dave chilvers wrote:
I know that there have been a lot of knockers of the 5D2 with regards to AF but I`m seeing better metering in general and IMHO more DR than my 1dsmk3.
I can't vouch for the 1DsMkIII but I have noticed way better shadow detail. I took a shot of an old barn and you could make out details inside easily. Maybe the 14 bit makes the tonality and definition that much better. Regardless - someone mentioned printing. I agree to a degree but at the same time you should be adjusting that with your soft proofing and a good DR paper.
So according to Thom Thogan, when the D3x is set to 14-bit the FPS drops to 1.8. I think this is true with the D300 as well. Anyone have an idea of why? Doesn't happen with the D3 or any of Canon's 14-bit cameras.
Yes, you are right of course. With a 14-stop dynamic range, 24-megapixel body, and an ultra-high-resolution lens like the 14-24 or 24-70 .... 105 Micro VR, 200/2 VR .... or any good Nikkor prime .... the D3X is most certainly the new King of DSLRs. And it's no wonder that DXO ranked the D3X, D3 and D700 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respectively. Canon DSLRs have been decisively and irrefutably relegated to 2nd place behind Nikon.
It will be interesting to see how Canon is going to respond at the PMA Show next month.
WmPat wrote:
You could, but you still would not have the dynamic range of the D3x.
bobbytan wrote:
And it's no wonder that DXO ranked the D3X, D3 and D700 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respectively. Canon DSLRs have been decisively and irrefutably relegated to 2nd place behind Nikon.
Greg Schneider wrote:
I thought we had all decided the DXO Mark tests didn't accurately reflect real-world shooting?
simonella_viru wrote:
i'm surprised that everyone takes this information as truth or fact. are there any other sources that can corroborate this information? that is a lot of DR...
I thought we had all decided that the DxO tests are the best available source for quantitative comparison of different makes of cameras. If you can give a link to a better source please do so.
george malamis wrote:
I don't care what kind of high DR paper you have, you're not going to get more than 6-8 stops on it.
That's true. However what you have are the same limits - black and white. Your image has to be mapped to those extremes and you have to adjust the relative tonalities to match your intent. So you have have to boost those shadow details so they don't become part of the blacks, you may have to bring down some of those midtones so they don't become part of the whites. If those details aren't important then let them go - remember - it's *your* vision, you have responsibility for getting it to where it has to go.
george malamis wrote:
I don't care what kind of high DR paper you have, you're not going to get more than 6-8 stops on it.
Maybe not, but it sure is nice to have the choice of which 6-8 stops you are going to print. If the original does not have the range...then you have no choice.
WmPat:
I thought we had all decided that the DxO tests are the best available source for quantitative comparison of different makes of cameras. If you can give a link to a better source please do so.
I agree and would also like to hear from those who do not like DxO tests to show me a better source of comparison data (I am not interested in any subjective evaluations)
With respect to printing, most photographers who print compress parts of the tonal range, while expanding the contrast in others. The trade offs they make represent a large part of the art of printing (an art that is distinct from actually taking photographs in the first place). Paper has never had particularly good dynamic range. It is, after all, a white sheet...
You're not throwing anything more away with the D3x than with a 1Ds MkIII. The extra dynamic range is ABSOLUTELY useful. More dynamic range gives you a better source file to work from (particularly in the dramatically illuminated scenes that tend to make good photographs), and more options for the distribution of contrast within your print.
More DR is very useful and there were already posts which suggest that the Sony 24mp has more DR than a 1ds3. What I wonder is why does the Sony have less DR than the Nikon and why does the Canon have less DR but the same signal to noise ratio?
While I agree that having more DR is better than having less, and not every scene has all 11-13 stops that we can see, the paper has been the limiting factor for quite some time. I'm definitely not saying that the DR increase in the new D3X is not an improvement, only that it's full extent can not be realized in print. And while having more DR can give more post processing options, an increase in DR in print technology will be a big improvement.
george malamis wrote:
While I agree that having more DR is better than having less, and not every scene has all 11-13 stops that we can see, the paper has been the limiting factor for quite some time. I'm definitely not saying that the DR increase in the new D3X is not an improvement, only that it's full extent can not be realized in print. And while having more DR can give more post processing options, an increase in DR in print technology will be a big improvement.
If you shooting the sunrise or sunset you need as much DR as you can get .... and maybe on some of them you won't need to resort to HDR like these two samples here:
I believe that the dxo test doesn't measure details captured since the test doesn't use a lens. In this case I believe nikon is trading detail for dr. I believe this because the 12mpix 5d shows much better detail than the 12mpix D3
mfurman wrote:
It is not much more than 1Ds mkIII though.
If those numbers are reflecting the reality, it is not a good reality for Canon. How could Canon squander their lead so quickly?
I don't quite agree they lost their lead quickly. Canon found a method to have, what was effectively, the best image quality of all the SLR's. It took a little while for the others to come across what they needed to do to get where Canon was.
In the same way, it might be fair to say that Nikon's stumbled upon the formula to make a great wide angle zoom lens. I can see other manufacturers working out what needs to be done to make this lens at some point.
robsuh wrote:
I believe that the dxo test doesn't measure details captured since the test doesn't use a lens. In this case I believe nikon is trading detail for dr. I believe this because the 12mpix 5d shows much better detail than the 12mpix D3
Interesting statement. Have you seen any of these from Nikon. I don't know about lack of detail.
