Fred Miranda has spoken

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by peter_j|2, Apr 23, 2012.

  1. There is no question that the D800 does not disappoint in signal to noise ratio (SNR) at low ISO and has higher dynamic range. I'm still shocked by the differences.

    Fred Miranda​
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/
    A shocker?
     
  2. I'm waiting to hear what the Pope has to say about it.
     
  3. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I'm waiting to hear what Edward Weston says about it.
    Has Fred Miranda ever talked about photography?
     
  4. His observations about the noise in the shadows at low ISOs may not be "about photography," but it will be interesting to some people who do some kinds of photography.
     
  5. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I shoot for publication and my own shows, which have very large prints. I'm using five year old technology with a fairly low pixel count sensor. I think that "pixel peeping" as in these tests if for camera buyers, not photographers.
     
  6. The D800 is an impressive piece of technology, but very few photographers really need 36 MP, and for most people it's just an expensive way to waste hard disk space and slow down in-camera processing.
     
  7. I shoot both Canon and Nikon - each has its strengths. To me, at this point in time, Nikon is producing a noticeably better sensor (in terms of output) in its full frame and crop factor cameras. If you look at Fred's photos - the shadow noise on the 5D3 (which is the same sensor as the 5D2) is awful compared to the Nikon D800 shadow areas. (Hence he is "shocked.") - no pixel peeping needed. Take a look at the comparison photos in Fred's article - you will see a significant (and here the Pope would smile with the scientific use of that word) difference between the new Canon 5D3 and the Nikon D800 in terms of shadow noise and Dynamic Range captured. To me these are visual facts. Landscape photographers and people who need to crop (for birds in flight - those birds are often at a distance) love the extra megapixels (hard disk space is cheap; flash cards are cheap - and I can always downsize the images for less resolution or just shoot jpegs).
    So many folks are asking Canon - just what have you done with sensor technology in the last 5 years (because the 5D2 is a minor improvement over the 2007 released 1Ds3)? Nikon has made significant strides in sensor technology in that same time...why can't Canon and why didn't Canon put such technology into the 5D3? And why did Canon raise its price on the 5D3 - yes the AF system, is better - but why couldn't the 5D2 have that same wonderful AF system (of the 1Ds3 eg) - for the same price? Nikon seems to be putting its advanced technology into its lower end models...and charging the same! (Goodness, the D800 seems to have instantly made the D3x, obsolete, overnight.)
    Anyway, competition is good - I want to see Canon make a better Canon...
    To make it clear: yes I think the new AF system in the 5D3 is a significant upgrade; there are also some nice tweaks in other areas: the menu system; some tweaks for video...more frames per second; the HDR option is nice for landscape photographers. Wonderful! Now why can't Canon make/sell a higher resolution sensor that captures more dynamic range that does not have noisy shadows? Both Nikon (with the D800 - at the same price point as the D700) and Sony have done it.
    Yes you can take fine images with any of the cameras mentioned above. Photography is more than MPs; more than DR etc. etc. Photography (to me) is about thinking visually. You can take great photos with a Brownie or with film etc. But dammit: if you are going to charge an arm and a leg for a camera then put the best damn technology into it - what the heck have they (Canon) been doing with sensor research in the last 5 years?
     
  8. 95% of the pictures are shot with the Canon, at small print sizes the differences were negligable (17x22 inch), Fred's a
    pure landscape shooter and he prefers the Canon T/S lenses.

    He's very much impressed by the Nikon sensor and sees a distinct advantage in DR.

    He ends with this:

    "The bottom line, is that these are both amazing tools for photography. "

    Why the weeping?
     
  9. I used to have a Miranda F SLR. Not as good at landscapes as the Fred but it lacked a light meter.
     
  10. the 5D3 (which is the same sensor as the 5D2)​
    Then why isn't the MP count exactly the same? Seriously, you really think Canon is going to be using the same sensor three years later? I doubt it.
     
  11. My very biggest gripe is the last comparison image in the article, showing vertical banding. I can deal with noise, but the vertical banding is a deal breaker in any image and defines the limits of what I am able to achieve in post. How long will it be before Canon conquers this problem that has plagued its cameras from the beginning? Has anyone here seen improvement in this issue? I don't feel I have. In fact my third digital Canon (my 40D) is approximately similar to my second digital Canon (my 5D) in this regard, which is in turn very slightly worse than my first digital Canon (my 10D). Sure, high ISO capabilities have improved, but shadow detail has not. What gives?
     
  12. the 5D3 (which is the same sensor as the 5D2)​
    While the sensor may be similar, it is obviously NOT the same - Though considering how far Nikon has come in the last 5yrs, Canon certainly could be seen as resting on it's laurels... I think the 5D3 reflects Canon's shift in market perspective more than anything though - they don't seem to feel that significant improvements in DR, MP, SnR are cost effective enough to make the R&D worthwhile, or that those improvements will result in increasing sales. Certainly they could have done better, but simply chose not to.
    There's no doubt that the D800 is a game changer, and spanks the 5D3 pretty hard in many respects, so maybe, considering that widespread opinion, the 5Dx will be worth taking a look at ;-).
     
  13. Mr. Miranda's article includes some beautiful imagess, almost all of which were taken on his 5D. Even if you aren't interested in the Canon vs. Nikon comparisons, it's worth a few minutes to enjoy the pictures. As I understand it, the noise in the Canon images only occurs when you increase the brightness of a shadow. And as he points out, increasing the exposure time goes a long way towards eliminating the problem. Exposure bracketing is a low-cast alternative to switching to a different camera vendor.
    The sensor that Nikon is using does seem to be better. But if Nikon is buying it from Sony, maybe Canon could do the same?
     
  14. bms

    bms

    Well, it is still the person behind the camera... both great cameras... what gives?
     
  15. Did anyone notice that he used Lightroom 4.1 Release Candidate? This product uses ACR 6.7 Release Candidate.
    Now how can anyone make a camera buying decision based on less than optimized software? How do the files look under Canon DPP 3.11.26?
    I remember going through this same thing when the 7D came out. I will bet people will still be referencing this first "test" two years from now.
     
  16. The 5D2 and 5D3 have the same sensor?

    Thanks for a really good laugh! I'm just glad thati wasn't drinking a glass of milk when I read that.
     
  17. I cut my teeth on Velvia and Provia. My favorite images were made with five stops of DR. There are situations where a
    lot of dynamic range would be useful - shooting at night in street lights, shooting the interior of a church without additional
    lighting. But in the vast majority of my images I end up boosting contrast, i.e. lowering the overall DR of the photo.

    I have not yet used a D800. It looks like an amazing camera especially for landscapes and advertising applications. But
    the 5D3 seems like the better overall performer for the widest number of applications - events, street, PJ, available light
    portraiture, possibly travel and sports. I don't think Canon needs to "do better" necessarily, although who wouldn't
    welcome a new high MP competitor to the mix? My TS-E24 II certainly won't mind.
     
  18. Fred Miranda did complain about the D800's LV issue which is a big deal for landscape photographers. I presume even for macro work. Sounds like Nikon has a poor implementation of LV according to the Nikon forumers there apart from the D7000.
    Anyway a camera is sum of its parts. In this respect, the 5d3 is a better fit for me. It has the speed, buffer size, reconfigurable buttons (like 7D), advanced AF and less moire. DR is the only thing that the D800 has going for it. Oh the pop flash for CLS is also great. I shoot weddings/pj-style portraits, to me the 5d3 better. But if I am a landscape purist then the D800 make sense. However I'd join that chorus of complainers about the poor LV implementation in the D800.
    And finally as a system, Canon still holds the edge for completeness.
     
  19. yet almost all his images in the story are with the 5D MkIII, hmmm..............
     
  20. I'm shocked he could actually get a hold of one.
    Kidding of course, but it is sure hard for us little people (ie: non-NPS) to get one...
     
  21. These threads are cracking me up.
    Look folks; it is time to admit what is becoming increasingly obvious: Nikon has produced a quality product that is (1) Notably superior to a Canon's high end product and (2) cheaper.
    Is the end near? No. It's just time to wait and see if Canon can step up their game and produce something even better. Eight years ago, Canon had the entire dSLR market sewed up with the 10D and then the digital rebel. Since then, Canon has slowed down (first evidence: putting the same sensor in the 20D and 30D), and now Nikon has grabbed the trophy. To this I say: BRAVO. Here's to hoping for a Canon comeback :)
    Am I selling and buying a Nikon? Nope. As people may have read in my other posts, I am too cheap to make the jump. I am just hoping the 7D mark II has the new AF system, and is priced under $1500. (I still can dream!).
    The other thing making me laugh is all the talk of "the megapixels don't matter". You guys were probably the same ones saying that the 3mp of the first dSLR's were more than adequate, and no one would need the extra mp of the new 6mp wonders.
     
  22. No Jim, megapixels matter in a relative way. Check the history of the canon G series or the 6 mp sensor
    that fuji created for the S series. A 6mp fuji sensor can create better results than a D200 or a 40d in many
    different situations (like portraits). I bet that if most of us care more about dynamic range and image quality
    than mp and detail, we woudnt be considering the D800 after all. But many dream that they might get that
    great shot that can be printed about the size of a swimming pool and that everybody will be looking for the
    smallest faults, so they want to be prepared for that event, if it ever happens. I only wish my fuji s3 pro was
    a bit faster and my m8 a 12mp full frame beauty, but I do not want more megapixels! no more please!
    instead, invest in dynamic range and filmlike output look.
     
  23. I think the Nikon D800 series uses the same 16 bit-rate as most medium format DSLR's. The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is a 14 bit-rate camera.
     
  24. I shoot primarily for publications with a 5DII at very low ISO. 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. I can see this as significantly increasing IQ, especially for large-format reproduction at all ISOs. It also would encroach on medium format territory much like the D800 is doing. I'm not sure the 5DIII has improved much regarding shadow noise over the II, although I personally have yet to try it.
     
  25. Look folks; it is time to admit what is becoming increasingly obvious: Nikon has produced a quality product that is (1) Notably superior to a Canon's high end product and (2) cheaper.​
    Notably superior? How is that? Does more pixels equal better camera in your way of thinking? If so, why did Nikon and Canon bother to engineer the D4 and the 1DX?
    The D800 has some great features, but the 5DIII has many advantages:
    • Better high ISO capabilities - I use 12,800 a lot these days
    • Faster FPS
    • Better auto white balance performance
    • A better implementation of Live View
    • Better tilt/shift lens quality and selection
    • Very sharp and portable f/4 zooms
    • Some video advantages
    Being a semi-ex-Nikon guy, I still have some good Nikon lenses. Right now, I have a D800E on order, but after reading this report (particularly problems with edge sharpness and CA in the Nikon lenses and the difficulties he experienced using Live View in low light - absolutely ESSENTIAL for me), I'm fairly certain that I'm going to be canceling that order tomorrow. My 5DIII has proven to be very solid thus far.
    Hopefully, one day Nikon will redesign their PC lenses and fix their perpetually disappointing Live View implementations. Until then, I'm going to stay in the Canon camp (further cementing my ex-Nikon credentials).
     
  26. Nikon has produced a quality product that is... notably superior to a Canon's high end product​
    I simply don't agree, Jim.
    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 really matters (in a Real World, as opposed to a "internet bragging rights" context) only if:
    a) shooting at base ISO is where the vast majority of your image-making happens; and
    b) you then habitually beat the bejeezuz out of the shadows.
    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.
    Speaking for myself I could not care less 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.
    But then again, I actively subscribe to - and routinely see the benefit of - the pixels-per-duck "delusion"...
    Nevertheless of the two, the 5D Mk III stands head and shoulders 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.
    Suffice it to say, the 5D Mk III is the first FF camera I've ever been remotely interested in.
     
  27. 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.​
    But Zac, the 5D MK III is already a lot better - a lot - than the 5D Mk II in this regard.
    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 stark - frankly I've now idea what Fred M did with his files to get such bad results from cranking the shadows.
    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.
     
  28. 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.
    I don't remember the last time so much digital ink was spilled over a camera.
    --Lannie
     
  29. It's essentially a reworking of the 7D sensor vs. D7000/Pentax K-5/Sony A580 sensor spat, Lannie - same issues, same hyperbole, same hysteria, same irrelevant nonsense.
    Then, as now, the Real World 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.
    Oh - and to internet whiners, trolls and infantile points-scorers, of course...
    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.
    For example:
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg
    to
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg
    to
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg
    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 a lot of DR and shadow recovery going on.
     
  30. 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 !
     
  31. Rats!
    The last link should be to this:
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195-plus_4_ev.jpg
     
  32. 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.​
    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.
     
  33. yet almost all his images in the story are with the 5D MkIII, hmmm..............​
    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."
     
  34. 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.
    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?
     
  35. 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..
     
  36. Forgive the lack of knowledge, but what is "The LV issue"?
    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.
    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.
    Bigger is alway better - except when it is not.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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)
    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.
    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.
     
  37. 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?
    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.
     
  38. Better dynamic range on my Canon would be nice.
    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)
    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.
    Nice camera Nikon. Pretty cool.
     
  39. can offer (hopefully) in the next generation gear in a few years​
    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.
     
  40. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  41. 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.
     
  42. Too many apologists for Canon is this forum.​
    It's not that at all.
    The only "superiority" the D800 sensor has over the Canon sensor is its low ISO DR.
    Big deal. For most users that won't make a bit of difference, and in any other respect the 5d MK III as a package is a fantastic camera: this is realism, not apologism.

    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).
    Maybe the D800 is a better camera for you, 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 (Art Morris would agree) 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.
    Frankly I think it's ridiculous that best-in-class base ISO DR has all of a sudden 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.
    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.
    It's a hoary old cliché, but it a photographer can't make superlative images with the 5D Mk III, the camera ain't the problem and a D800 won't help that.
    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 - it won't be; 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.
    It's pathetic. And it just doesn't work like that.
     
  43. Better dynamic range on my Canon would be nice.​
    Mark, the 5D Mk III already has better DR than the Mk II - actually download and process some 5D Mk III files yourself (as I've done) and you'll see it with your own eyes.
     
  44. 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.
     
  45. With the 5D3, Canon did exactly what I hoped for.
     
  46. Having used my Canon 7D for waaay more than 10,000 images (hell, I took over 3,000 last week), I'll bet you my pension that in terms of the end result anything you can do with your D7000 I can do with my 7D, John - believe me, you don't want to assume that I haven't already tried, because I have.
    I might get there by a different route, but I'll get there.
    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 better:
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg
    to
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows_recovered.jpg
    and

    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg
    to
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/2195_recovery.jpg
     
  47. No idea why the forum software isn't parsing the links above into something clickable:
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg
    to
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows_recovered.jpg
    and
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg
    to
    http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195-plus_4_ev.jpg
     
  48. >> 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.
     
  49. John Wright asked a very good question:
    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?​
    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:
    [​IMG]
    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.
    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!
     
  50. 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).​
    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).
    It looks to have increased DR over its predecessor from my casual observation (not a structured test).​
    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.
    It has a bit more resolution. And it solves all of the complaints that people had about the 5D2: AF and weather proofing.​
    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.
    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.
     
  51. Here's an example of a photo where I wish the underexposed areas (the underside of the wing) were less noisy:
    http://www.photo.net/photo/14389874
    I run into this situation much when shooting in the tropics - very bright topside of a bird with the underside several stops less exposed (darker). Here is another:
    http://www.photo.net/photo/14757593
    So yes I need the extra pixels because I am cropping - and I need better dynamic range so I can boost the underexposed areas (shadows) - and not have whites that end up greenish...or blacks that have banding and/or are blotchy. Perhaps the D800 could do this for me...
     
  52. Keith
    Misrepresenting what someone said and then attacking them is both disengenuous and immature.
    Frankly I think it's ridiculous that best-in-class base ISO DR has all of a sudden 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.
    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.​
    The fact is that Canon has been losing market share to Nikon for several years now. The market is speaking. So it is more than best in class base ISO that is driving photographers to Nikon. And it is not just 0.01 per cent that think the 5D III looks dissappointing compared to the $1k cheaper D800.
    If you are happy with your 5DIII then I am happy for you. I see no need to buy it because it doesn't pass my cost benefit test.
     
  53. the $1k cheaper D800.​
    Where can I buy a D800 for $2499?
     
  54. Sorry, my mistake. Should be $0.5k cheaper. Thanks for picking this up.
     
  55. As it were, I would not touch ISO 6400 on any camera (including the famed D3s).​
    That's your choice. I'm thrilled with the ability to capture never-before-possible images at very high quality. 1.5 to 2 stops may seem like a minor increase, but it's significant in practice. I wouldn't use the 5DII above 3200. 12,800 opens up many new possibilities.
    I have downloaded and compared raw images from many websites.​
    It's not quite the same as doing your own tests in the type of light that you encounter regularly.
    The difference you see is actually an even weaker AA filter.​
    I haven't seen any issues with moiré, and I shoot in urban environments. I could demonstrate that my car has the ability to run over my foot, but I don't normally use my car that way.
    not have the world's leading sensor (something we came to expect from 5D line)​
    That honor would belong to the Phase One IQ180. The 5D line has never had that distinction. Sony A900 and Nikon D3X edged the 5DII for resolution. Nikon D3(s) for ISO.
    The 5DII was always a reasonably priced camera that did everything well but nothing the best. It was the bundle of features (resolution, ISO, video) that made it an affordable workhorse. The 5DIII fills the same niche.
     
  56. Interpolating accuracy? How can you compare ISO/shadow noise when you have interpolated one photo? Sorry, but this is not an accurate way to compare. Did anyone find the ISO numbers on Freds examples with the high noise showing? I find that hard to believe because my Mark IV shows less noise than that at ISO8000. Something isn't right there.
    I have often wondered when Canon was going to catch on to Nikon's trick of adding more yellow to their color tones to cause a lift in the dark areas? I often correct a [canon] underexposed photo with an added boost of yellow. Look at the nikon photos [I've looked at plenty] and you will see they contain more yellow. Canon has richer colors, and more reddish tones probably help. But as you all probably know, adding red darkens a photo and adding yellow lightens it. I believe you can also see this in his examples.
    I'm a Canon shooter, but I do see a cleaner original on my friends Nikon D700, with slightly more detail in the darks. Doesn't make me love my gear less though. They both have their merits.
     
  57. I don't think it's an interpolation issue. The banding looks just like what I've seen with my own cameras, uninterpolated. However, you raise a good point.
     
  58. The fact is that Canon has been losing market share to Nikon for several years now.​
    Can you provide a source for this statement? I am curious as it is so easily stated, but what segment, which markets etc etc?
     
  59. "5D III looks disappointing compared to the $1k cheaper D800. "​
    But it isn't $1k cheaper, the D800 is $2,999.95 and has already had a price increase in several markets, the D800E, that may are starting to prefer is $3,299.95. The 5D MkIII is $3,499.00, and that could well ease. So at worst you are only looking at $499 difference, some are only paying $199 difference in the USA, in other markets the D800E and the 5D MkIII are basically the same price.
     
  60. The fact is that Canon has been losing market share to Nikon for several years now.
    In watching sporting events compare sideline photos that show the photographers now with those of 6-10 years ago. Way fewer white lenses on the sidelines these days.
    Canon really screwed the pooch in pushing away too many shooters with the 1DMKIII auto focus problems. A number of friends who shoot sports switched to Nikon as the result of ongoing AF problems with those bodies. You guy a camera, you expect it to work. The sad fact was they did not work, Canon denied it and Nikon welcomed the pissed off shooters with open arms.
    The D800 and 5DMkIII - shoot a dozen images in varying light conditions, print 16x20's of each full frame and see if you can pick one over the other consistently. If you can, go with that body - knowing in 1-4 years the other guys will come out with something to match or beat it. An expensive game.
     
  61. This is all so hard. These mean people make me buy all new cameras and lenses practically every time a new one comes out. When will it all end?
    Fortunately, I am a one-percenter and don't have to worry about the money.~ [I wish]
    Will the last person on the thread please put out the lights when you leave.
    Wait, that seems to be me, Wunderbar! Consider the lights out.
     
  62. I keep playing the lottery, JDM. Chances are greater of getting hit by lightning than hitting the Power Ball or Mega Ball, but it may be the only shot I have of buying one of every camera brand and lens every time they come out with the latest and greatest.
    But until then, I am really grateful for what I have and have a lot of fun shooting with my Canons and a few good lenses. Life is good. :)
     
  63. My very biggest gripe is the last comparison image in the article, showing vertical banding. I can deal with noise, but the vertical banding is a deal breaker in any image and defines the limits of what I am able to achieve in post. How long will it be before Canon conquers this problem that has plagued its cameras from the beginning? Has anyone here seen improvement in this issue? I don't feel I have. In fact my third digital Canon (my 40D) is approximately similar to my second digital Canon (my 5D) in this regard, which is in turn very slightly worse than my first digital Canon (my 10D). Sure, high ISO capabilities have improved, but shadow detail has not.​
    I really agree with this. Sure, one can always get rid of banding and whatever in PP and/or by using mutiple exposures, and get greater DR along the way, but for some of us it's really useful to get images that won't need it. Heck, I've had to trash correctly exposed pictures taken in daylight at ISO 200 because of outright ugly "banded" chroma noise, making them practically unprintable without significant PP. (And no, this is not due to user error.) I thought that upgrading from 50D to 7D/60D would do it but it didn't, particularly not when using Highlight Priority. If Sony and Nikon have solved this problem -- which is real -- or at least some of it, they deserve praise.
     
  64. I also agree. I have struggled with the noise issue in the 5DMII and finally sold it and kept a 1DMIII. Canon is going to have to do better before I step up.
     

Share This Page