thedigitalbean wrote:
Jim, the dynamic range of the D800 is astounding and it is indeed a marvel of sensor technology, however its still not a replacement for exposure blending or the use of grads for landscape photography. This isn't pontification on my part but based on actual use. When you push the shadows really hard what I find ends up happening is that you lose a lot of tonal separation which in the end for me makes for unpleasing images. If you think about it, this shouldn't be surprising. The sensor more or less linearly captures about 14 bits of data. Since you've underexposed to preserve your highlights all your information is packed into just a few of the lower bits. When you start pushing those shadows hard its the data in those bits that ends up being pushed to generate the new midtones and interpolation now matter how good can't make up tonal detail thats not there. Now when these cameras start capturing 16, 18 and 20 bit this may change but until then even with a D800 I would still use filters and multiple captures to get good tonal detail throughout the range....Show more →
To continue these considerations:
While 16 bit capture will improve the tonal resolution, a 5 stops push from ISO 100 still equals ISO 3200 in terms of exposure and photon shot noise. To my knowledge, the most efficient way to improve the real world usability of 15 stops of dynamic range, is to lower the base ISO. For highlight preservation, if we "underexpose" 2 stops at ISO 100, large parts of the image will be exposed like ISO400. That will still be fine in many cases, but the shadows will be exposed like ISO 12800.
With a base ISO of 25, we can get 2 stops better exposure, which will help significantly in the shadows. The difference will be obvious even with 14 bit capture like today, but a 16 bit capture will even more have its place there. The implementation of a lower base ISO cannot be done with current chip technology without serious penalty. Either the size of the photodiode relative to the charge storage must be reduced, which will negate the intented effect. Medium format sensors with base ISO in the 30 range got most of the low ISO advantage this way, and you will see that they have correspondingly less photon collection efficiency per area. Another way to do it would be a negative gain amplifier between the photodiode and the charge storage. This would dramatically increase the read noise, making the camera unsuited for extremely high ISO. The increase in read noise would however not reduce the dynamic range at base ISO, since it scales in both ends. A hybrid solution as seen in some recent Aptina chips could solve these problems. These solutions may again not coexist with EXMOR Digital Dual Correlated Sampling, making things even more complicated.
markymarc wrote:
i am curious. All this talk about the D800 sensor being so much better than the 5d3 at low iso. How does or will the 1DX, Canon's flagship, compare with the D800 wrt the sensor and dynamic range?
Full disclosure: I received my 5d3 two days ago. For what I need, I think the camera is almost perfect. I have never complained about the DR on my 5dc. I did miss a higher frame rate and better AF on my 5dc. The one argument that I get tired of hearing is that the D800 is $500 less. It is not if you care about frame rate. ...Show more →
At least on my planet, the D800 is $500 less.
It doesn't matter what you care about, the camera can be purchased for $500 less. Walk into a store and see if you can purchase a 5d3 for $3k (tax aside). Probably not going to happen.
I get that..what you mean by on your planet. I am just saying that when you factor in all costs (for example, with a car, it can be asking for the larger engine, say a V8 vs v6), the price is the same.
So yes, the D800 with the "V6' frame rate can be had for $500 less. But if you want a V8 option, the price is the same.
It's not a review. It's a set of features that is already available elsewhere. A proper review would include pictures with the set of good and bad. This has none,dispite the fact this camera has over 10 obvious issues.
I've yet to find a good review site. Most(just like DPP) are made by "reviewers" who know a little bit about everything,but not knowledgeable enough to go deep and provide a comprehensive review.
Guys... Olympics, one of the biggest sporting events in the world, is just around the corner. If you're a Canon boss, which one do you think is better for business, releasing a super high MP body with high DR or a high MP body with faster burst speed and highly accurate AF?
Canon can always announce another super high MP body with better dynamic range AFTER the Olympics. Maybe this is just a precursor to the 3D that you guys been asking for.
You are right. In FX with grip or not, it maxes at 4fps. DX can go from 5 to 6fps per sec (with $350 grip).
I must admit I am puzzled on some of the engineering (or perhaps marketing decisions) that both Nikon and Canon make.
Nikon this round goes after the high end resolution effort to go head to head against a likely 5d2 successor. Canon this round designs a D700 successor instead. They each incorrectly predict the future.
You are right. In FX with grip or not, it maxes at 4fps. DX can go from 5 to 6fps per sec (with $350 grip).
I must admit I am puzzled on some of the engineering (or perhaps marketing decisions) that both Nikon and Canon make.
Nikon this round goes after the high end resolution effort to go head to head against a likely 5d2 successor. Canon this round designs a D700 successor instead. They each incorrectly predict the future.
Not really. Canon's decision to release the 5D3 and 1DX makes more sense if you consider the Olympics.
n0b0 wrote:
It makes a great secondary or backup camera I think. Plus not everyone will be able to afford a 1DX, let alone two.
6fps is suitable for a number of shooting situations; sports photography is always about burst rates. Plus a smaller, lightweight body is also great for remotes.
DmitriM wrote:
This has none,dispite the fact this camera has over 10 obvious issues.
Are you being serious?
I think this thread needs a bit of perspective. I've been testing this camera for a day, and I can already tell you it's the best camera I have used, Canon or Nikon.
The metering and autofocus accuracy is better than any camera I have tried to date, including the D3s and 1D IV. The shutter is very quiet and has very little mirror bounce or vibration; the silent shooting modes in particular are amazing: quietest SLR I've ever used. The camera feels far more responsive than previous 5-series models. JPEG file quality is astonishingly good (for the kinds of things I use JPEGs for).
The files are really nice too. Luminance and color noise levels are not radically different than the 5D2, but importantly there is NO pattern noise, and dynamic range and color accuracy is significantly improved at ISO speeds higher than 1600; I'd say there is a usable 1-1.5 stop improvement in RAW file quality at the high end of the ISO range.
Actually, I am rather stunned by what Canon has accomplished with this camera. In fact, they built exactly the camera that many of us asked for.
The sensor might not be as suitable as that in the D800 for landscape work or certain kinds of commercial photography at base ISO, but the 5D3 is still an amazing piece of kit that will make a lot of photographers a lot of money.
With a pixel count only modestly increased compared to its predecessor and few other 'headline' improvements it is easy to see why some people initially considered the Mark III to be a minor upgrade.
This first impression changes rapidly as soon as you actually hold the camera in your hands and start shooting.
I am not sure if I have seen any owner of 5DMKIII say that this is an inadequate tool, I for one think for a good reason :-)
garyvot wrote:
Are you being serious?
I think this thread needs a bit of perspective. I've been testing this camera for a day, and I can already tell you it's the best camera I have used, Canon or Nikon.
The metering and autofocus accuracy is better than any camera I have tried to date, including the D3s and 1D IV. The shutter is very quiet and has very little mirror bounce or vibration; the silent shooting modes in particular are amazing: quietest SLR I've ever used. The camera feels far more responsive than previous 5-series models. JPEG file quality is astonishingly good (for the kinds of things I use JPEGs for).
The files are really nice too. Luminance and color noise levels are not radically different than the 5D2, but importantly there is NO pattern noise, and dynamic range and color accuracy is significantly improved at ISO speeds higher than 1600; I'd say there is a usable 1-1.5 stop improvement in RAW file quality at the high end of the ISO range.
Actually, I am rather stunned by what Canon has accomplished with this camera. In fact, they built exactly the camera that many of us asked for.
The sensor might not be as suitable as that in the D800 for landscape work or certain kinds of commercial photography at base ISO, but the 5D3 is still an amazing piece of kit that will make a lot of photographers a lot of money....Show more →
thedutt wrote:
I am not sure if I have seen any owner of 5DMKIII say that this is an inadequate tool, I for one think for a good reason :-)
Exactly, its an awesome Camera and easily the most well rounded Canon DSLR ever made. It has great AF, very good speed, Canon's best image quality, good weatherproofing and build, great viewfinder and lcd screen, great feature set etc etc. And, its not the most expensive Canon.
Can I ask, in terms of RAW performance please, how much better is the 5D3's image quality over the 5D2's?
See my post above for my impressions. Bottom line: NO pattern noise; 1-1.5 stop better DR and color at higher ISOs; similar resolution and noise characteristics; better in-camera JPEGs.
Definitely an improvement over the 5D2, if not a radical one.
