Fred Miranda has spoken

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon has produced a quality product that is... notably superior to a Canon's high end product</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I simply don't agree, Jim.</p>

<p>Discounting the difference in pixel density for now (which is - or is not - a benefit depending on the photographer) the only place in which the D800 is "superior" is in low ISO DR; but that <em>really</em> matters (in a Real World, as opposed to a "internet bragging rights" context) only if: </p>

<p>a) shooting at base ISO is where the vast majority of your image-making happens; and<br>

b) you then habitually beat the bejeezuz out of the shadows.</p>

<p>In every other sense the 5D MK III is not only as good as, but in many significant aspects is clearly better than, the Nikon - Dan identifies some relevant areas above. </p>

<p>Speaking for myself I <em>could not care less</em> about low ISO DR - it's simply not part of my shooting (I'm never below 400 ISO and am frequently in 4 figure ISOs to maintain shutter speed for the birds I photograph), although ironically - putting pixel density back into the equation for a moment - personally I'd rather benefit from a D800-ish pixel density if I was looking for a FF birding camera.</p>

<p>But then again, I actively subscribe to - <em>and routinely see the benefit of</em> - the pixels-per-duck "delusion"... </p>

<p>Nevertheless of the two, the 5D Mk III stands <em>head and shoulders</em> above the D800 for the kind of photography I'm ever likely to indulge in: and subjectively I find that I prefer the "look" of 5D Mk III images over those I've seen from the D800.</p>

<p>Suffice it to say, the 5D Mk III is the first FF camera I've ever been remotely interested in. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>While not really mattering for most of my work, reducing shadow noise would be a great place to start if Canon ever decides to get serious about advancing sensor technology. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>But Zac, the 5D MK III is already a lot better - <em>a lot</em> - than the 5D Mk II in this regard.</p>

<p>I've played with some heavy shadow 5D Mk III Raw files where I've beaten the crap out of the shadows, and the improvement over previous Canons is <em>stark</em> - frankly I've now idea what Fred M did with his files to get such bad results from cranking the shadows.</p>

<p>It's still not as good as the D800, but it's a whole lot better than much of what has gone before on the Canon side of the fence. </p>

<p>This D800 thing is getting out of hand. The darned thing better be able to fix breakfast and give me a massage. Otherwise, I am going to sell all my camera stuff and get a girlfriend.</p>

<p>I don't remember the last time so much digital ink was spilled over a camera.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>It's essentially a reworking of the <strong>7D sensor vs. D7000/Pentax K-5/Sony A580 sensor</strong> spat, Lannie - same issues, same hyperbole, same hysteria, same irrelevant nonsense.</p>

<p>Then, as now, the <em>Real World</em> differences between the sensors are too small to matter except to that tiny subset of photographers who live at base ISO and torture the shadows - and even then, only occasionally.</p>

<p>Oh - and to internet whiners, trolls and infantile points-scorers, of course...</p>

<p>Besides, it's actually not that hard to get a lot out of the shadows with these "useless" Canon sensors too - it may need a bit more care in conversion and PP than would be required from the Sony sensors, and more PP skill than some people are willing or able to contribute, but it's eminently doable to a very acceptable degree - with just a little bit of effort.</p>

<p>For example:</p>

<p>http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg<br /> to <br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg</p>

<p>http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg<br /> to<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg</p>

<p>These are all from my 7D,: yes, they're small here, but you can take my word for it - they're pretty good (within the limits of the dismal subject matter!) big, too, and there's <em>a lot</em> of DR and shadow recovery going on.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>funny how some people that recently bought the Nikon D800 and still have their older Canon 5DmkII (and original 5D) now say they prefer the images from the older Canons !</p>

<p>Rats!</p>

<p>The last link should be to this:<br>

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195-plus_4_ev.jpg</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's still not as good as the D800, but it's a whole lot better than much of what has gone before on the Canon side of the fence.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Keith for the added info. I have yet to shoot with the 5DIII and would be very interested in improvements in shadow noise at lower ISOs. As with everything, it's the real world application that always points me back to Canon. I had a K-5 and now am checking out a D7000 just too evaluate the Exmor sensor technology. I have to say while the sensor technology is good, I still am subjectively preferring the overall look of the output from my 60D, which the 5DII improves upon. I think Canon will address exactly the issues we're discussing in the next go around. Less shadow and blue sky noise like the Exmors with Canon color and highlight rendition would be perfect. </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>yet almost all his images in the story are with the 5D MkIII, hmmm..............</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's because he found the Nikon implementation of LiveView was too poor to use for manual focus. Not an issue for most photogs as we use AF but a biggie for studied landscape and macro shooters. And, yes, Fred took some really great images during his "test." </p>

<p>I've had a 20D and 50D. Thanks to my film background, I use shadows as compositional elements and I have never noticed banding or noise in the shadows. I read about the "problem" here years ago, and setup a shot so I could see it, and then never noticed it again in my real shooting. Except once in a studio shot where I messed up the lighting. ;-) So I'm not concerned about it. I'm really excited to get my hands on a 5D3 for all the improvements. </p>

<p>But I am curious, and this is a serious question, for those of you who care about shadow noise and banding and detail, what types of shots do you take where it is an issue? How often is it an issue?</p>

 

John, I find shadow noise to be a problem when shooting people. The 5D Mark II has always been problematic in this

regard. Shadows under someone's arm, for instance, have a grainy, gritty look that's difficult to repair even with careful

noise reduction.

 

I haven't been able to test the 5D III thoroughly enough in this regard due to a lack of raw conversion - I don't want to use

Lightroom's release candidate version because I worry about bugs corrupting files..

<p>Forgive the lack of knowledge, but what is "The LV issue"?<br>

I see any improvement in image quality overall as good. The Nikon obviously as it all over the Canon in normal ISO ranges for most of us.<br>

I shoot a lot of 8x10 because I like to contact print the negatives. Same with 5x7 though I do enlarge some of the negs for much bigger prints.<br>

Bigger is alway better - except when it is not.<br>

If I could shoot the 8x10 or even 12x20 with the ease of the 1DMkII's I would do so in a heartbeat. The overall image quality is so much better for what I do it is not funny. And yes, I do miss shooting press work with a 4x5, especially boxing action. A "look" I have yet to see duplicated with the current cameras even as we get better and better and more images from an event.<br>

A lot more to the finished print than technical considerations but using the finest gear possible is never a mistake, just a choice. One often dictated by the bank account more than esthetics.<br>

Digital keeps getting better, cleaner, sharper, faster and making images that show well. Still, just a tool that produces junk in the hands of a fool or someone who won't take the time to really learn the tool.<br>

I would not turn down either camera but given the choice and bank account to handle it would pick the one that gave me an edge, even a small one - all else being equal. But... all things are not equal so we compromise and choose what works for us now knowing something new will be out before long that may or may not be 'better' for what we do. (I'm looking forward to a hands'on with the Fuji Xpro1 as a carry around in the future)<br>

Years ago it was the equipment lust that kept me looking at what came out. Eventually it was actually looking at results that drove choices - if I could not see a visible improvement in the final image(or greatly improved workflow) I did not change what worked.<br>

Technical improvements are fine but if it does not make images I can see are better - why would I change? That said, there is something to pride in what one uses and comfort in its handling. Those help us improve while bringing joy to the process.</p>

<p>Too many apologists for Canon is this forum. The argument seems to run that either car will get you from A to B in the same time provided you are a competent driver and stick to the speed limit and either car is more than capable of exceeding the speed limit so why care. However, this ignores that fact that if one car rides better, drives better, is more comfortable and has better fuel economy, why buy the other?</p>

<p>For my type of shooting the D800 looks to be a better camera than the 5DIII, and it is much cheaper. Do I lose sleep over this? No. However, it doesn't stop me from wondering how much more I would have liked it if Canon came up with something that matched or beat the D800 at the D800s price.</p>

 

<p>Better dynamic range on my Canon would be nice.<br>

Dynamic range improvement is something Canon, no doubt, can offer (hopefully) in the next generation gear in a few years, insuring a lot of us so heavily invested in Canon glass can upgrade to when the new improved body is offered. Isn't this all planned out, baby steps, spoon feed us the technology a little every year with all electronics? I envision somewhere in a development lab there already exists the sensors of the future five generations more advanced than the latest on the market. ;) (Perhaps not, lol)</p>

<p>I just can't afford to reinvest in all new Nikon gear. Some how us Canon owners not independently wealthy enough will have to muddle through with our current Canon gear and work around dynamic range issues like we have been.</p>

<p>Nice camera Nikon. Pretty cool.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>can offer (hopefully) in the next generation gear in a few years</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mark: A "few years" is just too long for some. I probably will have sold off my Canon gear and would have switched back to Nikon! Nikon is just too strong a competition for Canon right now.</p>

<p>For several years now, 5D has been in a class of its own and nobody could hold a candle to it. For all these years. 5D was a general favorite of many photographers who cared only about IQ and could not care less about AF and other features. Many other photographers complained but still lived with the shortcomings. In short, people loved 5D for its class leading sensor in an economical (albeit compromised) body.</p>

<p>5D.3 has advanced the 5D series in a different direction. There is no improvement in any sensor characteristics for Raw shooters. The body has definitely improved. So 5D.3 is now a very capable body with a great, but not a state-of-the-art mind-blowing great that 5D and 5D.2 were, sensor. </p>

<p>On the other hand Nikon has come up with a camera that takes the trophy for a mind-blowing state-of-the-art sensor with super details, super DR, and low noise (specially considering pixel size). Not only is it a superior sensor, but it is packaged in a very capable body. People forget to mention that D800 includes Nikons' best 90+k color metering sensor. Canon chimped and included only the cheaper 63 zone meter found in its Rebel class camera. How much difference the metering makes is yet to be seen, but there has to be some difference because Canon included the comparable 100K+ color metering sensor in 1Dx.</p>

<p>For any person who shot with the 5D series purely for its IQ, the upgrade path is not in Canon line-up. But of course, cameras are only one part of the system and Nikon's lens line up is a big mess with a good mix of brilliance, mediocrity, and plain vacuum. </p>

<p> </p>

Part of the problem, I think, is that Canon has put in a lot of R&D into their new cine cams which probably took away the

money usually set aside for DSLR development.

 

Nikon on the other hand concentrates only on one thing.

 

If you look at wide angled lenses the nikkor 14-24 has ruled for about 5 years and now this is going to raise the landscape

photograhy bar to a level that Canon simply can't match, regardless of LV and other issues.

 

Maybe the returns from the cinema stuff development will work its way into DSLRs in which case Nikon would then have a serious prolems on their hands.

<blockquote>

<p>Too many apologists for Canon is this forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not that <em>at all</em>.</p>

<p>The only "superiority" the D800 sensor has over the Canon sensor is its low ISO DR.</p>

<p><em>Big deal</em>. For most users that won't make a bit of difference, and in any other respect the 5d MK III <em>as a package </em>is a fantastic camera: <strong>this is <em>realism, </em>not </strong><em><strong>apologism</strong>. </em><br /> <em> </em><br /> Whining about the "shortfalls" of the Canon sensor, along with the usual self-important and ridiculous banging-on about how "Canon has failed us again" - is something that is refreshingly absent from this discussion (though doubtless that happy state won't last - some people are only happy when they're bitching about something).</p>

<p>Maybe the D800 <em>is </em>a better camera<em> for you</em>, Geoff - but so what? For me it'd be a burden, whereas the 5D Mk III looks like a fantastic camera for what I shoot (<a href="http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/">Art Morris would agree</a>) and as Dan South (who knows Nikon too) has clearly pointed out on page 3 of the thread, the 5D Mk III brings a lot to the table that improves on the D800.</p>

<p>Frankly I think it's ridiculous that best-in-class base ISO DR has <em>all of a sudden</em> become the only parameter that "matters", when the reality is that for - what? - 99.99% of Canon's potential customer base it won't make a blind bit of difference to their shooting.</p>

<p>And if someone happens to be in that 0.01%, let's be blunt about it: they're not as important to Canon's bottom line as they'd like to think they are.</p>

<p>It's a hoary old cliché, but it a photographer can't make <em>superlative </em>images with the 5D Mk III, <em>the camera ain't the problem </em>and a D800 won't help that.</p>

<p>It depresses me that the likes of DxO have made camera sensor specs into a competition, as if the mark they give will actually be reflected in the quality of the end result - <em>it won't be</em>; and it depresses me even more that some "photographers" are so insecure about their own skills and abilities that they honestly(?) seem to believe that without the camera with the best of whatever DxO has told them is this year's most important metric, their photographic world will crumble into dust around them.</p>

<p>It's pathetic. And it just doesn't work like that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Better dynamic range on my Canon would be nice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mark, the 5D Mk III <em>already has better DR than the Mk II</em> - actually download and process some 5D Mk III files yourself (as I've done) and you'll see it with your own eyes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Having used my D7000 for over 10,000 images, the low light and EV range are not simply nice to have -- these qualities are truly revolutionary and have dramatically enlarged the range of images I can capture. Shooting in low light and capturing clean detail in the dark areas while preserving the highlights is a truly dramatic change in what is possible. Don't knock it until you actually try it.</p>

<p>With the 5D3, Canon did exactly what I hoped for. </p>

 

<p>Having used my Canon 7D for <em>waaay</em> more than 10,000 images (hell, I took over 3,000 <em>last week</em>), I'll bet you my pension that <em>in terms of the end result </em> anything you can do with your D7000 I can do with my 7D, John - believe me, you don't want to assume that I <em>haven't</em> already tried, because I have.</p>

<p>I might get there by a different route, but I'll get there.</p>

<p>I've already posted these links to make this point, but here they are again. No problems with 7D shadow recovery here, and the 5D Mk III is <em>better</em>:<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg<br>

to<br />http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows_recovered.jpg<br>

and<br /><br />http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg<br>

to<br />http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/2195_recovery.jpg</p>

<p>No idea why the forum software isn't parsing the links above into something clickable: </p>

<p>http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg<br>

to <br>

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows_recovered.jpg</p>

<p>and </p>

<p>http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg<br>

to <br>

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195-plus_4_ev.jpg</p>

<p> </p>

>> Zameen: 5D.3 has advanced the 5D series in a different direction. There is no improvement in any sensor

characteristics for Raw shooters. The body has definitely improved. So 5D.3 is now a very capable body with a great, but

not a state-of-the-art mind-blowing great that 5D and 5D.2 were, sensor. <<

 

Zameen, have you used a 5D3? It IS mind blowing. ISO 12,800 is stunning and 25,600 is clean and usable (not a

marketing stunt). For an event, a wedding, sports, or a one camera to do everything travel body, I would choose this

camera hands down over the D800. It looks to have increased DR over its predecessor from my casual observation (not a

structured test). It has a bit more resolution. And it solves all of the complaints that people had about the 5D2: AF and

weather proofing.

 

The D800 is an amazing camera as well, but if I could only use one body it would be the 5D3.

<p>John Wright asked a very good question:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I am curious, and this is a serious question, for those of you who care about shadow noise and banding and detail, what types of shots do you take where it is an issue? How often is it an issue?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This might not be a problem for all of us all of the time, all of us some of the time, or even some of us some of the time, but it's definitely a problem for some of us some of the time (apologies to Mr. Lincoln). The problem occurs for me when I'm dealing with extremely contrasty scenes with shadow detail that is important, and for which I don't have the luxury, for various reasons, of layering multiple frames of differing exposure. I will then bump the shadow contrast to bring out those important details, and THAT is where vertical banding sometimes rears its ugly head. For example, the dynamic range in this shot spans from a white shirt, illuminated by window light, to soot-blackened areas in dark recesses of the blacksmith's shop:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phblacksmith02sm.jpg" alt="" width="467" height="700" /></p>

<p>As I recall, I had to use a clone stamp to fix some vertical banding in this shot. This issue (or something similar) might come up in perhaps 5% of my shots. Also, if vertical banding were not so limiting an issue, I know many more possibilities would open up in my photography.</p>

<p>FAIW, I applaud Canon for pushing the envelope of high-ISO capabilities. I shoot a lot of very dark scenes where flash lighting is not welcome or would be counterproductive. However, I am very disappointed that pushing the limits of DR is absolutely not important to Canon. My own real-world experience would suggest the problem is getting worse with subsequent generations, not better. That's the wrong direction!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Zameen, have you used a 5D3? It IS mind blowing. ISO 12,800 is stunning and 25,600 is clean and usable (not a marketing stunt).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't have the camera yet but in all reviews the Raw advantage is only minor (compared to mark II). I have downloaded and compared raw images from many websites. As it were, I would not touch ISO 6400 on any camera (including the famed D3s).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It looks to have increased DR over its predecessor from my casual observation (not a structured test).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is welcome if there is any but I did not notice in the Raw files I downloaded. This was a disappointment for me going from 5D to 5D.2. DxO numbers aside, I always had more success pulling shadows on 5D. On 5D Mark II I stopped trying.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It has a bit more resolution. And it solves all of the complaints that people had about the 5D2: AF and weather proofing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The difference you see is actually an even weaker AA filter. See the moire in fred miranda's review (as well as DPR). Nevertheless I personally don't mind that. Better to have resolution and then soften the image in post, then to not have it.</p>

<p>Of course 5D.3 is eminently capable camera. However it adds features which have been standard on competitor's bodies for years, still does not have Canon's advanced metering system, does not have the world's leading sensor (something we came to expect from 5D line) and is noticeably more expensive.</p>