I am a little late to the game...
What in the hell is this thread about?
DR?
Here is what it comes down to.
If you shoot Canon...try Nikon (with good G lenses).
You will not shoot Canon anymore.
btw I need a D800e asap. If anyone has a line on one let me know!
PhilDWedding wrote:
Speed issues with LR4 should be fixed now. It should run the same as LR3.. anyway...
The D800 sensor in low ISO *IS* better than the 5d3's. I agree. No arguments. However, the differences are not night and day as your example shows.
The major difference between those two files is in post production, not sensor...
I'm not "defending" Canon on this point, but I also wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea that Canon cameras can't produce nice colours and tones.... they can. In fact, that's a major reason I use Canon. I personally prefer the colours and tones and always have. That's personal preference too....Show more →
LR4 is a dog. Plain and simple. Some people don't have issues, others do, a quick search around here will reveal that. Just because you don't experience them doesn't mean others don't.
I wouldn't say the differences are night and day. It really depends on what application you are using them for. I shoot mainly portraits, not so many weddings (10 or so a year). For weddings this camera doesn't make too much sense, but its still phenomenal. Can you get the files to look very similar? Certainly, for the most part. But, unless you have tested both cameras with identical files from each camera, it's hard for someone to tell me differently, because I see the difference. And its not just simple Canon/Nikon preference, and I'm not talking technical pixel-peeping either, but real world application. The D800 is hands down a better sensor. And not just at low-ISO.
I've been shooting Canon since 2005. I never considered Nikon, until February. Sure, the 36mp allured me to try out the D800, because I had been on the verge of looking at medium format digital. Then when samples were posted, I was SUPER tempted to just jump ship. The 5D3 swayed me back, and you can read my review on that. Superb camera, the best Canon body every made.
However, the differences are not simply just post production, thats a little naive to say I think, unless you've tested both and can show me what you don't see that I do.
The D800 is the closest thing to medium format digital, and boy does it get close. Can the body and functions be improved? You bet, but, the sensor (not resolution) is hands down the most amazing sensor I've ever tested. And that means something to me, outside of post-production.
It's basically the same tech as the Nikon D7000, Pentax K-5 sensor (nearly same photosite size but on a FF sensor size)....there were lots of "pull the black cat out of a black underexposed frame" tricks when the K-5 was introduced (the D7000 has a little less dynamic range in the shadows). So, lots of dynamic range in the shadows...less so in the highlights (weaker than traditional sensors). I'd bet if you tried highlight recovery, it look worse than the 5D (though not that much).
It's a very nice Sony sensor. Should be even better once they add the white pixel sensor to it in a year or two...
But is it me or what, the image seems soft? Same with the couple with the car. They seem to not as pop. Maybe that's the sacrifice in pulling those incredible DR out.
Very Interesting ...
Some other guy claims the 5D MK III DR at 2.75
and thinks this is significant to previous Canon models.
His thoughts were also its the best Wedding Camera.
To each their own what they consider significant.
To me Price, IQ, Focus, Focus w subject Action, and Noise is more significant.
What single DR number would you give the D800 ??
sboerup wrote:
However, the differences are not simply just post production, thats a little naive to say I think, unless you've tested both and can show me what you don't see that I do.
You seem to be under the illusion I'm knocking the d800 and that you need to defend it; I'm not and you don't.
I'll be very clear because you seem to have misunderstood. I am not saying there aren't differences in the sensors. I am not saying the d800 sensor isn't better. I AM saying that the two files you posted are not an indicator of the differences between the sensors - the vast, vast majority of the difference is in your post production.
If you pixel peep I'm sure you can see differences still, even if they were post produced to the same standard, but what you posted was one shot that looked great and one which looked terrible. The d800 looked great and the 5d3 looked terrible. The 5d3 files are not terrible - it was the post production (and partly expecting that they should use the same exposure) that caused them to look that way.
Whether the 5d3 files would ever look *quite* as good as the d800 (or the other way around) is unknown, but I can clearly say that my 5d1, 5d2 and 5d3 files do not look anywhere near as poor quality as the shot you posted. So, my conclusion that it's post production has to be correct, unless your camera is faulty.
That's as clear as I can be...
With respect, as you say that I can't compare the two cameras unless I've used them, I would likewise highlight that someone who hasn't heard about colour calibration with a colour checker passport (and presumably other similar methods) can't have looked at post production that deeply, so I'd question your ability to compare the look from the two cameras ... sorry but the files you post draw me to that conclusion.
If you're going to compare two things, you have to be fair to them both
The d800 is a great camera btw, just in case anyone needs me to say it again Hoorah for Nikon!
it looks to me like they are focused differently since the rocks are more blurred in back of her on the right than the rocks in back of her on the left.
but assuming she is in focus - her blouse on the shot at the right has more detail. I can see a mole on her neck in the shot on the right. The rock that she is near to her left arm shows much more detail on the shot at the right.
i'm going to say the one on the left is the d800. it looks 'nicer'. with that said, i have a question. the one on the right appears to be a bit over exposed. did you use 'camera left' first to obtain your exposure then shoot 'camera right'? or is this an example of more DR coming from 'camera left'?
i think the shot on the right could benefit from about -1/2 stop exposure.
Hoorah for Nikon!