Yes, this sensor technology is very impressive, and I\'m not trying to rationalize anything away. But really, how many captures do we do where we have to push the shadows 4-5 stops, as in that example? (Which is vs. the 5D Mark II, BTW, not the 5D3.)
Being able to do this really says nothing about the pros and cons of these cameras in normal shooting situations. Having more dynamic range is a good thing, but if your work never involves such radical file manipulation, then it really is a theoretical advantage.
In the vast majority of work that I do the dynamic range of the 5D Mark III is more than sufficient. I know this because I have *never* needed to manipulate even my 5D2 files in this manner to create a finished image, nor do I feel my pictures suffer from excessive shadow noise and loss of detail.
I understand there are photographers who seek after the highest possible image quality and there is a pride of ownership in a having camera that can objectively be called \"the best\" from an IQ perspective. For those guys, Nikon wins this round (it would do so for resolution alone, even if DR was the same).
But I will tell you that after just a day with the 5D Mark III, as a total package it may just be the best camera I have used, and I have recently owned both Canon and Nikon pro gear.
May 23, 2012 at 06:30 PM
Previous versions of garyvot's message #10661367 « DPR 5D3 Review is out »
