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              10              end
  

Archive 2012 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review

  
 
Marco
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #1 · p.11 #1 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


Why paper is so DR limited? Is it printer dependent or is it a paper feature?
I guess the latest light black and light-light black improved the shadows rendering but I really don't have a clue why a paper would be the limiting media. Apart form the obvious difference between matte and glossy, etc.




Apr 24, 2012 at 05:29 AM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.11 #2 · p.11 #2 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


We've read and seen where the D800 can apparently recover deep shadow details without adding significant noise to the final image. And that's what a lot of us seem to be thrilled about.

But what about recovering details from "blown" highlights? Is it possible to recover that data as well? If so, how does the D800 do it?

If not, then it would seem to me that one's workflow wouldn't change much: expose to the right to get as much highlight detail as needed. Then reduce the exposure throughout the rest of the scene appropriately in post?

With the D800 what would be the correct workflow for this scenario?



Apr 24, 2012 at 07:25 AM
jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #3 · p.11 #3 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


cameron12x wrote:
We've read and seen where the D800 can apparently recover deep shadow details without adding significant noise to the final image. And that's what a lot of us seem to be thrilled about.

But what about recovering details from "blown" highlights? Is it possible to recover that data as well? If so, how does the D800 do it?

If not, then it would seem to me that one's workflow wouldn't change much: expose to the right to get as much highlight detail as needed. Then reduce the exposure throughout the rest of the scene appropriately in post?

With the D800 what would
...Show more

IMO nothing changes. Just don't blow your highlights because with the pp tools we have today, there's nothing there (LAB colorspace workarounds aside). With the D800, just let the shadows fall where they may and recover them. With Canon you're often screwed (color changes, weird blocky patches, banding in extreme cases) as I'm sure you know...

Since I err on the underexposure side too(?) often, this helps me a lot... I can't stand white patches.



Apr 24, 2012 at 07:47 AM
thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #4 · p.11 #4 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


jamesf99 wrote:

If you've seen B&W film photographs, you'll know what you're missing. The reason I keep mentioning B&W is because it unambiguous. The values are easy to see, as are the transitions.


Funny u should talk about PHOTOGRAPHS 'cos as pointed out by others printed medium have limited dynamic range (<10 stops).

Many years ago, when they were shooting with those terrible Sony CCDs, Nikon fanboys claimed they have no need for high ISO. Now, it is live view?



Apr 24, 2012 at 07:56 AM
thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #5 · p.11 #5 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


jamesf99 wrote:
Since I err on the underexposure side too(?) often, this helps me a lot... I can't stand white patches.


Then perhaps u need to learn how to expose properly? Or learn to use liveview for exposure guidance?



Apr 24, 2012 at 08:00 AM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.11 #6 · p.11 #6 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


And this begs another question.

I've read/heard that many medium-format sensors capture 16 bits of image data. One presumes that this inherently allows the MF image processor to capture more DR than the 14-bit converters we have typically seen in the DSLR space?

Does the D800 capture 14, 16, (or some other number) bits of data?

Is the DSLR market eventually heading towards 16-bit image capture? If not, why not? (Other than cost.)



Apr 24, 2012 at 08:00 AM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #7 · p.11 #7 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


Some have been pointing out that back in the film days there was no live view, and people took great landscapes, etc. Sure, but they had far better optical focus tools than modern DSLRs provide, because those are now all optimized for autofocus. Thus, the real restriction bad LV imposes is on lens choice. If you are smart about using an autofocus lens to get a hyperfocal result, for instance, you can do great that way, just so long as that lens provides the color, contrast, and rendering you are looking for. If not, then you may wish you had better live view so you could more efficiently optimize the output from the manual focus lens you may prefer.


Apr 24, 2012 at 08:10 AM
jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #8 · p.11 #8 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


thw2 wrote:
Then perhaps u need to learn how to expose properly? Or learn to use liveview for exposure guidance?



Expose properly? Wow, what insight.

"Exposing properly" is relative, No? Pick your poison, do you want blown highlights, or crappy shadows? We all have to decide what you want to ruin in high contrast shots (which i shoot frequently) because the camera/sensor can't handle them. Now, when you use Canon equipment, your choice is constrained compared to what Sony/Nikon is offering.

Just think about not having to use a 2-stop (or more) ND grad on the sky because you can recover the shadows, or think about the contrast range you can get in B&W, or what wedding photographers can do with the bride/groom shots. It also helps offset lower ISO choices. Pretty good stuff IMO.

Exposing everything (all scenes) to the right is pretty lame. 95% of the time, I never even looked at the histogram in the studio; I knew what I'd get based on my lens, and chosen settings, so why even look? Oh well, that's another discussion and had been pretty well beaten to death over the last decade.



Apr 24, 2012 at 08:22 AM
jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #9 · p.11 #9 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


cameron12x wrote:
And this begs another question.

I've read/heard that many medium-format sensors capture 16 bits of image data. One presumes that this inherently allows the MF image processor to capture more DR than the 14-bit converters we have typically seen in the DSLR space?

Does the D800 capture 14, 16, (or some other number) bits of data?

Is the DSLR market eventually heading towards 16-bit image capture? If not, why not? (Other than cost.)


Actually, to use an analogy that may help, the bit depth is just the number of slices in the loaf. It's the size of the load that matters, not really how many slices you cut. We all want black and white in each image (I'm generalizing of course) but the sensitivity (or capture range) of the sensor defines when it turns some pixels black (or near black) or white/near white. Canon sensors turn pixels black or white that Nikon can effectively keep "near black/white". That's what Fred - and others before him - have shown. Those Sony/Nikon pixels retain full data rendition even when appearing very dark.

Your other point about white/near white is important, and it does make me wonder if Sony has found a way to hold data in there too, before giving up and calling it white. another test for blown highlights is required.



Apr 24, 2012 at 08:33 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.11 #10 · p.11 #10 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


cameron12x wrote:
And this begs another question.

I've read/heard that many medium-format sensors capture 16 bits of image data. One presumes that this inherently allows the MF image processor to capture more DR than the 14-bit converters we have typically seen in the DSLR space?

Does the D800 capture 14, 16, (or some other number) bits of data?

Is the DSLR market eventually heading towards 16-bit image capture? If not, why not? (Other than cost.)


MF cameras from what I understand do have 16 bit capture. Canon has pseudo 14 bit capture due to limitations of their ADC's. Nikon have a 14 bit capture to but I'm not sure if they are any better or not than the Canon ADC's (I suspect they are better with more low ISO DR) in which the least significant bits are statistically only carrying noise. The gurus like skibum will answer this much better.



Apr 24, 2012 at 08:33 AM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.11 #11 · p.11 #11 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


splathrop wrote:
Some have been pointing out that back in the film days there was no live view, and people took great landscapes, etc. Sure, but they had far better optical focus tools than modern DSLRs provide, because those are now all optimized for autofocus. Thus, the real restriction bad LV imposes is on lens choice. If you are smart about using an autofocus lens to get a hyperfocal result, for instance, you can do great that way, just so long as that lens provides the color, contrast, and rendering you are looking for. If not, then you may wish you had
...Show more

I used to really love the effectiveness of the DEP shooting mode found in Canon bodies in the 90s. This function carried over into the 1D digital camera body, but I believe that it was dropped after that.

Does anyone else remember the "DEP" shooting mode?



Apr 24, 2012 at 08:39 AM
AGeoJO
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.11 #12 · p.11 #12 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


cameron12x wrote:
I used to really love the effectiveness of the DEP shooting mode found in Canon bodies in the 90s. This function carried over into the 1D digital camera body, but I believe that it was dropped after that.

Does anyone else remember the "DEP" shooting mode?


Oh, yes, I did. But it was useful before the dawn of the pixel peepers generation . It relied on the extended depth-of-field but it wasn't that accurate in the digital age....



Apr 24, 2012 at 08:45 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.11 #13 · p.11 #13 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


cameron12x wrote:
I used to really love the effectiveness of the DEP shooting mode found in Canon bodies in the 90s. This function carried over into the 1D digital camera body, but I believe that it was dropped after that.

Does anyone else remember the "DEP" shooting mode?


1D had DEP mode and it was gone when the 1D II was released. Canon said they needed the memory for more important features which was why it was dropped. Can't imagine DEP needing too many lines of code and certainly now memory should not be an issue.



Apr 24, 2012 at 08:47 AM
WebDog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #14 · p.11 #14 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


Just noted that the new MF Mamiya 80 megapixel specs DR at 12,5 stops! And a wee bit more expensive than the D800....
The 40 Mpix version costs a cool $19500



Apr 24, 2012 at 09:03 AM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.11 #15 · p.11 #15 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


Fred, not sure if you are monitoring this thread anymore, but regarding the moire that is shown in your controlled test image taken with the 5D Mark III, I stongly suspect that if you process that image in DPP the moire will disappear.

I have observed a number of cases where moire appears in ACR conversions from my 5D Mark II images, and in every case processing in DPP eliminates this.

FYI.



Jun 13, 2012 at 05:18 AM
elbeasto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #16 · p.11 #16 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


The review illustrates very well that the 5DIII is capable of some awesome IQ despite the superior sensor/DR from the D800.
I would have liked to have seen more shots from the D800 being a Nikon shooter but it was an amazing set of landscape work none the less.

Kind of disappointed and a little confused as to why both these companies release one of their main, or at least higher end bodies with these glaring design flaws...?

I'm speaking about the 5DIII light leak, the D800 left AF plane issue and the D800's white balance/LCD.
Surely in this day and age things like that just shouldn't happen and like why is it one of the first few customers that notices it and not the testers? Assuming there are testers rather than just people hired to make swanky promo videos...?

Anyway, I digest...
Both very cool bodies & some absolutely stunning photos posted in the comparison.

Cheers



Sep 24, 2012 at 09:06 AM
1       2       3              10              end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              10              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.