Posting about sensors and DR!
- Thread starter Don Haines
- Start date
Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure
I agree- VERY important.
Now we now. Again.
I agree- VERY important.
Now we now. Again.
Upvote
0
Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure
What makes the D800 so good is the fact its EXEMOR sensor resolves all the dust and oil spots so well. I have a 6D with 46K clicks and I have 1 spot.
What makes the D800 so good is the fact its EXEMOR sensor resolves all the dust and oil spots so well. I have a 6D with 46K clicks and I have 1 spot.
Upvote
0
Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure
Must resist feeding trolls.... getting weaker, weaker....... I need help.....
And if you read the entire Bob Atkins article....
"Does this mean that the D800 is a better camera than the Canon EOS 5D MkIII? Not necessarily. Judging a camera based only on the sensor resolution and low ISO dynamic range would be a bit like judging a car on only top speed and 0-60 acceleration times. There's a lot more to a car - and a camera - than that.
I can't whether the D800 is a "better" camera than the EOS 5D MkIII because that depends a lot on the user, so there's no "right" answer. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. I've shot with both and both did a fine job and produced images of the highest quality. I'll leave it up to others to "pick a winner". If I wanted a camera in this class, I'd probably go with the Canon EOS 5D MkIII because I have a lot of Canon lenses, I'm familiar with the Canon control interface and switching systems makes little sense. The EOS 5D MkIII also goes to higher ISO ratings (ISO 102400 vs ISO 25600) and shows lower noise than the D800 at high ISO settings I'm pretty sure the EOS 5D MkIII would do everything I needed it to do - and do it very well. The AF system is excellent and the camera is very fast, I was very pleased with the images I shot and the way the 5D MkIII handles during the time I had the camera to test."
Must resist feeding trolls.... getting weaker, weaker....... I need help.....
And if you read the entire Bob Atkins article....
"Does this mean that the D800 is a better camera than the Canon EOS 5D MkIII? Not necessarily. Judging a camera based only on the sensor resolution and low ISO dynamic range would be a bit like judging a car on only top speed and 0-60 acceleration times. There's a lot more to a car - and a camera - than that.
I can't whether the D800 is a "better" camera than the EOS 5D MkIII because that depends a lot on the user, so there's no "right" answer. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. I've shot with both and both did a fine job and produced images of the highest quality. I'll leave it up to others to "pick a winner". If I wanted a camera in this class, I'd probably go with the Canon EOS 5D MkIII because I have a lot of Canon lenses, I'm familiar with the Canon control interface and switching systems makes little sense. The EOS 5D MkIII also goes to higher ISO ratings (ISO 102400 vs ISO 25600) and shows lower noise than the D800 at high ISO settings I'm pretty sure the EOS 5D MkIII would do everything I needed it to do - and do it very well. The AF system is excellent and the camera is very fast, I was very pleased with the images I shot and the way the 5D MkIII handles during the time I had the camera to test."
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Maximilian said:
Oh, that was shot with Exmor. Here's the lifted Exmor image again:
Below is the original image before I lifted the exposure 10 stops. I also took the same underexposed shot on a Canon, lifted the exposure by the same 10 stops.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure
You say "you wouldn't ever expose a shot like this" — and I agree. But in another thread someone argues that underexposing by 5 stops is now good technique if you use Exmor, and everyone who doesn't underexpose by 5 stops is using old technology, lacking understanding of their sensors, stuck in their old ways, being too conservative, missing out on creative opportunities, etc.
dilbert said:
You say "you wouldn't ever expose a shot like this" — and I agree. But in another thread someone argues that underexposing by 5 stops is now good technique if you use Exmor, and everyone who doesn't underexpose by 5 stops is using old technology, lacking understanding of their sensors, stuck in their old ways, being too conservative, missing out on creative opportunities, etc.
Upvote
0
jrista said:AmselAdans said:
Hey, it's a thread posted just for talk about sensors and DR.If there was anywhere to discuss the topic, it's here. :
No, it is a poll to talk about the problems of a particular topic hijacking threads.... The overwhelming public opinion is that the discussions/arguments should happen on a thread devoted to that topic, closely followed by people who are fed up enough to want the offending parties fed to the squirrels....
Upvote
0
Some of the "DR of Canon sensors is enough" claimers shifting my opinion more and more to "I would like 18 stops DR and a precise 20 bit ADC".
As scientist (physics) I like to have data to be of the best quality which is possible. Sony's Exmor sensors deliver much better raw data than Canons sensors.
For me a 40D or 600D delivers very good quality most time. But nothing speaks against 4 or 6 stops more sensor DR and an adequate ADC which makes transitions even finer.
Shure, most display options (TFT, paper, alu dibond, ...) are limited so 11 stops DR are sufficient most times.
But thinking about OLED monitors I see that 15 stops are easily possible. Seen a LG OLED monitor last week and this is a totally different world with gorgous black levels ...
The more bashing of those who like the concept of more DR the more I see more DR as relevant in some situations* and helpful for overall IQ with respect to the future of display media options. Might result in waiting another round of camera development and switching perhaps to a body where I can use my well trusted canon lenses ...
* 2000 Eure per month are sufficient, 3000 Euro per month give you some headroom, 10000 Euro per month give you much more headroom to do things you like - would you say "no"?
As scientist (physics) I like to have data to be of the best quality which is possible. Sony's Exmor sensors deliver much better raw data than Canons sensors.
For me a 40D or 600D delivers very good quality most time. But nothing speaks against 4 or 6 stops more sensor DR and an adequate ADC which makes transitions even finer.
Shure, most display options (TFT, paper, alu dibond, ...) are limited so 11 stops DR are sufficient most times.
But thinking about OLED monitors I see that 15 stops are easily possible. Seen a LG OLED monitor last week and this is a totally different world with gorgous black levels ...
The more bashing of those who like the concept of more DR the more I see more DR as relevant in some situations* and helpful for overall IQ with respect to the future of display media options. Might result in waiting another round of camera development and switching perhaps to a body where I can use my well trusted canon lenses ...
* 2000 Eure per month are sufficient, 3000 Euro per month give you some headroom, 10000 Euro per month give you much more headroom to do things you like - would you say "no"?
Upvote
0
Would anyone make their camera purchase decision based on DR?
Some would, others wouldn't. Both are correct. It all depends on what the individual photographer desires.
People here who have specific desires about cameras should not feel threatened when there are other people with different specific desires about cameras.
People are different. That is one thing we all have in common.
I don't know why some on this site have a hard time understanding that.
Some would, others wouldn't. Both are correct. It all depends on what the individual photographer desires.
People here who have specific desires about cameras should not feel threatened when there are other people with different specific desires about cameras.
People are different. That is one thing we all have in common.
I don't know why some on this site have a hard time understanding that.
Upvote
0
AcutancePhotography said:
Because human beings are not rational actors, we use logic and reason to justify our emotions. Its why people can argue about undeniable facts like climate change, evolution or the supremecy of Exmor sensors. Not much you can do about it! *shrugs*
Upvote
0
AcutancePhotography said:
I made my decision based on price. By the time I went full frame... I didn't say it was too late, but there would have to be some extraordinarily extenuating circumstances for me to switch.
I wouldn't call the Canon XS a loss leader, but it certainly did the job to bring me into the fold. And... I already owned a Nikon zoom lens at the time, two of the same actually...
Upvote
0
Steve said:
Yeah, you are right, of course.
If someone could make canonrumors into a reality TV show, it will make millions. ;D
If Jerry Springer was into photography.......
Upvote
0
I see this argument throughout all of cr... so what exactly are we fighting about. Is it the pixel density provides more detail in good light... is it that a pixel can go from dark too light without introducing much grain... what is the practical effect of all this dynamic range?
Upvote
0
AcutancePhotography said:Steve said:
Yeah, you are right, of course.
If someone could make canonrumors into a reality TV show, it will make millions. ;D
If Jerry Springer was into photography.......
"I so" want to throw a chair at someone... I don't even care which side of the argument I'm color CAST in.
Bad puns right?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
