the two cameras -- lens systems, framerate, autofocus performance, ergonomics, and maybe a few other things. Image quality is pretty much the least significant differentiating quality between the two.
And, as always, if the image quality of the 5DIII won't cut the mustard, neither will the image quality of the D800. You need to look to the world of 80-megapickle (and more) medium format systems before you get a meaningful difference in image quality. Are those cameras insanely expensive? Not to those who use and need them; for them, the equipment almost comes out of the petty cash budget.
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
I'll try to actually answer your quick "?" with a relevant answer. 
Not a lot, under most conditions.
considering that you're not shooting raw, and your typical subject matter, your approach is a reasonable and practical one that's working for you.
It'll take more effort, card memory and time to post process raw files to extract a little more from them under the harsher lighting conditions where it may benefit some shots.
However, shooting raw and more PP work would likely give you more of an improvement than shooting jpg on a D800. Then again, Nikon's active D-Lighting can work quite nicely on jpg only output too so also worth considering; you may prefer how it would impact your current workflow.
High end cameras like the 5D3 and D800 do a pretty good job of fitting the DR of the scene into a fairly pleasing jpg output. Altho they both do pretty a similar job, they do it slightly differently so each camera's jpg output of the same scene will look a little different and there'll also be a wide variation on each body's rendering of the shot depending on all those jpeg-relevant options you select in each camera.
If you have the opportunity, you should try shooting some test shots alongside your usual method using a D800 and trying some of its settings to see how it changes the jpeg output. You could also try a D7000 or even a D5100 as they all have similarly high DR at base ISO and more than Canon's.
I remember reading someone recently posting on one of CR's forums here how much better he thought the D800 did in hi contrast, sunlight sitations where he was able to not only recover nice luminance information, from people's faces in a mix of sunlight and shade on one face, but that there was more COLOR and detail information to be had from the D800 in this situation too. He claimed this was the difference between selling a shot or not. He posted an example but honestly I can't confirm that this would be correct since I didn't buy a 5D3 and I don't know how long I still have to wait for my D800. Considering that the shadow area adjacent to a sunlight area on the same surface is only a few stops difference at most I can't see the 5D3 having any trouble accomplishing the same thing.
The greater color information, extractable from the darker areas, CAN be better with the D800 than with most of Canon's cameras because of the lack of noise in the D800's shadows compared to the Canon's. Canon's dark noise tends to include a lot of red channel noise; when shadows are boosted you may have to subdue it by reducing some color saturation in the shadow areas which can yeild a less pleasing image. You typically have to push very dark areas very far before this is a problem and the 5D3 did make some slight improvements in this area over the 5D2 so it's even more pushable than the old 5D2.
So, should you buy a D800 based on this kind of shooting?... Probably not. but it might be worth a try anyway just to see if you prefer the kind of output you get from it. Many people have also said they prefer Canon's rendition of skin tones over Nikons and I might agree a bit there too. I've generally always preferred the "look" of a Canon image which is why I also use DPP to do most of my raw file image processing.
It's probably a better first step to shoot raw with your 5D3 and see what you can do with it in post. Under very contrasty conditions, yet not so bright as mid day, I'd also opt to turn off the HTP as it won't help your raw files and can actually hinder shadow recovery. Process with DPP (or LR4) for ease of tweaking.
I've converted a few long time and very experienced jpeg event shooters into raw shooters after they saw how much more they could do with that raw file!
You seem to have unleashed another round of that argument, but that's a good thing. I'm glad more Canonites are discussing this issue and more are getting a good grasp of it while some are still steadfastly unconvinced. That latter group is likely to see the dark one of these days.. and it won't have reddish banding in it.
Aw heck, if they haven't seen the red noise lurking in the shadows yet they're just not pushing the limits of their gear.
I hope I've been able to answer some of your question.
jaayres20 said:
Not a lot, under most conditions.
jaayres20 said:
considering that you're not shooting raw, and your typical subject matter, your approach is a reasonable and practical one that's working for you.
It'll take more effort, card memory and time to post process raw files to extract a little more from them under the harsher lighting conditions where it may benefit some shots.
However, shooting raw and more PP work would likely give you more of an improvement than shooting jpg on a D800. Then again, Nikon's active D-Lighting can work quite nicely on jpg only output too so also worth considering; you may prefer how it would impact your current workflow.
High end cameras like the 5D3 and D800 do a pretty good job of fitting the DR of the scene into a fairly pleasing jpg output. Altho they both do pretty a similar job, they do it slightly differently so each camera's jpg output of the same scene will look a little different and there'll also be a wide variation on each body's rendering of the shot depending on all those jpeg-relevant options you select in each camera.
If you have the opportunity, you should try shooting some test shots alongside your usual method using a D800 and trying some of its settings to see how it changes the jpeg output. You could also try a D7000 or even a D5100 as they all have similarly high DR at base ISO and more than Canon's.
I remember reading someone recently posting on one of CR's forums here how much better he thought the D800 did in hi contrast, sunlight sitations where he was able to not only recover nice luminance information, from people's faces in a mix of sunlight and shade on one face, but that there was more COLOR and detail information to be had from the D800 in this situation too. He claimed this was the difference between selling a shot or not. He posted an example but honestly I can't confirm that this would be correct since I didn't buy a 5D3 and I don't know how long I still have to wait for my D800. Considering that the shadow area adjacent to a sunlight area on the same surface is only a few stops difference at most I can't see the 5D3 having any trouble accomplishing the same thing.
The greater color information, extractable from the darker areas, CAN be better with the D800 than with most of Canon's cameras because of the lack of noise in the D800's shadows compared to the Canon's. Canon's dark noise tends to include a lot of red channel noise; when shadows are boosted you may have to subdue it by reducing some color saturation in the shadow areas which can yeild a less pleasing image. You typically have to push very dark areas very far before this is a problem and the 5D3 did make some slight improvements in this area over the 5D2 so it's even more pushable than the old 5D2.
So, should you buy a D800 based on this kind of shooting?... Probably not. but it might be worth a try anyway just to see if you prefer the kind of output you get from it. Many people have also said they prefer Canon's rendition of skin tones over Nikons and I might agree a bit there too. I've generally always preferred the "look" of a Canon image which is why I also use DPP to do most of my raw file image processing.
It's probably a better first step to shoot raw with your 5D3 and see what you can do with it in post. Under very contrasty conditions, yet not so bright as mid day, I'd also opt to turn off the HTP as it won't help your raw files and can actually hinder shadow recovery. Process with DPP (or LR4) for ease of tweaking.
I've converted a few long time and very experienced jpeg event shooters into raw shooters after they saw how much more they could do with that raw file!
jaayres20 said:
You seem to have unleashed another round of that argument, but that's a good thing. I'm glad more Canonites are discussing this issue and more are getting a good grasp of it while some are still steadfastly unconvinced. That latter group is likely to see the dark one of these days.. and it won't have reddish banding in it.
Aw heck, if they haven't seen the red noise lurking in the shadows yet they're just not pushing the limits of their gear. I hope I've been able to answer some of your question.
Upvote
0
RichATL said:
Tell that to Ansel Adams.
Sure it doesn't matter for many shots, but it certainly can matter for many too. It depends what you are shooting.
And enough with the patronizing nonsense about learn how to expose properly. People thirsting for more DR are surely people who knows about exposing properly.
Upvote
0
jaayres20 said:
Well if you haven't missed it, ever, then that is your question answered. For you it won't matter at all. For others it might matter quite a bit at times.
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:
So a D7000 or D800 are super specialist cameras? Back when Canon had better DR all the Canon cameras were super specialist cameras, even the rebel?
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
I think people consider a D800 a specialist camera because of the resolution, not the DR. At such a high MP, there are certain things its NOT good for, like wedding or event photography where you shoot thousands of photos. The extra mp make processing a more time consuming prospect. Not that it still cant be done!
But yea, if you think about it, every camera has its own strengths and weaknesses, so they are all good for different situations. Super specialist camera? No. Unique camera? Yea!
Upvote
0
Well thanks to everyone for all of the input. I guess since I really don't do a lot of post processing anyways then I am not missing out on much. When you deliver 1000+ images per wedding then you try to limit the amount of time you are editing in lightroom. The 5D3 may not be the best when it comes to DR but I have sure been very happy with the AF and low light performance. The colors seem to better than the 5D2 as well. Just more natural I guess. Again I have never used a Nikon so maybe I don't know what I am missing there as well.
Upvote
0
M
MlQUE
Guest
How is that some sort of deal-breaker, that continues to be the most ridiculous point I've seen argued.Tcapp said:
People who don't want the extra MP can simply set the image size to (M) which means it'll be shooting 5,520 x 3,680 which is about the same as the 5D2's 5,616 × 3,744 pixels pixels.
Upvote
0
K
KeithR
Guest
LetTheRightLensIn said:
You know fine well what he means.
If, for example, the tiny, irrrelevant-to-most difference between their sensors and the Canon alternatives is so bloody important that you can't take a picture without it (which even you must admit is a scenario so "specialist" as to be utter fantasism) then shut up, get out of Canon and use the Nikons.
Otherwise, do your research, understand the strengths and weakness of the cameras out there and buy the one that gets you closest to what you need.
Upvote
0
K
KeithR
Guest
Michael7 said:
So because of one metric - slightly lower DR than in the D800 (which is utterly unimportant to most potential users and which in any event can be significantly equalised by the right conversion and PP decisions) - you're suggesting that the 5D Mk III is somehow a "lesser", uncompetitive camera; and that anyone who sees its strengths (of which it has many) over the D800 and prioritises them over the D800's DR "advantage", is being naive?
Upvote
0
K
KeithR
Guest
Michael7 said:
This lucid person thinks otherwise.
They are - patently and self-evidently - in separate niches, and there's precious little functional "cross-over" between them at all.
There's no photographic genre I can think of where it's not utterly obvious which of the two cameras is best-suited; and if there's no debate about that, there's no competition.
That's lucid.
And - for the avoidance of any doubt, assuming output/print sizes both cameras can achieve natively - D800 for landscapes, especially in contrasty, high DR situations where I want easily to dig detail out of shadows (it can take a little more effort to get them out of a 5D Mk III file); and the 5D Mk III for absolutely everything else.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
