Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #1 · Magic Lantern improves 5D3 dynamic range to 14 stops! |
For video, canon already had the lead, even before ML, b/c of sharper video images.
Not necessarily for sharpness they didn't. The D800 video, native, is sharper than that from all but the 1DX and 1DC (and even those only in certain modes). Of course the D800 video does have some aliasing and moire which the 5D3 avoids at least, if not the other Canon bodies (other than largely the 1DX and 1DC). Some preferred the D800 native video, although I personally preferred even the 5D3 native video despite the softness (although not the video from the 5D2/6D/xxD/Rebels/7D compared to D800 video) so I would say that the 5D3 video was already better (although some did disagree) than the D800 video even before ML but it wasn't because it was sharper because that it was not.
The D4 video had about the best high ISO performance of the DSLR video cams natively (other than perhaps 1DX or 1DC) but it was a squishy mess and I personally gave it a big fail.
Due to various factors in how they make their firmware AND hardware limitations in their liveview system it is 99% sure that the D800 will never be able to get ML firmware to get RAW video.
But with ML now the 5D3 just utterly whips ANY Nikon body for video every which possible way.
with ML, its in a different league with shooting raw video, and all the focus functionality.
For sure, a million times better shooting 5D3 with ML RAW and all the extra usability features than shooting video with D800. Maybe a billion.
This new addition is further useful, as it avoids motion artifacts.
For stills, I is a compromise. The group of photographers that have most desired the extra dynamic range have been landscape photographers. Loss of resolution, and interpolation artifacts is not something that sits very well with them. additionally, this needs to be further modified to also take a straight 100 ISO image, without interpolation. many times you really don't know if you need that extra DR, and since it comes at a cost (processing, as well as image quality) I would always like to play with my traditional image first...Show more →
Yeah as I much as I cry for more low ISO DR, this actually doesn't have me all that excited (it seems to me that the artifacts and resolution loss shouldn't be as disastrous as they appear now though with it, it seems that a very crude method is being used so it probably will get improved a good deal, we'll see if it can be improved enough though, if they went for less stops of improvement it might help it too (as it is some of the increase is fake anyway since if you trade half the resolution away the shadows will clean up anyway even just from a normal image)).