Fred Miranda has spoken

<blockquote>

<p>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.<br /><br />Fred Miranda</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/</p>

<p>A shocker?</p>

<p>I'm waiting to hear what the Pope has to say about it.</p>

<p>I'm waiting to hear what Edward Weston says about it.</p>

<p>Has Fred Miranda ever talked about photography?</p>

<p>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 <em>do</em> some kinds of photography.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <em>significant</em> (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).</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>Anyway, competition is good - I want to see Canon make a better Canon...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

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?

<p>I used to have a Miranda F SLR. Not as good at landscapes as the Fred but it lacked a light meter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 5D3 (which is the same sensor as the 5D2)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 5D3 (which is the same sensor as the 5D2)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <em>could have</em> done better, but simply chose not to. </p>

<p>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 ;-). </p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Well, it is still the person behind the camera... both great cameras... what gives?</p>

 

<p>Did anyone notice that he used Lightroom 4.1 Release Candidate? This product uses ACR 6.7 Release Candidate.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

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.

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.

<p>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.<br>

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. <br>

And finally as a system, Canon still holds the edge for completeness.</p>

 

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

<p>I'm shocked he could actually get a hold of one.</p>

<p>Kidding of course, but it is sure hard for us little people (ie: non-NPS) to get one...</p>

<p>These threads are cracking me up.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 :)<br>

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!).</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

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.

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

<p>The D800 has some great features, but the 5DIII has many advantages:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Better high ISO capabilities - I use 12,800 a lot these days</li>

<li>Faster FPS</li>

<li>Better auto white balance performance</li>

<li>A better implementation of Live View</li>

<li>Better tilt/shift lens quality and selection</li>

<li>Very sharp and portable f/4 zooms</li>

<li>Some video advantages</li>

</ul>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>