5D3 Dynamic Range

[TrumpetPower!]

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.

You're forgetting two things with your landscape scenario: lens and light.

My go-to landscape lens is the TS-E 24 II. It mops the floor with anything vaguely similar Nikon has to offer. The D800 + whatever can't compare to the 5DIII + TS-E 24 II, even considering the few extra megapickles and dynamic range.

Second, if you're shooting landscape and you've exposed properly and you still need to recover so much from the shadows that you find yourself wishing for the extra stop or so that the Nikon might give you, then you're probably shooting in some really bad light and you need to wait for the golden hour. Ether that, or you need to take three seconds to turn on the auto HDR feature and get a 6 FPS bracket with handy-dandy rough preview. And, if even that still won't do the trick, then you're either out of your league because you didn't bring the MF kit or you're an incompetent photographer because you don't know how to use your gear.

Cheers,

b&

 

[cpsico]

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.

You're forgetting two things with your landscape scenario: lens and light.

My go-to landscape lens is the TS-E 24 II. It mops the floor with anything vaguely similar Nikon has to offer. The D800 + whatever can't compare to the 5DIII + TS-E 24 II, even considering the few extra megapickles and dynamic range.

Second, if you're shooting landscape and you've exposed properly and you still need to recover so much from the shadows that you find yourself wishing for the extra stop or so that the Nikon might give you, then you're probably shooting in some really bad light and you need to wait for the golden hour. Ether that, or you need to take three seconds to turn on the auto HDR feature and get a 6 FPS bracket with handy-dandy rough preview. And, if even that still won't do the trick, then you're either out of your league because you didn't bring the MF kit or you're an incompetent photographer because you don't know how to use your gear.

Cheers,

b&

Ouch why so harsh?

 

[Bosman]

Can't comment on the Mark III, only used the Mark II. Also, disclaimer: I'm shooting Nikon now.

I see the argument that dynamic range doesn't matter, or only matters in edge cases quite often. Well, I guess there is some truth in it. It depends on your work/interests, lots of conditions. DR may or may not be important to you. Instead of going back-and-forth with academic debates, I'll show how it helps in various situations I shoot in - with examples.

I shot the International Pillow Fight Day event here in Saigon. Fun work, for free of course (non-profit, fun-loving people organized it, couldn't resist). The event took place at 3pm, very hard light, in park where the trees didn't offer enough coverage. Yeah, high contrast situation, hard like, dark shadoes, bright patches of sunlight. Now not all photos are like that, but there are quite a few where I pulled at least 1 stop from the shadows without loss of detail, without smudging the colours, and without any visible noise even at 100%. That's what dynamic range is in practice. It may or may not matter to you, it matters to me and probably the people I did it for too. I wouldn't be able to do it without the DR of the d7000. Here: Pillow Fight Day Saigon 2012

Now I don't do many events, I'm an interiour photographer, doing lots of landscapes as a passion (and these year, more and more people, fashion, portraits). In interiour photography, good DR is gold. Ironically, some of the most expensive properties I shot had the worst lighting. Huge rooms, big windows, shooting scheduled for 3pm (and no, I couldn't change it). Hard light coming through windows, rooms too big while lighting not enough to overpower the natural light. This is situation where it's impossible to get a perfect exposure, and HDR is out of question with apartments (too long to explain why). Examples starting here, and the next few pictures: http://molnarcs.500px.com/apartments_villas/photo/16

Landscapes. I don't think I have to explain this one, because its kinda obvious. That said, 90% of my recent landscapes are less than 10 EV, lots of good shots that require minimal post-processing - and in many of them you wouldn't see a difference even if your camera were limited to 8 EV. But that 10% - I'm glad that I had some EV leeway there!

Remember, good DR doesn't mean pulling 6 EVs from shadows. It means pulling 1 EV cleanly - or even half EV. The more DR your camera has the better in the situations above.

Lastly, in commercial photography, there is a good reason top PROs use Hasselblad and medium format cameras. They have phenomenal EV at base ISO, and they are using every single bit of it. Walk through any upscale shopping centre, and you'll see tons of large backlit prints - and it's not just resolution and megapixels. Here's a video comparing the d800 with a Hasselblad. The new "king" of DR in 35mm format can't stand a chance (and why DR does matter in commercial photography).
D800 vs Medium Format with Roth and Ramberg

RichATL, you're wrong on so many levels that I lost count. DR does matter in quite a lot of situations. Now you may or may not shoot in those situations, but saying that only brainwashed "pixel peepers and gearheads" care is a bit over the top. And as to your jpeg argument... ever heard of picture controls? Seeing your "computer programmer in Japan" line I guess not.

Ultimately, everybody has to decide for himself. If you rarely find yourself in a situation where you'd love to brighten the shadows up just a bit more, but you're losing details... I guess it doesn't matter. Sports, indoor events come to mind with constant, even light. Lots of examples where DR doesn't matter that much. That said, it would still be prudent to make your voice heard to Canon instead of going full denial RichATL. Higher DR has tangible, very practical benefits in many situations. Is the gap Canon and Nikon/Sony sensors huge? I honestly don't know. It's there, and its not good in my opinion.

In my experience this topic is creating an issue out of one that doesn't exist. The software is the source (not only source but main) where the DR has been lacking, the raw data with software that works with it makes all the difference, up til recently the 5dm3 raw files havent been supported. I watched both videos. The pillow fight i watched to completion and it looked like a blast thanks for sharing! The second video the Hasselblad can't pull detail like the D800 from the shadows on the motocycle. This video has been on the forum in other threads since it came out pretty much. From testing images i see i can pull detail out of blackness when i want and while I do not know someone who i could test the two cameras against each other from what i have gotten I don't see anything i have given up. In my real world shooting it will not impact me at all.
Here some people have been testing things with DR and software. I was able to get incredible sharp detail from a practically pitch dark area. Would I care to do this in any normal situation, no. If i had to have an important shot that the flash didn't fire or something the d800 or 5dm3 will both be difficult to get anything that good.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6235.0

 

[3kramd5]

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.

BTW, that site:

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

There are techniques to avoid shadows in many cases - leaving very few exceptions - yet from the baying of the few anyone would think the 5DIII had a crippled DR system and totally unable to produce a good images.

I don't think it's "baying". This is a camera discussion forum, and these camera's aren't cheap. It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.

Why should you compare the D800 with the 5D3 - apples and oranges - definitely not its chief competitor

If the d800 is not the 5D3's primary competitor - then what body is?

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.

same price range doesn't immediately make it so. If strawberries are $4.99 a lb, and asparagus is 4.99 lb, does that mean both are the same?

Yeah, same price range. But they are two different beasts. If you primarily shoot landscapes and aren't bound by investments in lenses or overall budget/earnings the d800 is the way to go. If you are more of an all purpose shooter, the mk3 has many advantages. And while its not everyones cup of tea, if you shoot events and weddings and landscapes and are using canon systems, me thinks investing in ND and Grad filters would be a good work around to get more DR ---or shoot HDR...its not the best solution, but unless your making most of your income shooting landscapes I'd say switching systems is a frivolous investment...

(note I did not ad architectural work to this mix only because even with the DR of the d800, the canon Tilt shift lenses are much better than what nikon offers...)

 

[briansquibb]

And while its not everyones cup of tea, if you shoot events and weddings and landscapes and are using canon systems, me thinks investing in ND and Grad filters would be a good work around to get more DR ---or shoot HDR...its not the best solution, but unless your making most of your income shooting landscapes I'd say switching systems is a frivolous investment...

Or using flash in the dark areas as I do ..... or even overcoming the sun as some pros do

Using big diffusers, reflectors as well - they are so many tool that it seems criminal to rely on the sensor

 

[Viggo]

And while its not everyones cup of tea, if you shoot events and weddings and landscapes and are using canon systems, me thinks investing in ND and Grad filters would be a good work around to get more DR ---or shoot HDR...its not the best solution, but unless your making most of your income shooting landscapes I'd say switching systems is a frivolous investment...

Or using flash in the dark areas as I do ..... or even overcoming the sun as some pros do

Using big diffusers, reflectors as well - they are so many tool that it seems criminal to rely on the sensor

+ a bunch for that! I drag around a standard lightstand with a 60x90 umbrellabox (that opens in 0.5 seconds and takes up less room than a stick) inside is two 580's with each their own cp-e3 batterypack. That way you can balance and create your own light instead of pulling shadows ridcolous 4 stops in post..

Just flipped through to find an example, the original had a bit more shadow detail underneath on his chest, but it lacked contrast, anyway..

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's unreasonable and a bit naive to think that Canon's latest FF camera won't be compared to its chief competitor.

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?

1. It's not slightly lower and believe me when Canon had a SNR advantage, when it wasn't even as large as three stops, you hardly went around calling it slight.

2. Calling it utterly unimportant to most potential users is going too far. Sure for many shots you won't need it and some people might never need it, but it's not that hard to come up with scenes where it helps. And again you hardly called the high iso advantage Canon had something utterly unimportant.

3. No you can't significantly equalize it in post any more than you could make a 2004 Nikon DSLR closer in SNR performance to a 2004 era Canon, well, not unless you are disingenuous enough to only apply careful PP to one camera's output and not to the others.

4. Just because people call it out for low ISO performance doesn't mean they are slamming every last thing about the camera. It does tons of things body performance-wise than the 5D2.

And it does a few things better than the D800 (6fps in FF mode; video without color moire problems and with less aliasing and with a good 1.5 stops better SNR (although it's also a bit softer and some say they used really cheap audio amps again); it's too early to say but it might have better AF, I read various things though and i haven't heard from any people I have a good sense where there are coming from chip in on the matter yet and I haven't tested either one myself; a bit more dynamic range a super, super high ISOs; personally I like the Canon UI much better; it matches mount to a nicer overall set of lenses IMO).

D800 is a beast though too, a lot more MP for more max detail and reach, on paper at least the metering system should be better, has a built-in emergency flash, built-in intervalometer, superb maximum dynamic range, doesn't have silly little things like autoiso crippled.

 

[Tcapp]

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!

How is that some sort of deal-breaker, that continues to be the most ridiculous point I've seen argued.
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.

One the D800, as i understand it, there is no (M) RAW. And no way in hell am I about to shoot Jpeg. Its full size or nothing. Thats why its an issue.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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!

How is that some sort of deal-breaker, that continues to be the most ridiculous point I've seen argued.
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.

One the D800, as i understand it, there is no (M) RAW. And no way in hell am I about to shoot Jpeg. Its full size or nothing. Thats why its an issue.

It's silly how stubborn and stuck in the not done here first syndrome some of the camera makers are.

It's really foolish Nikon doesn't offer sRAW/mRAW (although it is true that these are not really quite like regular RAW and that they have some debayering and other processing cooked in and you don't get as ideal a result as could be had from processing full RAW and then downsizing).

It's really foolish Canon that refuses to offer crop modes for more speed. I fear this will be the downfall of their high MP camera from being even half as generally usable as the D800. I fear they will stubbornly say we don't do crop modes! And saddle it with 3fps when Nikon was so smart to offer 1.2x 25MP at 5fps and 1.5x 16MP at 6fps options on the D800.

 

[Tcapp]

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!

How is that some sort of deal-breaker, that continues to be the most ridiculous point I've seen argued.
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.

One the D800, as i understand it, there is no (M) RAW. And no way in hell am I about to shoot Jpeg. Its full size or nothing. Thats why its an issue.

It's silly how stubborn and stuck in the not done here first syndrome some of the camera makers are.

It's really foolish Nikon doesn't offer sRAW/mRAW (although it is true that these are not really quite like regular RAW and that they have some debayering and other processing cooked in and you don't get as ideal a result as could be had from processing full RAW and then downsizing).

It's really foolish Canon that refuses to offer crop modes for more speed. I fear this will be the downfall of their high MP camera from being even half as generally usable as the D800. I fear they will stubbornly say we don't do crop modes! And saddle it with 3fps when Nikon was so smart to offer 1.2x 25MP at 5fps and 1.5x 16MP at 6fps options on the D800.

I think you are totally right. But, could it be because of patents? Maybe Canon isn't legally allowed to make a crop mode, and Nikon isn't legally allowed to do (M) Raw?

 

[meli]

Why should you compare the D800 with the 5D3 - apples and oranges - definitely not its chief competitor

If the d800 is not the 5D3's primary competitor - then what body is?

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.

same price range doesn't immediately make it so. If strawberries are $4.99 a lb, and asparagus is 4.99 lb, does that mean both are the same?

Yeah, same price range. But they are two different beasts. If you primarily shoot landscapes and aren't bound by investments in lenses or overall budget/earnings the d800 is the way to go. If you are more of an all purpose shooter, the mk3 has many advantages. And while its not everyones cup of tea, if you shoot events and weddings and landscapes and are using canon systems, me thinks investing in ND and Grad filters would be a good work around to get more DR ---or shoot HDR...its not the best solution, but unless your making most of your income shooting landscapes I'd say switching systems is a frivolous investment...

(note I did not ad architectural work to this mix only because even with the DR of the d800, the canon Tilt shift lenses are much better than what nikon offers...)

Carrying NDs & grads & umbrellaboxes is not a substitute of the flexibility a greater DR offers you, there is just no comparison.
And It is the competitor in most cases, they're in the same price tag and are the most affordable -latest-tech- FF one can get.

and as for this:

If you are more of an all purpose shooter, the mk3 has many advantages

Lets be honest, it doesnt have many advantages, it has one, a measly one at that: 1fps more @22mp. And seriously for an "all purpose shooter" a choice between 16mp/6fps/crop - 25mp/5fps -36/4fps sounds much more convenient than between 22mp/6fps -22mp/6fps 22/mp/6fps

The TS-Es as you say though are a reason enough not to jump ship.

 

[Aglet]

The TS-Es as you say though are a reason enough not to jump ship.

if affordable, it's good to also own the second ship and equip it to best suit its strengths.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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!

How is that some sort of deal-breaker, that continues to be the most ridiculous point I've seen argued.
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.

One the D800, as i understand it, there is no (M) RAW. And no way in hell am I about to shoot Jpeg. Its full size or nothing. Thats why its an issue.

It's silly how stubborn and stuck in the not done here first syndrome some of the camera makers are.

It's really foolish Nikon doesn't offer sRAW/mRAW (although it is true that these are not really quite like regular RAW and that they have some debayering and other processing cooked in and you don't get as ideal a result as could be had from processing full RAW and then downsizing).

It's really foolish Canon that refuses to offer crop modes for more speed. I fear this will be the downfall of their high MP camera from being even half as generally usable as the D800. I fear they will stubbornly say we don't do crop modes! And saddle it with 3fps when Nikon was so smart to offer 1.2x 25MP at 5fps and 1.5x 16MP at 6fps options on the D800.

I think you are totally right. But, could it be because of patents? Maybe Canon isn't legally allowed to make a crop mode, and Nikon isn't legally allowed to do (M) Raw?

I can't imagine crop mode being patented. Perhap sRAW/mRAW, although you;d think they could find something close enough to work, but who knows.

 

[RunAndGun]

I can't imagine crop mode being patented. Perhap sRAW/mRAW, although you;d think they could find something close enough to work, but who knows.

I wouldn't think... RAW is just kind of a descriptor telling you the data hasn't been processed(more or less), the files are completely different between manufacturers, it's not universal like JPEG or DNG. But who knows with some of the silly patents that ARE out there nowadays.

 

[briansquibb]

Carrying NDs & grads & umbrellaboxes is not a substitute of the flexibility a greater DR offers you, there is just no comparison.

Flash also gives lower iso, flash compension AND ec, ability to alter light, more contrast etc etc - it wins hands down over flexibility

I was taking pictures in a theatre

1D4, no flash, iso 6400+
1DS3, flash, iso 100

Guess which pictures looks the best?

Flash is all about adding light - the more controlled light the better the picture.

 

[V8Beast]

So many landscape photographers, so little time ;D

Seriously, though, if DR is the most important factor for someone's shooting needs, why not just purchase a D7000? It costs $1,200 vs. the D800's $3,000, yet nearly matches it in DR (13.9 vs. 14.4 stops). Sure, the D800 stomps it in ISO performance, but all the landscape guys keep telling me that high ISO performance is useless for their needs, so who cares? If I were a landscape guy who only cared about DR and nothing else, the D700 would be my choice since it's a much better value, DR wise, than then D800.

D7000 = $86 per stop of DR
D800 = $208 per stop of DR

I think all the landscape guys are getting a hard on over the wrong camera ;D With all the wood they've been popping over the D800's DR, I bet their members can damn near touch their computer screens at this point

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

Well, I think that whole FF vs crop feature is a big deal.

 

[sarangiman]

Quote from: helpful on May 04, 2012, 05:39:39 PM
A really high DR better than the 5D3 doesn't really help. As I have explained in previous posts, a lower DR actually stores more data and detail from a scene than a camera with high DR. Ideally the dynamic range would match the scene's DR. Canon's DR probably fits more scenes better than Nikon's. If the dynamic range is higher than the dynamic range intrinsic to the scene, then it actually makes the picture worse (less fine variations in detail of recorded luminosity).

This is false. Increasing the sensor DR will either give you more headroom before clipping, or less noise in the shadows. In both cases, you gain information (for some scenes there might be no data to record there, still you loose nothing).

In a low dynamic range image (like a frame filled with nothing but green grass), the histogram of a high DR camera like both the 5D3 and the D800 show nothing but a thin peak of data that was recorded. This means lots of detail is being lost because not all 14-bits are being used.

This is false. Most cameras are noise-limited, not quantizer level limited. This means that once the signal reach the ADC, there is (at most) 14 bits of information from the saturation level and down to the noise floor.

Well done clearing up that misinformation, hjulenissen

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Carrying NDs & grads & umbrellaboxes is not a substitute of the flexibility a greater DR offers you, there is just no comparison.

Flash also gives lower iso, flash compension AND ec, ability to alter light, more contrast etc etc - it wins hands down over flexibility

I was taking pictures in a theatre

1D4, no flash, iso 6400+
1DS3, flash, iso 100

Guess which pictures looks the best?

Flash is all about adding light - the more controlled light the better the picture.

Flash is not automatically a winner. It may be in your eyes, but inverse square law of light means it's range is limited. Unless you match the colour temperature and drag the shutter, all you end up with is a shot where the flas is very obvious and the ambience is lost.

I use flash a lot, both on its own and mixed with ambient but I also know when not to use it.

High dr and high ISO cameras bring something new which couldn't be achieved previously.

Your style might be to use flash but it's that - a style point - not right and wrong.