Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3

[RLPhoto]

Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?

Did you just call all my photography glorified snapshots? ??? I like to think I'm at least a step above that. I don't consider my work to be the best, but neither do I consider it to be the worst...

Sheesh...I really don't understand this community anymore.

I think he was referring to northrup.

 

[3kramd5]

Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?

Hacks need to make money too.

 

[FEBS]

Nikons D8xx (Sonys Exmor sensors) are better for landscape shooter.
There is nothing to talk about, it´s a fact.

I can agree with you that when you really can go into the pixel itself. Yes, there is more detail because of the higher resolution. However, in our local photo club and in school, when we all take photo's of the same landscape, we all can immediately see the full frame sensors when we compare photos afterwards, and for sure in combination with good lenses. However, no one can see on the difference between the 5D3 and the Nikon D800, D810. The difference can be found back when we compare in LR into deep detail, but in no other way.

If I would only do landscape, and needed to buy a camera, and not having all the Canon gear, I think I also would choose for the D810. However for action my 5D3 is still very great in combination with my lenses. I would not choose on current situation for Nikon if I was mainly shooting action.

Sorry, but there is a relatively large difference in detail between the two. That has nothing to do with dynamic range, simply the pixel size. The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.

Jrista,

You are right that there is a difference. That's also what I said, BUT when can you see that difference? On a webpage ? No, On a print till 40x60cm? No. On really large prints? Yes, thats possible, but then again you need to pixel peep, just as in LR or PS. I did see a lot of pictures, taken on the same moment from the same scene, but if we mix them, we can't tell from who the picture was (5d3, D800, D810), unless.... we dive into the pixels, and then I agree, but that's not the way we look at a photo?

 

[Loswr]

I did see a lot of pictures, taken on the same moment from the same scene, but if we mix them, we can't tell from who the picture was (5d3, D800, D810), unless.... we dive into the pixels, and then I agree, but that's not the way we look at a photo?

Some people can't see the forest for the trees. A few people can't even see the trees because they prefer to look at pixels instead of pictures.

 

[Orangutan]

I've said this countless times now, but the point of having better data is a reduced workload. Sure, you can work and work and work and work and WORK the data from Canon cameras, with more and more tools, and eventually get a really good result. But, you worked it more, possibly a LOT more, and you spend more money on more tools, to get the same result that you can get from a file that started out being better. You may have even had to do more in-camera, using more IQ-degrading GND filters to balance contrast or what-have-you, to improve the quality of the data.

It isn't purely about the end results, although that's certainly what we all look to. The purpose of having better data is to minimize the work that occurs between camera and publication/print. According to Neuro, that's just "Missing the forest for the trees because I'm just looking at pixels." To me, it's how long do I have to spend journeying to get to the best spot in the forest. One path is rocky and difficult and takes three times as long going uphill...the other is even and level and winds through a more scenic part of the forest, and is a lot shorter.

You've said it before and it does make sense. It's the same reason we have AF and intelligent metering: less work to get consistently high quality results. I've not experienced the kinds of problems you have, but you're entitled to your experience.

Here's a stupid question for you: if third-parties can make lenses that are compatible with multiple body brands, why can't Nikon make a version of the D810 that's compatible with EF lenses to try to poach some Canon business, such as yourself? The only reason (aside from corporate pride) would be some difficulty with the physical dimensions of the mirror mechanism. If Nikon were smart, they could set up a stealth subsidiary to "modify" D810s for that lucrative Canon market. I'm only half-joking.

 

[Loswr]

Ok, let's review. Your earlier point was quite direct and specific...you stated that the higher resolution of the D800 results in sharper images even at small print and web sizes:

Sorry, but there is a relatively large difference in detail between the two. That has nothing to do with dynamic range, simply the pixel size. The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.

But when called on that claim, you chose to not respond directly, and instead you change your story...

You guys keep missing the point here. The point of having better data to start with is to reduce the amount of effort required to produce better data in the end. I don't know if people could actually pick out D800 photos from 5D III photos in a blind test.

Now you're not sure if there's a visible difference (at any size?), but who cares because it's really about the effort needed. So...which point are we missing? Your original point that you're now waffling on, or your subsequent point after changing your story.

I asked before...is this 'extra effort' necessary with every shot? Most shots? A few shots?

As I and others have stated, the differences you're talking about are generally of limited relevance and impact.

 

[Orangutan]

I asked before...is this 'extra effort' necessary with every shot? Most shots? A few shots?

No, the question is...is this 'extra effort' necessary for enough of his shots to be important to him. There are some posters here whose answers to this question would not affect me. jrista has shown that he knows what he's doing, so I'm inclined to accept his response at face value, even if my answer would be different. For me, the answer is probably no.

Neuro, you offer lots of value to this forum, but your questions often sound like a trial attorney badgering a hostile witness. Your questions are valid, your tone is not helpful.

 

[3kramd5]

The only reason (aside from corporate pride)

Yah, that would be almost as bad as farming out the heart of the camera (the sensor) to another firm!



I think Nikon would rather sell Nikkor lenses than facilitate people using Canon lenses on their bodies.

 

[Loswr]

I asked before...is this 'extra effort' necessary with every shot? Most shots? A few shots?

No, the question is...is this 'extra effort' necessary for enough of his shots to be important to him. There are some posters here whose answers to this question would not affect me. jrista has shown that he knows what he's doing, so I'm inclined to accept his response at face value, even if my answer would be different. For me, the answer is probably no.

Neuro, you offer lots of value to this forum, but your questions often sound like a trial attorney badgering a hostile witness. Your questions are valid, your tone is not helpful.

No doubt...he has stated that his Canon files – at least some unspecified fraction of them – are more work for him to process. He also states he believes, based on his experience with Canon RAW files and Exmor RAW files he's downloaded (I don't recall him stating he's actually used a camera with an Exmor sensor) that those files would require significantly less work for him to process. I take no issue with any of that.

But...he has extrapolated those personal issues to suggest that Canon is currently being or will soon be negatively impacted by that 'extra work required to achieve a similar result', and I just don't think that's likely. As you state, the answer for you is that there's not a significant impact, and I suspect you're in the solid majority.

Jrista offers a lot of value to these forums, so it's especially disappointing when he makes claims such as D800 images being noticeably sharper than 5DIII images at small print or web sizes...claims that are so untenable that even he won't stand behind.

 

[Loswr]

You guys keep missing the point here. The point of having better data to start with is to reduce the amount of effort required to produce better data in the end.

Your still misunderstanding. You could make the 5D III image as sharp, by sharpening. My point is you wouldn't have to do the extra step of sharpening the 5D III image to achieve the same results. I keep saying it, and you guys keep missing the point. It's about the work between A and B, not simply whether B looks like a B.

Ok, I think I'm starting to understand. I can be a little slow on the uptake, sorry about that. Even if the end result is the same, the extra work required on Canon images (all of them, right?) is a burden. An image taken with a D800 will have that natural clarity and sharpness compared to one from the 5DIII, without the burdensome extra step of sharpening. That holds true even after downsampling for web or small prints. I thought sharpening was recommended after downsampling, usually beyond selecting Bicubic Sharper, and even for D800 images, but I guess D800 images don't need that...like I said, I'm a little slow. I can see where that extra sharpening on the 5DIII images adds extra work, moving a single slider can be difficult and time consuming...I'm sure eliminating that burdensome step would have a substantial impact on what one might consider minimal post processing. Minimal post processing such as...

I only made a very minor change to sharpness, nr, sat, and clarity. I then spent a couple minutes masking out the subject and running one denoise routine on the background.

I consider that relatively minimal...

A couple minor tweaks to a few sliders in LR, and some background NR, are quite minimal as far as my standard editing process goes.

So...thanks again for explaining how the 36 MP of the D800 offers naturally crisper, sharper images at web or small print sizes, or even if it doesn't, how the extra resolution makes such an impact on the post-processing workflow by eliminating the burdensome step of moving one slider. Like I said, I think I'm starting to get it, even if I don't yet fully understand.

 

[Sporgon]

Sharpening is just an example of one of the extra things you often have to do with Canon files. One of many. In the situations where my 5D III is at it's worst, the workload involves a lot more than just sharpening..........



You see absolutely no difference between cameras of vastly differing IQ capabilities.

What if the photographer doesn't want 'brittle', 'digital' images ? Many of those pictures you have linked to on 500px will have had, as part of the extensive post processing, a Gaussian blur applied. More workload as you put it.


In the vast majority of photographic applications there is no case of 'vastly differing IQ capabilities. That's the whole point.

But for someone who wants to view brittle images which have been under exposed by three stops on a good quality monitor at 100% the D810 fits the bill nicely.

 

[Loswr]

It's a cascade...worse data can result in a number of additional things that need to be done, from in-camera work to additional steps in post. Increased workload. No, not for every single shot, but in enough for certain kinds of photography I do. When your already backlogged for editing photos you took months ago...facing even more work every time you go out to do a certain kind of photography is just a little frustrating.

I get that you are frustrated with your Canon RAW files in certain situations. I get that a D8x0 can offer advantages in those situations, resulting in a reduced workload. What I don't understand is how those advantages, or anything else you've stated, in any way support the untenable claim that a 36 MP image will have greater 'natural clarity and sharpness' than a 22 MP image when both are downsized for a small print or online publication.

 

[awinphoto]

Kinda funny... most my clients complain the 5d 3 images i make have TOO MUCH detail hence most my battle is softening their skin and pores, etc... if the D810 has more detail, that would give me even more work... naw... i'm good... okay, carry on with your arguments, let me go heat up the popcorn.

 

[Loswr]

Kinda funny... most my clients complain the 5d 3 images i make have TOO MUCH detail hence most my battle is softening their skin and pores, etc... if the D810 has more detail, that would give me even more work... naw... i'm good... okay, carry on with your arguments, let me go heat up the popcorn.

Perhaps if your clients were trees they'd be disappointed and refuse to pay? Just something to consider as you enjoy your snack...

 

[Khalai]

...One of many. In the situations where my 5D III is at it's worst, the workload involves a lot more than just sharpening, and more than just reducing noise, it also involves HDR blending (and, when there are stronger highlights, often blending of 7 or 9 bracketed shots to prevent posterization), etc. It's a cascade...

Honest question here: If you need to blend exposures from 7-9 photos to get perfect DR using C5D3, is N810 really that superior, that you do not need to blend any bracketed shots and do it all from single RAW file? You talked about burdening workflow, but I just cannot imagine the situation, where N810 will do fine with single RAW file, while C5D3 will need 5, 7 or even 9 shots to get the DR within the brackets.

 

[Khalai]

...One of many. In the situations where my 5D III is at it's worst, the workload involves a lot more than just sharpening, and more than just reducing noise, it also involves HDR blending (and, when there are stronger highlights, often blending of 7 or 9 bracketed shots to prevent posterization), etc. It's a cascade...

Honest question here: If you need to blend exposures from 7-9 photos to get perfect DR using C5D3, is N810 really that superior, that you do not need to blend any bracketed shots and do it all from single RAW file? You talked about burdening workflow, but I just cannot imagine the situation, where N810 will do fine with single RAW file, while C5D3 will need 5, 7 or even 9 shots to get the DR within the brackets.

The number of shots isn't for DR. It's to minimize the differential in brightness for highlights to avoid posterization. Overall, the actual difference in exposure range is still the same...if you were bracketing -1 2/3 to +1 2/3 before, you still do...you just increase the number of frames inbetween to create a smoother transition. Removal of ghosts doesn't always solve this problem, and sometimes it makes it a lot worse.

Thanks for the answer. I myself prefer to use LEE GNDs to avoid the need of too many files. Frankly, I'm quite bad in blending (learning about luminance masks at the moment as well as some other techniques) so I try to do all I can in the field so I can ideally work with single files.

But when I do bracket, I bracket like mad: -3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2,+3 is my usual starting point

 

[9VIII]

I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly strange...to the point where I simply don't believe it.

I feel the same way a lot of the time.

In the home theater market, it seems like most of "the experts" have been harping on about black levels and colour density for years, seemingly getting little attention from manufacturers.
When people like me start saying that we need to triple the current pixel density to match the resolution of human vision, flying in the face of "common knowledge", people usually react negatively, but when the manufacturers start improving resolution instead of other things, that changes the situation.
"The experts" then move from promoting their preferences to putting down the ideas of other people, It's pretty sad.
But that's actually fairly normal behaviour, culture changes in generational steps. In many areas of society you literally have to wait for the "old guard" to die off before new ideas can be taken seriously.

Since I see mentions of video and watching distances...
I had a great chart showing suitable viewing distance for various resolutions and screen sizes, but it's embedded on a site that is highly linked to very X-rated content, so I think we should skip that URL. However, it showed the farthest distance at which an eye with perfect vision could resolve all the detail. In short, and as an example, it boils down to a 60 inch screen best being viewed from less than 10 feet if you want the eye to resolve all detail in a 1080p movie.

Let's toss in some Wikipedia that is less prone to being X-rated -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance#Human_visual_system_limitation

I'd say that for a family of 4-5 to watch and enjoy every minute detail of a high-res video snippet they better huddle together really close. Thankfully the human brain is supposed to watch and enjoy the content, and it won't throw itself on the floor in a temper tantrum just because every single pixel isn't distinguishable.

Domino, I'm not commenting on you, but the Wikipedia article is a good example.

The first paragraph in the section titled "Human visual system limitation" states confidently, "one arcminute is seen as the threshold beyond which critical detail cannot be identified" and finishes off with "Sitting beyond these distances will result in a loss of detail"
But then you see an entire paragraph below that debating the first.
When I enter debate on this subject, the first response from an "expert" is normally denial that there even is a debate.

When I test my vision using a high frequency grid (it's easy enough to make things like that with a computer) the results I get agree with the "one acrminute" limitation. Which should be expected, It would be extremely hard to make a system correctly interpret an image made up of lines of the same size as the photocells in the system. Naturally all you end up with is noise.
When I test my vision for vernier resolution, using a low frequency grid with a bit of aliasing, the limits are approximately three times higher.
The "one arcminute" limit will still apply to fine, random texture, like the surface of concrete, but human vision is highly tuned to detect high contrast edges and motion, not wide, consistent texture. It's hard to say how much the "one arcminute" limit affects everyday vision.
I suspect part of the problem is that people underestimate the complexity of the human visual system. A while back Neuro recommended this book to me (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Edition-Kandel/dp/0071390111), and it has been nothing but a delight to read (well illustrated).
It has a few chapters that go over the eye in detail.

Then you have to factor in diminishing returns, which seems to be the biggest issue with most people, regardless of whether they agree with you.

 

[arcanej]

After reading hundreds of these threads debating so many minutiae in such scientific rigor, I have come to one conclusion: there are a lot of really smart people who've bought Canon gear. I feel smarter by association!

And I don't mean this in a trivial sense. Head over to a Leica forum, for example. Those people may have more money to burn, but they can't hold the same caliber of discussion.

 

[Loswr]

I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly strange...to the point where I simply don't believe it.

But that's actually fairly normal behaviour, culture changes in generational steps. In many areas of society you literally have to wait for the "old guard" to die off before new ideas can be taken seriously.[/b]

Can I ask...in the context of this discussion, how does going from ~12 to ~14 stops of DR, or going from 22 to 36 MP, represent 'new ideas' requiring the 'old guard' to die off before they're adopted? If you're talking about the switch from film to digital, or from vinyl to CDs, that's fine...but those are paradigm shifts in technology. To suggest that the differences between current Canon and SoNikon sensors are a paradigm shift is ludicrous. Rather, those differences are minor, incremental improvements. Real improvements, yes...but minor.

 

[9VIII]

I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly strange...to the point where I simply don't believe it.

But that's actually fairly normal behaviour, culture changes in generational steps. In many areas of society you literally have to wait for the "old guard" to die off before new ideas can be taken seriously.[/b]

Can I ask...in the context of this discussion, how does going from ~12 to ~14 stops of DR, or going from 22 to 36 MP, represent 'new ideas' requiring the 'old guard' to die off before they're adopted? If you're talking about the switch from film to digital, or from vinyl to CDs, that's fine...but those are paradigm shifts in technology. To suggest that the differences between current Canon and SoNikon sensors are a paradigm shift is ludicrous. Rather, those differences are minor, incremental improvements. Real improvements, yes...but minor.

My understanding is that it mostly has to do with diminishing returns.
Right now there's a lot of people who just don't see it being worthwhile to increase pixel density on displays. I read the same sort of comment on sensor density on this forum almost every day.
Wait 10-20 years until a new generation has grown up with the maximum that the old generation would tolerate, and then you get a new maximum. Of course technology progresses too, but with all the arguments that get thrown around to keep things the way they are, it often sounds like it's not a technical issue.
As far as I can see that would only apply to camera sensor resolution though. I don't know of any drastic downsides to increasing DR, except maybe if it requires spending billions of dollars on infrastructure upgrades if you're Canon.