Fred Miranda has spoken

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>Here's an example of a photo where I wish the underexposed areas (the underside of the wing) were less noisy:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/14389874</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/14757593</p>

<p>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...</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Keith<br>

Misrepresenting what someone said and then attacking them is both disengenuous and immature.</p>

<blockquote>

<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.<br>

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>

</blockquote>

<p>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. <br>

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.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>the $1k cheaper D800.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where can I buy a D800 for $2499?</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Sorry, my mistake. Should be $0.5k cheaper. Thanks for picking this up.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>As it were, I would not touch ISO 6400 on any camera (including the famed D3s).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have downloaded and compared raw images from many websites.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not quite the same as doing your own tests in the type of light that you encounter regularly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The difference you see is actually an even weaker AA filter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>not have the world's leading sensor (something we came to expect from 5D line)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[linda_jones1]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>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.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The fact is that Canon has been losing market share to Nikon for several years now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you provide a source for this statement? I am curious as it is so easily stated, but what segment, which markets etc etc?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p>"5D III looks disappointing compared to the $1k cheaper D800. "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>The fact is that Canon has been losing market share to Nikon for several years now.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>This is all so <em>hard</em>. These mean people make me buy all new cameras and lenses practically every time a new one comes out. When will it all end?</p>

<p>Fortunately, I am a one-percenter and don't have to worry about the money.~ [i wish]</p>

<p>Will the last person on the thread please put out the lights when you leave.</p>

<p>Wait, that seems to be me, Wunderbar! Consider the lights out.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. :)</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <em>daylight</em> 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.</p>

[d_young]

<p>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. </p>