The MKIII is clearly the cleanest and least destructive type of noise at higher ISOs, but Canon really needs to do something about their shadows at low ISO already. Lol. D5100 APS-C puts them all to shame.
The MKIII is clearly the cleanest and least destructive type of noise at higher ISOs, but Canon really needs to do something about their shadows at low ISO already. Lol. D5100 APS-C puts them all to shame.
I have never been a fan of Canon shadows, especially with a studio that shoots sRAW1 / mRAW now. There's often severe banding in shadows, especially at intermediate ISOs, that becomes apparent as soon as you try and recover shadows in Lightroom. I've already seen banding (either caused by RF interference, or natural) in 5D mk3 files at over 1600 ISO... (I do post-production for a living, and have already processed 3-4,000 5D mk3 images)
I have never been a fan of Canon shadows, especially with a studio that shoots sRAW1 / mRAW now. There's often severe banding in shadows, especially at intermediate ISOs, that becomes apparent as soon as you try and recover shadows in Lightroom. I've already seen banding (either caused by RF interference, or natural) in 5D mk3 files at over 1600 ISO... (I do post-production for a living, and have already processed 3-4,000 5D mk3 images)
=Matt=
Yeah, I'm used to it as well from the MKII. Thats what Dfine 2.0 is for though, lol. PP is also something I do extensively, although just for myself. I could do it professionally for others, but I'm not sure if I want to. I think it'd burn me out on the pictures I already process for myself and suck the enjoyment out of it.
I wouldn't mind a part time PP job though... do you work for anyone or just do it on your own? I'm not sure what venue to take with it if I did decide to try it out.
Yeah, I'm used to it as well from the MKII. Thats what Dfine 2.0 is for though, lol. PP is also something I do extensively, although just for myself. I could do it professionally for others, but I'm not sure if I want to. I think it'd burn me out on the pictures I already process for myself and suck the enjoyment out of it.
I wouldn't mind a part time PP job though... do you work for anyone or just do it on your own? I'm not sure what venue to take with it if I did decide to try it out.
I edit for a local studio that I also shoot with. Don't have time to take on any other clients!
I have never been a fan of Canon shadows, especially with a studio that shoots sRAW1 / mRAW now. There's often severe banding in shadows, especially at intermediate ISOs, that becomes apparent as soon as you try and recover shadows in Lightroom. I've already seen banding (either caused by RF interference, or natural) in 5D mk3 files at over 1600 ISO... (I do post-production for a living, and have already processed 3-4,000 5D mk3 images)
=Matt=
I see this often in my D700 as well in extreme low light shoots.
Yo soy Reynaldo
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
I see this often in my D700 as well in extreme low light shoots.
The D700 has roughly equal trashy shadows as the 5D mk2 at high ISO's, but it's the 5D mk2's low ISO shadows that I find to be significantly more un-recoverable due to both noise and banding. Sure, all cameras expose noise if you go to town brightening the shadows at any ISO, but I have found that in general the 5-series doesn't fair well for shadow recovery, across the board.
The D700 has roughly equal trashy shadows as the 5D mk2 at high ISO's, but it's the 5D mk2's low ISO shadows that I find to be significantly more un-recoverable due to both noise and banding. Sure, all cameras expose noise if you go to town brightening the shadows at any ISO, but I have found that in general the 5-series doesn't fair well for shadow recovery, across the board.
=Matt=
Lets look at it from the flip side... we just need to be better photogs and get our exposures correct... Canon will force us to do this
Lets look at it from the flip side... we just need to be better photogs and get our exposures correct... Canon will force us to do this
I've often said that my Nikon makes me pretty sloppy with autofocus technique sometimes, because it just nails everything even if I'm barely trying. I guess I should have bought a Canon, and learned to milk an autofocus system for all it's worth? :-P
Bah, I used the 5D MKII for 3 years, and just using the MKIII for 2 days feels much more dramatic than a 2 point difference. I can't go by DxOs scale if I can personally compare them and be blown away by the MKIII. Blown away isn't a 2 point difference.
According to DxOMark, Nikon sensors from 2007 are better than the sensor of the 5D3....
And that furthers my case. I mean, really? Yeah right. All concept of the numbers being relative to anything has been lost for me, personally. It doesn't seem to scale proportionately at all.
Bah, I used the 5D MKII for 3 years, and just using the MKIII for 2 days feels much more dramatic than a 2 point difference. I can't go by DxOs scale if I can personally compare them and be blown away by the MKIII. Blown away isn't a 2 point difference.
And that furthers my case. I mean, really? Yeah right. All concept of the numbers being relative to anything has been lost for me, personally. It doesn't seem to scale proportionately at all.
Don't worry, if you love your camera, then just love your camera and ignore these tests.
Us Nikon folk will just sit here and laugh at you canon fanboys :Pdeal
Don't worry, if you love your camera, then just love your camera and ignore these tests.
Us Nikon folk will just sit here and laugh at you canon fanboys :Pdeal
Well, I got Canon but can laugh just the same But when I read in the forums about "how much more dynamic range the 5d3 has etc." and then see in this test that the 5d2 actually has more dynamic range and it's just people discovering HDR for the first time...
On the other hand, Nikon should be ashamed to start with such a good sensor output and then still end up with more noise at high ISO in the end result than the Canon. Just imagine what would happen if Canon put's in a Sony sensor or when Nikon gets the same level of processing that Canon has.... it tells me there is a lot of room for improvement still
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Im just glad I could care less about all the ultra technical stuff
All hi end cameras now a days are more than capable of taking amazing photos.
I think people, in general, need to work on their light and composition, and lay off all the technical mombo jumbo!
I chose Canon because it's a great camera that produces a great quality image in a body that I am comfortable with.
I went to the store, tested both and liked the canon image better. Also, a big selling factor for me on top of the image quality, is I have been a Canon shooter for a long time. With the Canon, I can shoot fast without thinking about settings and feel confident I can get the shot, even at a moments notice. If the Nikon was light years better then yes, I may make a change, (mostly to please clients, not myself)
Just my opinion, but I think people loose sight of photography with all this tec stuff.
Its kinda like politicians, you can never tell if what you read or hear is true, you just need to go out and find out for your self what works best for you and your vision
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited April 20, 2012
People get really emotionally invested in their purchasing decisions. Society seems to have this irrational fear of "buying the wrong / inferior product".
I think that as long as you're not actually being swindled, who cares? Just enjoy what you've got.
I guess for the geeks out there who TRULY can't sleep at night without knowing which system is "superior", honestly the best way to go about things is to just master both systems. I'm not talking about owning two entire systems, I'm just talking about making a friend in the "enemy camp" at least...
Personally, I've never owned a Canon camera in my life, and yet I've been able to work with pretty much ever pro and amateur body since the 10D / 1Ds, and pretty much every lens. I guess it's a little easier living in an area with such a healthy community, but you get the idea. I stick with the system I already have for no reason other than the fact that I JUST KNOW. I know exactly what love and hate about both Canon and Nikon, and to me the decision is a no-brainer.
So, on the one hand, "forget the tests and just go shoot!" ....However on the other hand, for those of you super-geeks out there, lemme tell ya- the absolute best way to sleep well at night and know you have the right system for YOU is to master both systems. No, holding a D700 / 5D mk2 for 5 minutes in the camera store does NOT count. 5 minutes with a completely foreign system will just make you want to go back to your "confort zone"
I hope that as many people as possible have had a chance to actually do some extensive shooting with "the other camera"... (Especially if you're investing $3K+ in a new camera!)
Each ti his own but the DXO labs test really show how far digital cameras have evolved in just a few short years.
The D800 is clearly ahead of the pack and scored better than the $40,000 Phase One medium format.
I am sure Canon will have an answer in their next series of Mark III's and then Nikon will jump ahead and then Canon will match or exceed.....the story has been the same since day one.
Each ti his own but the DXO labs test really show how far digital cameras have evolved in just a few short years.
The D800 is clearly ahead of the pack and scored better than the $40,000 Phase One medium format.
What???
I have used the new (and have used all of them over the years) Phase One back and if they say the Nikon produces a better image then they are completely full of s^%*!!!
Not even in the same ball park, not by a long shot.
No wonder I never listen to crazy tests and always do my own testing before I buy.
I have used the new (and have used all of them over the years) Phase One back and if they say the Nikon produces a better image then they are completely full of s^%*!!!
Not even in the same ball park, not by a long shot.
No wonder I never listen to crazy tests and always do my own testing before I buy.
According to them the D800 beats it by quite a bit. The 5d Mark III ranks 9th.
I wouldn't get all perturbed over this. I think all high end cameras manufactured these days will be setting new benchmarks. Doesn't mean the ones made in previous years are somehow no longer usable. It's Ford vs Chevy at this point. What ever you prefer.
Medium format digital backs treat the raw format differently then do the 35mm based digital cameras do. Medium format backs apply no noise reduction at all to the raw output they produce and expect the software outside the camera to do that. The output of a 35mm based cameras raw output isn't completly raw, all apply some noise reduction to the raw output they produce.
So it's comparing medium format raw imaged to SLR raw images is really an apples an oranges kind of comparison.
Luminious Landscape has an article that discusses why you can't really compare medium format raw to slr raw using DxO, you have to compare the final images they produce to evaluate the differences.
I wouldn't get all perturbed over this. I think all high end cameras manufactured these days will be setting new benchmarks. Doesn't mean the ones made in previous years are somehow no longer usable. It's Ford vs Chevy at this point. What ever you prefer.
The Luminous Landscape article you link to is a bit old. Things have changed. There is an active discussion there now regarding the D800 compared to MF. Very interesting.
You might want to have a peek at this video as well.
I have used the new (and have used all of them over the years) Phase One back and if they say the Nikon produces a better image then they are completely full of s^%*!!!
Not even in the same ball park, not by a long shot.
No wonder I never listen to crazy tests and always do my own testing before I buy.
Having recently tested the IQ180, I have to say- I didn't notice any of that magical extra DR or color accuracy, like everybody always seems to be worshiping... Just an obscene number of megapixels. Could it have indeed been superior in DR and color to every other sensor ever? Maybe, by a hair or three. But nothing magical like I got the impression about.
I haven't yet tested the D800 for myself, so I won't pass judgment, but I'm pretty sure that when you consider the low-light performance, the D800 sensor should prove to be a LOT better sensor when you "average out" all the different aspects of testing, which is what DXO tries to do apparently.
They're not saying the D800 sensor is better in every single way than any other sensor ever made. They're just saying that each aspect of the D800 performance comes together in an overall superiority. I don't find that too hard to believe.
However, I'm 100% positive that real-world testing will show the 5D mk3 high ISO performance is DEFINITELY mis-represented in the DXO review, thanks to color noise probably. I know everybody has different standards for measurement, but my line of work would involve shooting the 5D mk3 in mRAW mode, and down-sampling the D800 images to about the same 10-12 megapixels. So I'm betting that for my line of work, the 5D mk3 will prove to be much cleaner overall in low light, even though the D800's "grain" will look nice and small and film-like etc...
BTW, I held the D4 the other day, in fact I held Mikkel Aaland's D4. ;-) I have to say, I'm not a fan of the control layout changes that Nikon seems to be using on both the D4 and the D800. I think they've tried much too hard to integrate video capture and immitate the 5D mk3 / 7D control layout. One thing I am happy about is, they've left out the "joypad" changes from the D800; on the D4 the new joypad is quite smaller but it looks like the D800 joypad is more akin to the D700.
Either way, the more I see about these new cameras, while each weekend goes by with me shooting another job on my D700....I keep realizing just how satisfied I am with the camera I've got. Won't be upgrading any time soon; I've got plenty of lenses to look forward to!
But the DxO numbers do say that the Nikon is better. What the luminous article is saying is that making MF to SLR comparisons based on DxO isn't valid, you should do a comparison based on the viewing actual image results. The video did it's comparison based on actual image results, not DxO numbers.
It was an interesting vid and definitely shows the SLR's are beginning to infrige on the MF's domain.
Actually, at least for me, one of the most interesting comments in the vid where one of the 'togs said that it was important to go to a gig with the really expensive equipment because of the impression it makes.
The Luminous Landscape article you link to is a bit old. Things have changed. There is an active discussion there now regarding the D800 compared to MF. Very interesting.
You might want to have a peek at this video as well.
Actually, at least for me, one of the most interesting comments in the vid where one of the 'togs said that it was important to go to a gig with the really expensive equipment because of the impression it makes.
That makes a difference. I shot a Wedding with the D700 and there one of the guests had a D3 and 70-200. I knew my images would be good but wondered what the B&G thought. I read another post where some fella was following the wedding photog around shooting all his poses etc. with a Hassy. Good grief.
Makes you wonder why someone would bring the D3 to a wedding as a guest...It shouldn't matter but it does.
This Test, That Test....
All the number crunching means little. Give me real life use and comparing side by side and it goes much more to the true pros and cons of the 5DIII and D800.
The DXO tests do measure something, and the real world benefit do show on the comparison. Other things (Live view implementation) fall through the cracks of the DXO testing. Real life use by different photographers shooting different styles tell much more than the number crunchers IMHO.
Both are great tools and which is better depends on one's shooting style, as well as prior investments.
Comments
I like the features of the D800, but the ergonomics isn't one of them.
http://www.a2bart.com/tech/5d2vs5d3.htm
The MKIII is clearly the cleanest and least destructive type of noise at higher ISOs, but Canon really needs to do something about their shadows at low ISO already. Lol. D5100 APS-C puts them all to shame.
I have never been a fan of Canon shadows, especially with a studio that shoots sRAW1 / mRAW now. There's often severe banding in shadows, especially at intermediate ISOs, that becomes apparent as soon as you try and recover shadows in Lightroom. I've already seen banding (either caused by RF interference, or natural) in 5D mk3 files at over 1600 ISO... (I do post-production for a living, and have already processed 3-4,000 5D mk3 images)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yeah, I'm used to it as well from the MKII. Thats what Dfine 2.0 is for though, lol. PP is also something I do extensively, although just for myself. I could do it professionally for others, but I'm not sure if I want to. I think it'd burn me out on the pictures I already process for myself and suck the enjoyment out of it.
I wouldn't mind a part time PP job though... do you work for anyone or just do it on your own? I'm not sure what venue to take with it if I did decide to try it out.
I edit for a local studio that I also shoot with. Don't have time to take on any other clients!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Ahh okay, you work for a studio
I see this often in my D700 as well in extreme low light shoots.
The D700 has roughly equal trashy shadows as the 5D mk2 at high ISO's, but it's the 5D mk2's low ISO shadows that I find to be significantly more un-recoverable due to both noise and banding. Sure, all cameras expose noise if you go to town brightening the shadows at any ISO, but I have found that in general the 5-series doesn't fair well for shadow recovery, across the board.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Lets look at it from the flip side... we just need to be better photogs and get our exposures correct... Canon will force us to do this
I've often said that my Nikon makes me pretty sloppy with autofocus technique sometimes, because it just nails everything even if I'm barely trying. I guess I should have bought a Canon, and learned to milk an autofocus system for all it's worth? :-P
(/jest)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
The results were released today...
http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Here are some interesting articles
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415773-76/canon-5d-mark-iii-underwhelms-on-sensor-test/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415777-76/how-dxo-labs-tests-hot-cameras-like-canons-latest-slr/
http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
And that furthers my case. I mean, really? Yeah right. All concept of the numbers being relative to anything has been lost for me, personally. It doesn't seem to scale proportionately at all.
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review/page:5#articleContent
Don't worry, if you love your camera, then just love your camera and ignore these tests.
Us Nikon folk will just sit here and laugh at you canon fanboys :P
Well, I got Canon but can laugh just the same
On the other hand, Nikon should be ashamed to start with such a good sensor output and then still end up with more noise at high ISO in the end result than the Canon. Just imagine what would happen if Canon put's in a Sony sensor or when Nikon gets the same level of processing that Canon has.... it tells me there is a lot of room for improvement still
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
All hi end cameras now a days are more than capable of taking amazing photos.
I think people, in general, need to work on their light and composition, and lay off all the technical mombo jumbo!
I chose Canon because it's a great camera that produces a great quality image in a body that I am comfortable with.
I went to the store, tested both and liked the canon image better. Also, a big selling factor for me on top of the image quality, is I have been a Canon shooter for a long time. With the Canon, I can shoot fast without thinking about settings and feel confident I can get the shot, even at a moments notice. If the Nikon was light years better then yes, I may make a change, (mostly to please clients, not myself)
Just my opinion, but I think people loose sight of photography with all this tec stuff.
Its kinda like politicians, you can never tell if what you read or hear is true, you just need to go out and find out for your self what works best for you and your vision
I think that as long as you're not actually being swindled, who cares? Just enjoy what you've got.
I guess for the geeks out there who TRULY can't sleep at night without knowing which system is "superior", honestly the best way to go about things is to just master both systems. I'm not talking about owning two entire systems, I'm just talking about making a friend in the "enemy camp" at least...
Personally, I've never owned a Canon camera in my life, and yet I've been able to work with pretty much ever pro and amateur body since the 10D / 1Ds, and pretty much every lens. I guess it's a little easier living in an area with such a healthy community, but you get the idea. I stick with the system I already have for no reason other than the fact that I JUST KNOW. I know exactly what love and hate about both Canon and Nikon, and to me the decision is a no-brainer.
So, on the one hand, "forget the tests and just go shoot!" ....However on the other hand, for those of you super-geeks out there, lemme tell ya- the absolute best way to sleep well at night and know you have the right system for YOU is to master both systems. No, holding a D700 / 5D mk2 for 5 minutes in the camera store does NOT count. 5 minutes with a completely foreign system will just make you want to go back to your "confort zone"
I hope that as many people as possible have had a chance to actually do some extensive shooting with "the other camera"... (Especially if you're investing $3K+ in a new camera!)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
The D800 is clearly ahead of the pack and scored better than the $40,000 Phase One medium format.
I am sure Canon will have an answer in their next series of Mark III's and then Nikon will jump ahead and then Canon will match or exceed.....the story has been the same since day one.
Just my opinion...
Monte
What???
I have used the new (and have used all of them over the years) Phase One back and if they say the Nikon produces a better image then they are completely full of s^%*!!!
Not even in the same ball park, not by a long shot.
No wonder I never listen to crazy tests and always do my own testing before I buy.
According to them the D800 beats it by quite a bit. The 5d Mark III ranks 9th.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings
I wouldn't get all perturbed over this. I think all high end cameras manufactured these days will be setting new benchmarks. Doesn't mean the ones made in previous years are somehow no longer usable. It's Ford vs Chevy at this point. What ever you prefer.
Monte
So it's comparing medium format raw imaged to SLR raw images is really an apples an oranges kind of comparison.
Luminious Landscape has an article that discusses why you can't really compare medium format raw to slr raw using DxO, you have to compare the final images they produce to evaluate the differences.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
You might want to have a peek at this video as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
I don't think anyone is saying the Nikon is better. But things are changing and catching up very quickly.
Monte
Having recently tested the IQ180, I have to say- I didn't notice any of that magical extra DR or color accuracy, like everybody always seems to be worshiping... Just an obscene number of megapixels. Could it have indeed been superior in DR and color to every other sensor ever? Maybe, by a hair or three. But nothing magical like I got the impression about.
I haven't yet tested the D800 for myself, so I won't pass judgment, but I'm pretty sure that when you consider the low-light performance, the D800 sensor should prove to be a LOT better sensor when you "average out" all the different aspects of testing, which is what DXO tries to do apparently.
They're not saying the D800 sensor is better in every single way than any other sensor ever made. They're just saying that each aspect of the D800 performance comes together in an overall superiority. I don't find that too hard to believe.
However, I'm 100% positive that real-world testing will show the 5D mk3 high ISO performance is DEFINITELY mis-represented in the DXO review, thanks to color noise probably. I know everybody has different standards for measurement, but my line of work would involve shooting the 5D mk3 in mRAW mode, and down-sampling the D800 images to about the same 10-12 megapixels. So I'm betting that for my line of work, the 5D mk3 will prove to be much cleaner overall in low light, even though the D800's "grain" will look nice and small and film-like etc...
BTW, I held the D4 the other day, in fact I held Mikkel Aaland's D4. ;-) I have to say, I'm not a fan of the control layout changes that Nikon seems to be using on both the D4 and the D800. I think they've tried much too hard to integrate video capture and immitate the 5D mk3 / 7D control layout. One thing I am happy about is, they've left out the "joypad" changes from the D800; on the D4 the new joypad is quite smaller but it looks like the D800 joypad is more akin to the D700.
Either way, the more I see about these new cameras, while each weekend goes by with me shooting another job on my D700....I keep realizing just how satisfied I am with the camera I've got. Won't be upgrading any time soon; I've got plenty of lenses to look forward to!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
It was an interesting vid and definitely shows the SLR's are beginning to infrige on the MF's domain.
Actually, at least for me, one of the most interesting comments in the vid where one of the 'togs said that it was important to go to a gig with the really expensive equipment because of the impression it makes.
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
That makes a difference. I shot a Wedding with the D700 and there one of the guests had a D3 and 70-200. I knew my images would be good but wondered what the B&G thought. I read another post where some fella was following the wedding photog around shooting all his poses etc. with a Hassy. Good grief.
Makes you wonder why someone would bring the D3 to a wedding as a guest...It shouldn't matter but it does.
Monte
All the number crunching means little. Give me real life use and comparing side by side and it goes much more to the true pros and cons of the 5DIII and D800.
Here's such a test:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/
The DXO tests do measure something, and the real world benefit do show on the comparison. Other things (Live view implementation) fall through the cracks of the DXO testing. Real life use by different photographers shooting different styles tell much more than the number crunchers IMHO.
Both are great tools and which is better depends on one's shooting style, as well as prior investments.
www.spanielsport.com
Crazy long shoot days ahead (some studio and lots of location action) but I will try to post my thoughts when I can.
Should be interesting