Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2012 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison

  
 
kirry007
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Thx for the review, Doug ! The one thing that bothered me about my 1dmk4 was the noise beyond ISO 800 (for my IQ standards). If the 5dmk3 does indeed not show a 2+ stop improvement in that area, then I might have to just give the Nikon D4 or D800 a thought in the future.

Would love to see/hear your impressions on the AF performance of the 5D mk3 in the field...once you get a chance.
As for the RAW Vs Jpeg, I agree with folks that shooting RAW+JPEG is a better option, as the situation demands.

Coincidentally, they are battling for the Masters at Augusta currently...while the masters fight over here .



Apr 06, 2012 at 10:32 AM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


PetKal wrote:
That's unadulterated nonsense.

If you said that "competent" photographers didn't take compositionally insipid, boring or inept photos, then I'd perhaps agree with you.


I am glad you don't agree with me



Apr 06, 2012 at 10:59 AM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


PetKal wrote:
That's unadulterated nonsense.

If you said that "competent" photographers didn't take compositionally insipid, boring or inept photos, then I'd perhaps agree with you.



I agree with Peter on this one. I respect Arash for his amazing work and competency in bird photography but that statement is absolutely not true. I always shoot RAW as half my fun is post-processing. But there is no way one can logically argue that competency in wildlife photography has any correlation with the type of file one shoots. Peter's statement is a valid argument. Arash's is not. End of



Apr 06, 2012 at 11:22 AM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


arbitrage wrote:
I agree with Peter on this one. I respect Arash for his amazing work and competency in bird photography but that statement is absolutely not true. I always shoot RAW as half my fun is post-processing. But there is no way one can logically argue that competency in wildlife photography has any correlation with the type of file one shoots. Peter's statement is a valid argument. Arash's is not. End of



I have to disagree with you. A competent photographer strives to maximize output quality in his photographs, If you ever take a workshop with Arthur Morris, Doug Brown or others the first thing they teach you is to set your camera to RAW mode. If a photographer doesn't understand the advantages of RAW format they should go back to digital basics. IMO they are not competent yet. Shooting in RAW is not for having fun in post processing but for getting the best output possible. Who likes to waste their time on the computer anyway?

Competency is only proven by one's images and their track record, not their word of mouth. For example look at Kiran's(kirry007) great images on his website above, he is a competent wildlife photographer IMO and stated his opinion about RAW as well. Unfortunately as Artie says there are many "internet experts" around on these forums, so the signal to noise ratio is very low.


Advantages of RAW format for people who don't know:

Higher image quality. Because all the calculations (such as applying gamma correction, demosaicing, white balance, brightness, contrast, etc...) used to generate pixel values (in RGB format for most images) are performed in one step on the base data, the resultant pixel values will be more accurate and exhibit less posterization.

Bypassing of undesired steps in the camera's processing, including sharpening and noise reduction
JPEG images are typically saved using a lossy compression format (though a lossless JPEG compression is now available). Raw formats are typically either uncompressed or use lossless compression, so the maximum amount of image detail is always kept within the raw file.

Finer control. Raw conversion software allows users to manipulate more parameters (such as lightness, white balance, hue, saturation, etc...) and do so with greater variability. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete preset values like "daylight" or "incandescent". As well, the user can typically see a preview while adjusting these parameters.

Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits stored in JPEG files (and typically stored in processed TIFF files); since the data is not yet rendered and clipped to a colour space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colours. The colour space can be set to whatever is desired.

Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera.

The contents of raw files include more information, and potentially higher quality, than the converted results, in which the rendering parameters are fixed, the colour gamut is clipped, and there may be quantization and compression artifacts.

Large transformations of the data, such as increasing the exposure of a dramatically under-exposed photo, result in fewer visible artifacts when done from raw data than when done from already rendered image files. Raw data leave more scope for both corrections and artistic manipulations, without resulting in images with visible flaws such as posterization.

All the changes made on a RAW image file are non-destructive; that is, only the metadata that controls the rendering is changed to make different output versions, leaving the original data unchanged.

To some extent, RAW photography eliminates the need to use the HDRI technique, allowing a much better control over the mapping of the scene intensity range into the output tonal range, compared to the process of automatically mapping to JPEG or other 8-bit representation.

I hope this helps, and if you don't agree it's best to move on, this was not the topic of the discussion.





Apr 06, 2012 at 11:41 AM
uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


While I have not shot a jpeg in 10 years, and I fully agree with the notion that there are advantages to shooting raw that I don't want to give up, I am also confident that much, perhaps most, of what is bringing forth the strong and sometimes strident reaction to the pro-raw arguments in this thread has little to do with whether there are valid reasons why many photographers choose to use raw format. Instead, I think that the reaction to those arguments is the result of what comes across as a highly arrogant and condescending tone that was and continues to be used in the presentation of those arguments.

Les



Apr 06, 2012 at 11:51 AM
DLP
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


I wonder if George Lawrence got Jpegs and RAW out of his camera.....




Apr 06, 2012 at 12:10 PM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


DLP wrote:
I wonder if George Lawrence got Jpegs and RAW out of his camera.....





This is actually a good point because RAW is the closest digital equivalent of a negative. Shooting in JPEG is similar to making a print but destroying your original negative. Shooting in RAW is similar to keeping the negative so you can make prints in whichever way you prefer in future.

Do you think George Lawrence would shoot in JPEG or RAW if he were with us today?



Apr 06, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


uz2work wrote:
While I have not shot a jpeg in 10 years, and I fully agree with the notion that there are advantages to shooting raw that I don't want to give up, I am also confident that much, perhaps most, of what is bringing forth the strong and sometimes strident reaction to the pro-raw arguments in this thread has little to do with whether there are valid reasons why many photographers choose to use raw format. Instead, I think that the reaction to those arguments is the result of what comes across as a highly arrogant and condescending tone that was
...Show more

+1

I don't think I have ever shot a jpg file, unless it was by mistake, but I would never say someone is not competent if they did.

I know the OP was talking about wildlife but I have seen some amazing jpg shots from sports shooters and even wedding photogs.

I know all of the advantages of shooting raw vs jpg but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for both in photography.

I also love it when someone throws Artie's name out. Yes Artie shoots raw and he is a competent wildlife photographer but many could do the same with the resources to travel to locations that are rich with opportunities. This is the same person that just recently discovered back button focusing and touts it as the second coming when many of us have been using this technique for a decade.

Jim



Apr 06, 2012 at 01:08 PM
mark fadely
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


90% of One's reality is perception, and the other 10% is...... well, reality


Apr 06, 2012 at 01:45 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Jim Victory wrote:
I also love it when someone throws Artie's name out. Yes Artie shoots raw and he is a competent wildlife photographer but many could do the same with the resources to travel to locations that are rich with opportunities. This is the same person that just recently discovered back button focusing and touts it as the second coming when many of us have been using this technique for a decade.
Jim


That is a funny one ......I went to his website the other day, which I normally seldom do, in order to find out about his review of 5DMkIII. Then, in the text I saw that reference to "rear focusing" as one of his special techniques. My first thought was that he might have been focusing on the bird's tail perhaps, or maybe even on something behind the bird . Only when I clicked on the "rear focusing" link, it became clear what his new technique was.

Either way, when I look at his images and at any other wildlife images, I can`t tell what gears they used, if they shot raw or jpg or both, or if they had their camera in the manual exposure mode or aperture priority, or if they focused manually or auto, depressing the top button or the rear button.

What I try to look for first and foremost is an overall sense of photography aesthetics, the shot idea and concept, capture and presentation originality and creativity, composition and environment, framing, and such. That is where in my opinion one should be awarding the merit points for skill, talent and competency.

I as well as many others can easily shoot RAW if we`d like to. The problem of ``competency`` arises when I try to make a creative photograph........a very humbling and often disappointing endeavour.



Apr 06, 2012 at 01:53 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


speedmaster20d wrote:
I hope this helps, and if you don't agree it's best to move on, this was not the topic of the discussion.


Why don't you give it up and move on? Rather than admit that your statement about reputable competitions or reputable magazines not accepting jpegs was nonsense, you go off on tangents.
You do not even know the names of all the competitions and magazines, let alone know what all their submission requirements are.

Thousands of reputable magazines have been accepting jpegs for years, and will continue to do so. To state that editors would not accept excellent images of jegs is ridiculous. What great tragedy do you think will happen to them if they use jpegs

Nobody is disputing the advantage of RAW over jpeg, just your unfounded generalization.

And I don't know why anyone would believe that EXIF data from a RAW file can't be altered, just as it can in a jpeg. Data is data.



Apr 06, 2012 at 02:56 PM
TBannor
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Like most religions, many vocations and hobbies have their fundamentalists.


Apr 06, 2012 at 05:10 PM
John_T
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Excuse me Professor Speedmaster20d, a seminar on "A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison" is being held in this room. Would you mind continuing on down the hall and find an empty room to hold your lecture?

Should you find no room available, try the broom closet on the fourth floor where you might find a more interested audience.

Thank you for your cooperation.



Apr 06, 2012 at 06:01 PM
Vivek
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


kirry007 wrote:
Thx for the review, Doug ! The one thing that bothered me about my 1dmk4 was the noise beyond ISO 800 (for my IQ standards). If the 5dmk3 does indeed not show a 2+ stop improvement in that area, then I might have to just give the Nikon D4 or D800 a thought in the future.

Would love to see/hear your impressions on the AF performance of the 5D mk3 in the field...once you get a chance.
As for the RAW Vs Jpeg, I agree with folks that shooting RAW+JPEG is a better option, as the situation demands.

Coincidentally, they are
...Show more

Hmm... interesting.. Don't bother with the D800, the IQ of that compare to the 5D3 is reportedly poorer over ISO 800. That being said, I'll stick with the 1D4, given these comparisons... D4 - no idea...



Apr 06, 2012 at 06:28 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


I enjoyed this thread and it helped me feel more assured in my purchase decisions.


Apr 06, 2012 at 09:45 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Thanks for the comparison.

As the OP, how would you quantify the difference in noise / IQ from your test images? I mean, would you say the 5D III is 2% better or 25% better ... and at what % diff would you say it is worth switching from one camera vs. the other ... for your proposed "birding" application?
i.e. how wide is the hair that is being split? (RAW rational assumed/understood)



Apr 06, 2012 at 10:14 PM
joshn
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/rules/

"All digital files must be 5 megabytes or smaller, must be in JPEG or JPG format, and must be at least 1,600 pixels wide (if a horizontal image) or 1,600 pixels tall (if a vertical image)."




Apr 06, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


joshn wrote:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/rules/

"All digital files must be 5 megabytes or smaller, must be in JPEG or JPG format, and must be at least 1,600 pixels wide (if a horizontal image) or 1,600 pixels tall (if a vertical image)."



But that was last year, and neither the contest nor magazine are reputable, nor was Speedmaster20D one of the judges.



Apr 07, 2012 at 12:45 AM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


joshn wrote:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/rules/

"All digital files must be 5 megabytes or smaller, must be in JPEG or JPG format, and must be at least 1,600 pixels wide (if a horizontal image) or 1,600 pixels tall (if a vertical image)."



Josh,
most competitions first require you to submit a small JPEG file so the judges can go through a vast pool of images quickly and pick a subset of finalist. Those who get to the final round will be required to submit the RAW files or DNG or original TIFF file if it was a scan. These files are then compared to the original submission.

Here is one example from BBC wildlife photographer of the year :


RAW files and picture information required

Dear XXXX

The 2012 Veolia Environnement Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition received over 48,000 images from 98 countries. After two very intensive but equally energising sessions of critical review, the judges have managed to whittle down their selection of images that will now comprise our Final round. I'm pleased to tell you that at least one of your images has made it through.

To ensure your image(s) are considered for the Final round, you will need to upload the following by 10.00am (GMT) on Tuesday 17 April:

...For proof of authenticity, the original camera capture: RAW file: (e.g. *NEF, *CR2, *CRW…). DNG files are only allowed if DNG is the native RAW format of the camera. Digital images captured in camera as JPEG are allowed providing the original un-retouched JPEG is supplied. OR original transparency or black and white negative for scan entrants – the address to post these to is online.

....

We will be notifying all the winners and commended photographers from 18 May.

Thank you so much for entering the competition and I wish you success to go all the way!

All the best,
Gemma Ward


Nature's Best have a similar policy to in that they ask RAW files once you get to the finals.


Of course there are many casual/local competitions that allow JPEGs or even manipulated photos or digital content creation.



Thank you for those who made their comments in a polite and civil way.

Having discussions and disagreement is fine, however name calling and using rude/immature phrases like the one used earlier is unacceptable IMO.



Edited on Apr 07, 2012 at 01:40 AM · View previous versions



Apr 07, 2012 at 01:14 AM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Also for the record, NG photographers on assignment are REQUIRED to shoot in RAW format. I don't know what the policy is for casual user photos that goes on their website etc. but the photos published in their magazine must be in RAW format.

see the link here

Mark Thiessen on NG policy


Q: I am just beginning to take digital photos, and file type is one of my main concerns. What do you shoot: JPEG, TIFF, RAW, etc.?

A: At National Geographic we shoot RAW files and submit them to the picture editors that way. We don't do any conversions to TIFF or JPEG.



Apr 07, 2012 at 01:20 AM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.