D800E vs. 5D3: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

Started Jul 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jon Rty
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,838
Like?
Re: D700 vs. D800
In reply to Rick Knepper, Jul 21, 2013

Rick Knepper wrote:

The point of the first set of images posted in this leg of the comparison which you seem to keep missing isn't to produce identical looking images for a casual viewer. It was intended to show the end results of a similar workflow. It is but one of several ways to compare images I believe an intelligent person would or should conduct if they have the opportunity. There are equalized images elsewhere.

Then you're not really comparing cameras, but post-processing. Because that's the only thing evident in your OP, how different curves and WB affect a picture.

To me, equalizing means to equalize the settings, to the degree that is available to the typical user, in order to see what the native differences are. You seem to be using the term like it is used in audio for non-comparison purposes. Fair enough. All you've done is processed the image differently than I have for a given environment. We all know that one can use Photoshop to give an image any look desired. Thanks for illustrating that. Most people want to see the native differences though.

What I've done is try to match the two cameras. What you've done is use Photoshop to give the shots two different looks, and then try to use that as a basis for a camera comparison

Without references of my own, I can't, in all good conscience, call into question your statement regarding the Adobe Standard Profile. Suffice it to say that going 6 pages deep into a Google search, I could find no documentation one way or another from Adobe that Adobe Standard is individually calibrated for each camera which is not to say it isn't there somewhere. If you have that reference handy, please post it.

So you do not know that new cameras lack Adobe support?

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5312

Here's the second hit from Google. Before 6.6, those cameras couldn't be processed using ACR, as they had no profiles. You should brush up on your Google-Fu, this was the first hit:

"For each camera model it supports, Camera Raw uses color profiles to process raw images. These profiles are produced by photographing color targets under standardized lighting conditions"

Note that I said every camera *model*, not every individual camera, if that's what you thought.

But, let's say you are right, I could find no one else on the Internet besides yourself who believes one can't use the Adobe Standard profile to compare camera/lens combos of different cameras. In fact, it seems it is the standard profile for this type of thing outside of review sites. Aside: if you are right, one wonders how a native difference in sensors can be produced by the typical consumer.

Then you haven't been reading this thread too carefully. The main reason why people object to your comparison is your inability to actually provide shots with similar looks. Your processing of the two shots differ most from each other in look out of any in this thread.

IWO, your processing while valid on one level could be bogus on another depending on what the goals are. IMO of course. Your goal seems to be discrediting my posts. I had to otherwise drag a conclusion out of you.

How are they bogus? My goal was to point out the flaws in your comparison, as comparing resolution using 2 megapixel shots is a fools errand. And drag? Again with the funny language.

Let me help you with this last part: "...there are no differences in resolution that I [Jon Rty] can see anymore." I believe your conclusion is a valid one, by the way. It is what you are seeing.

Though I understand the "safety in numbers" fall back (again, check the fallacy website), what "everyone" else thinks is irrelevant (why? because we don't understand the motivations involved - and this "everyone" else entity has grossly miscalculated my motivations).

I would urge all to conduct their own comparisons as you have.

I would disagree wholeheartedly with a blanket statement that every down-sizing to 2 MB would produce "no differences in resolution".

Not every. You'll find cameras poor enough that they can't resolve 2 megapixels. I however was talking about the 5DIII and the D800, which I thought was obvious. 2 megapixels is well under the measured resolution of both cameras. Just check any site doing resolution measurements. DxO is a easy one to read. Both the D800 and the 5DIII measure over 20 megapixels in resolution, so both are easily able to perfectly resolve 2 megapixels. If you somehow manage to extract less than that out of either camera, it's due to your improper technique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

This might be true for certain down-sizings but not for the reasons you are trying to imply. We would just have to see the results. You have to prove your assertions here buddy with a process we can all agree on. If you have a D700 and a D800, let's keep this in the family and post up some RAWs of a scene with reasonable detail and let's have a look-see.

Nope, we're talking about a 2 megapixel file. The 5D is able to resolve 13. You're the one that have to prove the resolution measurements wrong. Let's be honest, your backyard shots aren't really worth much when it comes to the question of resolution compared to actual, well, resolution measurements. No point eyeballing flour when there's a scale. Now, if you want to talk about something that isn't scientifically measurable, then pictures are in order.

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow