Jump to content

Is the 5D MKlll better at high ISO than the D800


JRCrowe

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Unless you intend to shoot only JPEG images, it is more useful to look at RAW images. Not sure why Canon cannot match the RAW processing qualities of their Digital Photo Professional software in-camera. Canon's own official sample JPEGs look awful even at low ISO but a RAW file I downloaded from Imaging Resource looked great.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I really expected to see much less noise in the D800 at ISO 6400 and above but the 5D Mk lll seems to outperform it. I had seen some photos from the D800 at WPPI, there were some night shots displayed that were quite sharp at more than 100% with little noise, and some high ISO shots that looked very good. I am surprised that the 5D Mk lll seems to outperform it in the test shots. Many people were disappointed at the specs and the price of the 5D Mklll, me among them. Its only preliminary but it looks like the two cameras may be more equal than the numbers suggest. The 5D Mk lll may even be worth the higher price. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well the D800 crops at 100% are considerably more enlarged, and so is their noise, than the 5D MkIII, also, despite assertions and theories to the contrary it does seem to be that for same generation sensors denser pixels in the same area do not perform as well at high iso than their less dense cousins, even when you resample down to match resolution.</p>

<p>Both cameras will take superb images, but realizing the full capabilities of resolution from either will be down to very good technique. Bench tests like those linked to will always perform well, but those situations are a world away from real world shooting and I think many will be disappointed in their own results.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>despite assertions and theories to the contrary it does seem to be that for same generation sensors denser pixels in the same area do not perform as well at high iso than their less dense cousins, even when you resample down to match resolution.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Seriously</em>, Scott?</p>

<p>There are <em>no</em> "same generation" examples to prove that. None whatsoever. </p>

<p>The notion that the 5D Mk III and D800 sensors are "same generation" simply because they've appeared at about the same time, is just revisionism to support your baseless assertion.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well if you just use the words in their correct context and don't just fly off the handle at assertions you might not agree with.</p>

<p>By definition the 5D MkIII and the D800 are the same <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generation">generation</a>, that is the meaning of the word! Trying to assert that they are not in the same generation is revisionism.</p>

<p>Now, Keith, show me a same generation denser sensor, of the same design, that performs better at high iso than a lower density one. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Why are simpleton bullies like Keith tolerated on photo.net? I guess it's because we tolerate the intolerant. Good on us for that, I suppose, though I feel sorry for those naive members who actually believe everything they read on this site.</p>

<p>Do you know what the words "same" and "generation" mean, Keith? And are you able to put those two meanings together? Does the word "contemporaneous" ring any bells? Or are you, as your words seem to imply, either living in another universe, or brain dead?</p>

<p>I'm sorry for the stridency of my remarks, but I believe that it's incumbent on us to call out the bullies in our midst.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The D800 is 36MP vs 22MP of the 5D III. I would expect the 5D III to be the better high ISO performer. No surprise for me. I'd expect the D800 to be only slightly better at high ISO than the 7D, given the pixel density, which doesn't really impress me that much. To me, it seems a 36MP full frame camera is geared towards landscape shooters that use ISO 100 and a tripod, not a shooter looking for low light performance.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Matt,</p>

<p>I disagree, they are two manufacturers products aimed at the same market segment. They are both high end "prosumer" models, both full frame with very similar specs and prices and released at the same time. They are in direct competition for a particular market segment, just like the D700 and 5D MkII were, the previous models had bigger feature differentiation but they were still in direct competition.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am not surprised. It is still easier to get better high ISO performance from less dense sensors. </p>

<p>These cameras are not trying to be each other, however, in my opinion, Nikon and Canon did try to be more like the other and actually thought the cameras they were developing would be similar. Each overshot the other. Canon wanted a better high ISO camera to compete with the D800 that they were expecting to see (a marginally higher res D700 with better high ISO) and Nikon wanted a better high res camera to compete with the 5D III that they were expecting to see ( a 5D II with 30+ megapixels). </p>

<p>Funny how it turned out, and judging by people here on photo.net it seems that both Nikon and Canon should be apologizing to their customers for their misjudgements. Nikon has already backtracked by saying that the D800 is not meant as a replacement for the D700. Canon is sticking to their guns that better high ISO, marginally faster fps, and better AF, is worth $1000 to $2000 over the 5D II. Yes, I just noticed you can buy a refurbished 5D II, which will have similar low ISO performance, directly from Canon USA for less than half the price of a 5D III.</p>

<p>P.S. I am not the original poster. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> I'd expect the D800 to be only slightly better at high ISO than the 7D, given the pixel density, which doesn't really impress me that much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's dangerous to make an extrapolation based upon pixel density alone. We don't know what kind of firmware processing is built into any of these new sensor chips or how efficient they are at collecting photons.</p>

<p>From all reports the D800 exceeds the High ISO performance of the D700. I fear that the 7D, which does a remarkable job for having a lot of pixels on a small sensor, isn't going to be in the same league with either of these cameras.</p>

<p>Full disclosure: I own a 7D (which I don't plan to sell anytime soon), I used to own a D700, and I have a D800E on order. I have no brand-based bias in this discussion.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>At first glance, the Canon does seem to offer a cleaner image than the Nikon, but I'm honestly not too sure exactly what I'm comparing. When I compare the 5DIII to itself at different ISO settings, progressively higher ISOs show progressively more aggressive noise smoothing, to the point that considerable detail and contrast are lost, so there appears to be some dynamic process afoot. I'm not sure I consider this "good." I'm wondering how the images would look with noise left intact, sparing sharpness and contrast.</p>

<p>This may be old news to many people, but I admit it's not what I expected. I presume these are in-camera jpegs. Would/could DPP do the same conversion? I suppose we don't know yet how the RAW files compare at different ISOs. Or do we?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Internet IQ comparison is always difficult although I would expect the 5DIII to outperform the D800 at higher ISO. This is

really just physics as both cameras have the same generation of signal processing and sensor. While the engineers

differ and the algorithms also differ the larger Canon photo sites will give a better Signal to noise ratio ((Eb/No for the

pedantic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Notwithstanding the limitations of comparing JPEGS, I have to say that I would be pleased to shoot either of them. The Canon looks very clean at high ISO, and it is not so far behind in resolution even at ISO 50--where both are very clean. That should not be too surprising, though. A camera with twice the resolution of the 5D III would not have 44 mp, but 88. (Resolution is a linear function, being defined in terms of line pairs per mm.) Comparing the square roots of 22 and 36, on the other hand, indicates that even on purely mathematical grounds alone, the Canon should have about three quarters the resolution of the Nikon, not 22/36, which at 11/18 would seem to imply (falsely) that the Nikon would be almost twice as good in terms of resolution as the Canon. (I realize that I presented all that in a confusing way, but those who understand resolution will, I hope, get the point.)</p>

<p>Given everything else that the Canon comes with, I would say that the advantage seems to go to Canon. The resolution is not equal to that of the Nikon, but it is closer to it than one might imagine just by comparing the total number of megapixels of both.</p>

<p>I used to say that I would not ever need more megapixels than the 5D II can give. Well, now we have that (and a tiny bit more in terms of resolution), but with a lot of other improvements. Right now I am happy that went with Canon back there with the original 5D in 2006, when the price had already slipped almost a thousand dollars. When it does that for the 5D III (adjusted for inflation), then I hope that I can buy the 5D III. I do not think that I will be trying to buy the Nikon. The marginal value of the added resolution is simply not that great, and on everything else the Canon is clearly superior.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I just put the information here about latest comparison result in Japan between D800 and 5Dmk3.<br /> ISO: D800>5Dmk3<br /> Dynamic range: D800>5Dmk3<br /> Resolution: D800>>5Dmk3<br /> Price: D800>>5Dmk3 (D800 is amazingly cheaper than 5Dmk3.)<br /> Canon users look doing funeral ceremony against Nikon users Rio's Carnival.<br /> Also, D800 and D800E's order percentage is 46% vs 54%.<br>

And waiting time from order to in coming is now 2 months for D800, 5Dmk3 is not informed yet.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Internet IQ comparison is always difficult although I would expect the 5DIII to outperform the D800 at higher ISO. This is really just physics as both cameras have the same generation of signal processing and sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>The physics </em>says nothing of the sort. <em></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>The physics </em>says whether a sensor has one pixel, 4 pixels or 40 million pixels, its overall light-gathering capacity will be the same.</p>

<p><em>The physics </em>says it's the size of the "window", not how many panes of glass it's made up from, that controls how much light it will collect.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be what the theoretical physics says, the actual engineered sensor doesnt work at the theoretical level though, for many reasons, and empirical results just don't support your beliefs, there are countless examples of higher density pixel sensors, even when they are

younger, not performing as well at high iso (or at the pixel level at base iso) as lower density sensors. I have posted my

own test examples many times that illustrate that.

 

Whether the increased noise is too much to affect the image, or not be process-able away or any other symantec game,

doesn't alter the fact that countless images readily available on the Internet, from reputable sites, all support my initial

assertion and nobody has provided a single image to rebuff it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering how the images would look with noise left intact, sparing sharpness and contrast.<br>

This may be old news to many people, but I admit it's not what I expected. I presume these are in-camera jpegs. Would/could DPP do the same conversion? I suppose we don't know yet how the RAW files compare at different ISOs. Or do we?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Right, what really matters isn't what comes straight out of the camera but what can be done with it in PP. A significant scrambling factor in the mix are/will be performance of different existing & future versions of the various third-party RAW converters with files from either camera, or even the continuously improving performance of noise suppression algorithms for jpeg files. Not to mention the times needed to PP 24 Mpx versus 36 Mpx files on everyone's slightly to greatly different hardware configurations.</p>

<p>And I'm not familiar with the details of i-r's test procedure, but presumably both cameras were shot at +/- zero Ev. Do we know whether their iso scales are truly matched, or do one or both benefit more substantially from exposing to the right?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I suppose we don't know yet how the RAW files compare at different ISOs. Or do we?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Imaging Resource has posted both the D 800's NEF files and the 5D Mark III's CR2 Raw files. I downloaded them yesterday. Once I update my ACR to version 6.6 I will give them a test.</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...