pierrearnaud

I went from the 5dc to the 5Diii, so I can't comment comparatively on the image quality. But regarding the AF module,

given that the 5dii has the same module as the 5Dc, I can confirm that moving up to the 5Diii makes a huge difference in

terms of speed, accuracy, low light performance, field coverage, tracking, etc.

In terms of image quality, the difference with the 5Dc is quite noticeable, not just resolution wise, but also tonal range,

DR. Also high iso : I've been able to make enlargements of shots at 25600 iso that are good enough in A4 that I'm

considering trying a3 prints. Of course, I can't tell how the 5Dii measures up against this.

Sami,

I upgraded from a 5Dc which essentially has the same AF as the 5Dii. If AF performance is important to you, then there is no question the

mkIII is for you. AF is quite simply in another league. I also enjoy the improvement in high ISP and DR, but thighs be less true coming

from a mark II. Also, as far as I can tell, there are significant improvements in metering, fill in flash, ergonomics, etc.

I had always bought my cameras used. After trying out the mark III, I decided to take this big step in my photographic life : buy a camera

new. That's how impressed I am with it.

<p>Upgraded from a 5Dc some 2 months ago and still in the discovery phase. To make a long story short, this is the first digital camera I am very impressed with. Af, high iso performance, versatility, etc.</p>

Christopher,

I'm well avare of that. It seems to me that what I'm saying is still valid, for instance regarding AF, exposure and

reactiveness, as the 5Dc and 5dII were largely similar in these departments, at least from my tests with the 5DII. It is

essentially because I didn't find sgnificant improvements in these areas that I skipped the 5DII.

As regards other areas, such as flash fill in, highlights detail, etc,, maybe someone with more experience with the 5Dc

and 5dII might be able to tell to what extent what I said applies to a 5DII / III comparison.

<p>Christopher,</p>

<p>Yes, I do believe that the price difference between the 5DIII and older generations does get you something, to such an extent that this is the very first camera I purchased brand new. I had always bought my cameras used before, film or digital, including my 5Dc, which I kept for 5 years.</p>

<p>Two features I forgot to mention in my previous post : 1. much shorter shutter lag, greatly improved reactiveness, essential in my eyes as my film background makes very reluctant to use continuous shooting. I try hard to capture the decisive moment in single shot. 2. Flash fill-in : much improved in comparison to the 5Dc. Essentially the camera throws in just the amount of lighting to unobtrusively lift the shadows. </p>

<p>Here's a picture of my son, poor light, 6400iso, f:4.0 125th, 135mm/2.0. He was doing a pseudo kung fu demo, hence lots of erratic movements. Relying on the reactiveness of the camera to capture the right moment, its ability to focus swiftly and accurately in poor lighting with outer focus point (on the left eye), was essential to the success of this shot. I find the tonal transitions very subtle for such high iso. </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/16110933</p>

<p>Sorry for just posting a link. I am unable to display the picture directly in this post. Surely I'm doing something wrong.</p>

<p><img src="../photo/16110933" alt="" /></p>

<p>Christopher,</p>

<p>Yes, I do believe that the price difference between the 5DIII and older generations does get you something, to such an extent that this is the very first camera I purchased brand new. I had always bought my cameras used before, film or digital, including my 5Dc, which I kept for 5 years.</p>

<p>Two features I forgot to mention in my previous post : 1. much shorter shutter lag, greatly improved reactiveness, essential in my eyes as my film background makes very reluctant to use continuous shooting. I try hard to capture the decisive moment in single shot. 2. Flash fill-in : much improved in comparison to the 5Dc. Essentially the camera throws in just the amount of lighting to unobtrusively lift the shadows. </p>

<p>Here's a picture of my son, poor light, 6400iso, f:4.0 125th, 135mm/2.0. He was doing a pseudo kung fu demo, hence lots of erratic movements. Relying on the reactiveness of the camera to capture the right moment, its ability to focus swiftly and accurately in poor lighting with outer focus point (on the left eye), was essential to the success of this shot. I find the tonal transitions very subtle for such high iso. </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/16110933</p>

<p>Sorry for just posting a link. I am unable to display the picture directly in this post. Surely I'm doing something wrong.</p>

<p><img src="../photo/16110933" alt="" /></p><div></div>

I recently upgraded from a 5Dc to the 5DIII, and in my opinion, depending on the OP needs, the 5Diii might be worth the

expense. I do mostly candid shots in suboptimal situations, and I find the 5DIII a vast improvement over the 5Dc in

several fields.

AF : even with moderately moving subjects, the 5Dc was a headache. I tried the 5DII and didn't find a substantial

difference, which is why I didn't upgrade. I find the 5DIII AF amazingly accurate and fast, even with ther outer focus

points.

Exposure : I had to constantly check and compensate with the 5DC. I'm learning to trust the camera with the 5DIII. Not

having to check exposure on the rear LCD means more concentration on the subject, a big plus in my opinion.

WB : all over the place with the 5Dc. Vastly more reliable on the 5DIII. Mixed light produced often strange results on the

5Dc. The camera also had a way of turning pictures taken at sunset into standard flat midday scenes. No longer true with

the 5dIII.

IQ : the 5Dc gave me all the resolution I needed. But I see a big improvement in tonal transitions, especially at higher iso.

The camera also deals much better with specular highlights such as what you get in night photography. Transitions

between the source of light and the immediate surrounding are smooth, with a considerably larger amount of details. It

feels much more "film-like".

Silent mode : very useful not just when you need low noise, but also to shoot handheld at low shutter speed, as it greatly

decreases vibrations.

I can't tell how important these improvements may be to the OP. Personnally, they are changing my photographic life.

Until then, I shot color film with a 1v to compensate for some of the weaknesses of the 5Dc. With the 5DIII, film will be

restricted to BW which I want to print in the wet darkroom. For a film Luddite of my kind, this says a lot about the 5diii.

Michael,

Sorry, I did read your post too quickly. And of course, I share your opinion about the 35/1.4. An excellent lens. My remark

that it performs better on film is not a criticism. Maybe I should have worded it : it performs even better...

Scott,

I agree about the 135/2.0. Of all the lenses I have ever owned, this might be my absolute favorite. In fact, when I want to

take my canon gear with not too much weight, I just take the 35/1,4 and the 135/1.4. I just wished there were a

reasonable 50mm offering on par with these lenses in the canon lineup.

To Scott and Michael,

The examples you post would be even more useful if you mentioned which camera was used to take them, as different

sensors tend to behave differently with one given lens.

I am quite happy with my 35/1.4 on a 5Dc, but a 5D2 might be more challenging, and reveal more the limitations of the

lens wide open. Also, I am not really a pixel peeper, and don't really pay all that much attention at corner sharpness of 1.4

lenses at full aperture. When used wide open, the DOF is so thin anyway that the corners of the frame are out of focus,

unless you are shooting a brick wall or a test chart.

With film, the 35/1.4 performs significantly better wide open than with the 5D. In fact, a long time ago, I was able to shoot

it parallel to a Zeiss 35/1.4, c/y mount. At full aperture the lenses were indistinguishable, resolution wise, even scanned at

4000dpi and inspected at 100%. On the other hand, the Zeiss was superior to the Canon in night shots ,because of its

better flare control and how it rendered the halos around light sources. But this had nothing to do with resolution and

sharpness, but with overall rendition and tonality in the hilights, something that in many photographic situations is more

important than sheer sharpness, at least in my opinion.

Rishi,

I am trying to understand your post which is quite technical and challenging given my port knowledge in these matters.

Would you be able to explain what "SNR drops to one" means ? Also what does ADU stand for ?

Should I understand that what you are trying to understand is not just at which point noise covers useful signal, but also

how a sensor differentiates between different shades of shadow above the "noise level" ?

If you can direct me to easily understandable reading (for the uninitiated) on these issues, I would be very thankful.

Illka,

I would think that 5d2 has more detail, simple because of higher resolution. Can you explain what "sensor optics" is ?

Thanks in advance.

<p>Rishi,<br>

What you say about film behavior in the hilights is consistent with the curve of film which show a smooth "shoulder" when you reach higher illumination values. There is also a subjective aspect: as light diffuses within the emulsion in the adjacent area of the burned out spot, it reveals the grain structure of the film, hence adding "matter" to a part of the picture that has little tonal attractivness. That makes burned hilights on film even more acceptable than in digital images, which is why I find it much more difficult to do night photography with a digital camera. The burned out spots left by electrical lighting are much less attractive than with film.<br>

As for my using film: part of it has to do with many years of experience. My eye is simply better educated in this medium. Often I find it harder to anticipate the final print result when in the shooting stage with digital. Also, even though I have seen very beautiful digital prints, especially with cotton-like papers, I still think there is something very special about carefully crafted BW fiber base traditional prints. Finally, about ten years ago, I built my dream lab at home and I enjoy tremendously working in it !</p>

<p>Rishi,<br>

Thanks for you long and informative answer. In the examples you posted, the first one, the portrait is really where I see something problematic taking place. Noise in the tulips is probably noticeable only on very large prints. I generally print no larger than 30x40cm, to match the maximum I can deal with in my wet lab.<br>

I browsed through the link you posted and will have to read it over more thoroughly as it deals with technical concepts I'm unfamiliar with (transfer function, among others). The contention that digital cameras have much better DR than film is something I've first read not long ago and which surprised me, as I was under the opposite impression. But some reasons why I may "feel" that film has better DR are : 1. in much of my shooting, highlights contain more crucial information than shadows; 2. out of many years of experience I have become more skilled at getting the most out of film, hence compensating for the limitations of the medium; 3. the blooming that happens in digital overblown highlights is something I particularly dislike, as opposed to how film reacts to drastic overexposure. <br>

On the other hand, the concept that digital cameras have better DR, based on better SNR makes sense when you consider that digital cameras fare so, so much better in low light situations than film.<br>

The bottom line is that I probably need to improve my skills in digital photography. I'm still doing much of my shooting with film, so that my experience with the digital format very much lags behind.</p>

<p>Lannie,<br>

Thanks for the compliment, it is very much appreciated. <br>

This picture was taken in a remote Vezo village of the southwestern coast of Madagascar. The Vezo, one of the 18 ethnic groups of the island, are essentially semi nomadic fishermen. The southwest of is the only desert region of Madagascar, which is otherwise mostly tropical. The sand there is about as white as snow. In the middle of the day, the temperature shoots well above 40°C. People built canopies out of leaves and gather under them during the hottest hours. Hence the photographic challenge of shooting dark skins in the shade against the background of white sand blindingly lit by the unforgiving sun. <br>

This was not just a photographic challenge. I was fortunate enough to spend two weeks in this village. It was a unique experience.</p>

<p>Here's an example of the type of shot where I would have to do a significant amount of shadow recovery. Incidentally, this was shot with film, with significant overexposure and underdevelopment to contain contrast. Still, after a conservative scan, I had to tame the hilights and lift shadows quite a bit in PS.<br>

In the wet darkroom, I had to give the upper right corner 6x the exposure of the faces to get a hilight details in the print. <br>

This is the type of shooting situation I would like to be able to face with my digital system. </p><div></div>

<p>Rishi,<br>

Maybe I'm missing something, but if I look at this :<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795|0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/176|0/(brand2)/Canon<br>

then go to the measurement tab and check SNR 18% and Dynamic Range, the curves show a distinct advantage to the 5DIII.<br>

As I said, I have never experienced serious banding / noise problems when lifting shadows to my liking with my 5D. Hearing that in your experience the 5DIII is more vulnerable to that issue is very troublesome. The improved AF and high iso of the 5DIII are compelling reasons for me to upgrade from the 5Dc, but given that a significant amount of what I shoot is in uncontrolled lighting environment (street / documentary), I absolutely need to be able to recover shadows in post. I'm not talking of silly extrem +4ev shadow push, but enough shadow recovery to meet the challenge of average backlit scenes or dark skins shot against a bright light colored background. <br>

Would you care to share some examples ? <br>

Thanks in advance</p>

<p>For all the speculation about Canon's marketing strategy, I think that the 5DIII will appeal to those who, like me, held off after the the 5DII came out, because they would have preferred improved AF as opposed to higher pixel count. </p>

<p>Regarding the DR difference between the 5DIII and D800, I'm quite ready to accept that Nikon has a serious lead, but I'm still wondering how this translates in practical terms. The best hands-on approach to this I have seen so far is shadow recovery examples such as : <br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html<br>

as this translates numbers into real photographic meaning. However, I have an issue with this and other similar examples. One of my most common PP correction in LR3 is to push shadow recovery (fill-in) quite a bit on high contrast images. I do push the cursor halfway through the slider on occasions, sometimes even more, and never have had results remotely as bad as Fred Miranda's example, and this is with files shot with the lowly 5D classic.</p>

<p>Given that my camera has significantly lower DR than the 5DIII, I have to wonder if don't have to push correction beyond realistic use to reveal that kind of a difference between the 5DIII and the D800.</p>

<p>The other thing I am wondering is how the DR difference translates in terms of hilights, something I have not seen so far, and which might be more important than shadows. I remember playing with a D700 several years ago and comparing identical shots with my 5D classic. I loved the AF of the D700 but found some blooming artifacts in the blown out hilights which were more troublesome than those produced by the 5Dc. </p>

<p>Shouldn't we concentrate more on how sensors behave in the hilights, since no matter how much DR we have, there will always be situations where we face blown out hilights, such as night photography, for instance ? </p>

Correct : acr and os support are 2 different things. I d/led the latest acr beta and am able to open 5diii and d800 raws in

ps. However there is no preview for these files in the finder under snow leopard, contrary to my 5d1 files.

<p>As this thread has entertainingly deviated towards my professional field of specialty, here's my thoughts. </p>

<p>As someone already said, there's something about economic debate that feeds polarization, a tendency that is not conducive to sound thinking. </p>

<p>The Austrian school, Keynes, Milton Friedman, etc, all developed their contribution to economic thought within particular cultural, historical and political environments. By taking them out of their context, we tend to oversimplify their message and to overlook how, in some ways they may be complementary. </p>

<p>Another issue is how economic theories tend to become caricatures of themselves when they are turned into dogma, something that happens when economists move from description to prescription and when their message become instruments in the social and political power balance.</p>

<p>Among the oversimplifications I could trace in the above posts :</p>

<p>The invisible hand : a powerful concept, which has been dramatically over simplified in its current understanding. What Adam Smith said was not that the common good emerged thanks to the pursuit of individual selfish interest, but in spite of it, which makes a huge difference. In other words, Adam Smith defended the concept of a free economy as being subordinated to moral and common good issues. Anyone mentioning the invisible hand should read "The Wealth of Nations" first, a sobering experience.</p>

<p>Moral hazards : yes, there is very good reason to believe that gvt bailouts of banks generate moral hazards, an extremely undesirable fact. However, a systemic collapse is even less desirable. In 2008, there were good reasons to believe that a systemic collapse was a realistic possibility. Again, there is a difference between the conclusions you may draw about the moral hazard concept out of context and in context.</p>

<p>Regulated and unregulated economy : lets face it. A fully unregulated economy is unrealistic, just as recent large scale empirical evidence shows that its opposite, a fully regulated economy, is simply not viable.</p>

<p>The reason why 100% unregulated economy is not possible : a reasonably successful capitalist system requires two conditions, 1. a degree of territorial integrity, 2. a functioning currency. Both can only exist within an effective State organization. Even at the time of gold coins, the usage of money was backed by the authority of the State, expressed through the calibration and markings of the coins. The guaranty of the value of the gold coins did not reside in the matter itself (gold metal) but in the certainty that the weight, purity of the metal and genuine quality of the markings were preserved, that is in the ability of the government to stop and punish any attempt at counterfeiting.</p>

<p>Finally, the debt issue in the US (both private and public) may be blamed on recent governments. But it has a more profound historical root. When the dollar was established as the international money of reference (Bretton Woods) this de facto meant that the dollar would have to meet the monetary needs of both the United States AND the international monetary needs of the rest of the world (something known as the Triffin dilemma). This was sustainable as long as the US represented a vast majority of the world economy (80% at the end of the war). As other economies emerged from the WWII disaster and reconstructed, tensions had to increase, simply because international monetary needs increased accordingly. This resulted in the end of Bretton Woods in the early 70s. But the dollar remained the de facto intl currency. Now, money efficiency is a function of both its volume and circulation. And debt issuing increases circulation. Is it all that surprising that the US debt, as well as its money volume (M0) has been dramatically increasing ?</p>

<p>To a large extent, the current debt and monetary situation of the US is the result of improper international monetary arrangements, something that Keynes vocally warned against at Bretton Woods (My appologies to the Austrian school advocates here for defending Keynes, but I doubt Mises would have challenged Keynes on that particular issue !)</p>

<p>I've taken entirely too much time. I'm shutting up now !</p>

<p>Rishi, I am quite impressed with the thoroughness of your analysis. If people seem to diverge as to which camera delivers the smallest amount of noise, it is, as you say, because we have a subjective perception of it. Which area of the image we give more attention to, how we react to the shape and distribution of the noise strongly impacts the conclusion we draw.</p>

<p>What your graph shows is how small the objective difference is between the D800 and the 5DIII. As objective differences decrease, subjective perception will takeover, hence the diverging opinions.</p>

<p>In the end, I'll repeat what I already said. For practically everyone of us, from 100 iso to 25600, the difference between the to cameras are irrelevant from the perspective of real world photographic achievement. For someone starting a new system, factors other than sheer sensor quality should be given priority.</p>

<p>Thanks again for you detailed analysis which must have been quite time consuming. The technical data you offer seems to corroborate the feeling I had when visually comparing the files in "realistic" conditions (40x50cm enlargement). This is great to know.</p>

<p>I'm taking this thread a bit late, but here's my own input on this issue.<br>

I more or less did what Rishi did, with the same raw files, downsampling the D800 files to the 5DIII files.<br>

At 100%, I could see a very slight DR advantage to the Canon : a minute additional amount of detail in the dark cloth, and at higher iso, some very slightly better tonal transitions. It is my opinion that these differences are so marginal that they are of absolutely no consequence.<br>

At full res, there is a bit more noise in the D800, but when I compare the files in more realistic conditions, displaying them at res emulating a 30x40cm or 40x50cm enlargement (my maximum in terms of prints), it seems to me that I would be completely unable to differentiate between the D800 and the 5D in a blindfold test, from 100 to 12800 iso, possibly even 25000iso, especially considering that a computer screen might reveal a bit more dynamic range detail than a print.<br>

In other words, it is my opinion that deciding on one camera vs the other strictly based on the sensor's intrinsic qualities is relevant only for photographers with the most extrem needs in terms of enlargement/ cropping (D800) or high iso (5DIII). For the vast majority of us, I would say that both cameras have a level of perfomance that far exceed our photographic needs (at least it is the case for me). It might thus make more sense to concentrate on other criteria such as, the current stable of lenses one has, respective lens offerings from both manufacturers, ergonomics, etc.<br>

One issue I had was my computer equipment : my aging system deals smoothly with 5D1 files or Fuji X100 files. 5DIII file conversion was a bit sluggish. D800 files conversion took anywhere between 30sec and 1mn per file. Getting the D800 for me would mean upgrading my computer equipment. <br>

One last thing : I'm still an avid film shooter, alongside my digital picture taking. All you need to do is shoot a couple of 1600iso color films or 3200 b/w films to see the phenomenal progress in high iso quality achieved in recent years in digital photography. It amuses me to see how people can become obsessive about marginal differences in noise levels, given that a 5DIII file at 105Kiso will have noise that is probably less conspicuous than grain on a 1600iso color film (film grain having a slight advantage in the aesthetics department, though).</p>

Hello Scott,

What you say about the effect of currency fluctuation on prices and the profit margin of businesses is essentially true

except for 3 details. 1. The euro has lost some value, but is still holding surprisingly well, at $1.31 today. Significantly less

than its ridiculously high record, but much, much higher than its low shortly after its introduction, when it plunged in the

$0.70 range. 2. Even though Britain is economically integrated with the rest of Europe, the Pound can actually fluctuate

independently from the Euro. The pound can move in opposite direction from the Euro, and actually has on several

instances. 3. Since 1973, currency fluctuation has been a fact of life for manufacturers. They are affected by it not ju st

when they sell their final products, but throughout their production process as generally their supply chain is international.

They use hedging techniques to protect themselves against these fluctuations, which is why often the price of a given

product will not fluctuate in full proportion with a given currency fluctuation. On the other hand, hedging techniques, which

essentially rely on the use of financial derivatives, have a cost, which of course is included in the price that we, the final

consumers, are paying for these goods.

Just my small off topic contribution to this debate :-)

<p>As a European (a bit further down south however), and also specialized in the comparison of social and economic systems, I can only further what has already been responded by scandinavian readers to Kent, who should certainly ponder the merits of researching a subject before offering such off hand and simplistic opinions. My income tax runs in the 20%, but I also pay VAT on my purchases at a rate of about 20% (a far cry from 60% !). In return, I receive a range of amenities such as essentially free health care, etc.<br>

That some people try through international purchases to avoid VAT is not surprising. But blaming that on government greed is to say the least illogical, as the same people who try to evade that tax will certainly not relinquish their rights to the benefits of free, state sponsored health care or retirement. <br>

Broadly speaking, the tax structure is lighter in the US than in Europe. But Americans also have to pay for a range of services that are public service in Europe. In the end, their is an advantage in being in the higher income bracket in the US, but certainly not for those in the lower brackets, as the level and structure of household debt show, compared to Europe. (Going into more details would really carry me off topic).<br>

More within our shared photographic interests, Shun Cheung says the D700 and D300s "cannot" be sold in Japan. Can someone say more about this ? Unless I misunderstood something, it sounds like those models are "banned". Seems strange. Can someone explain ?</p>

<p>Hello Scott,<br>

Not that I want to tilt this thread off topic, but would you mind saying why your are looking into a D700 ? The reason why i am asking is that we discussed equipment issues int the canon forum quite a bit of time ago (you probably don't remember), and you gave me valuable advice back then. So I value your opinion. And I am myself vaguely toying with the idea of getting a D700 when its replacement is out.<br>

Best regards,<br>

Pierre</p>

I own the 5d classic, and I believe they are among the best bargains you can get on the used market. Newer cameras

will give you higher iso, video, higher frame rate, but the 5dc will give you outstanding files with excellent resolution

and very subtle tones, up to 1600 iso, at a price that is hard to beat. Isn't it all you really need for portrait

photography? You should try one before making a final choice.