D610 vs. 5D Mark III

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 30,011
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to billythek, 10 months ago

billythek wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

billythek wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

ron purdy wrote:

Here is the link of the RAW file. It actually a bit underexposed. I should give a bit more exposure such as +1/3 EV (as the highlight, the hotel I stayed in the Cape Town is not really overblown). It's a snapshot from early morning walk at the Nobel Square (4 statues are just behind me).

Ron, give a try ...

Thank you sir. I just upped the exposure enough to see detail in the tree and this is what I got.

Again, I am not knocking the Canon cameras. I have always really liked them. It's just that they do not do a good job at capturing the whole DR of the scene. Unless you want to be liberal with N.R., which makes the effective resolution lower...

Click on "original size" below the image to see at 100%. There is a lot of noise there IMO. It's no better than the sample I posted. Not the end of the world, but it does not come close to the Nikons.

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

Here is my processed 100% cropped in full-size. Better to download to view.

screenshot of the above portion in the darkest shadow in entire photo

The reality is that such very contrast scenes only take 5% or less in my total photos. This one is a snapshot otherwise not even worth to save (just for a view of the hotel - Queens Victoria I lived during visit). In other normal scenes, I need much less process.

That's why I suggest you to post your raw file somewhere and let me or somebody else for a try.

Any one can make a high-contrast scene taken with a Canon look bad. You show that there is no reason to create the noise. Here is another take on the same picture. My white balance is a little different than yours.

The composition is not all that great, but not horrendous noise, either. And reasonably sharp, I think.

No one is denying that the Sony sensors have more DR. But to claim that Canon pictures are doomed to horrendous noise in deep shadows is simply false. I don't mind shadows being black. It gives more punch to the picture. If you really need HDR, than go ahead and shoot HDR.

Too bad about the poorly shot picture of the kid with the curly hair. On close inspection, it looks like there is a huge flare circle on the back of his head. I'm surprised that that picture will actually be published. If the Sony sensors do a good job on pictures like that, then that is what the OP should be using. Personally, I try to avoid situations like that, and if I do happen to take one of those shots, it goes in the trash. Still, I'm left with lots of pictures without problems.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

This really is a discussion between people with different workflows arguing about whether the other's workflow is any good or not.

Well, certainly. That is exactly my point. Don't apply poor post processing technique to a Canon image and then harp about horrendous noise when it can be easily avoided.

It's not 'poor', it's different. The PP I apply is to produce a particular set of requirements. The truth is, whatever your PP regime, you'll get there easier with a camera with high DR and low pattern noise than one without those things. It's actually supremely arrogant to say anothers PP technique is 'poor' just because it's different from yours.

I think a lot of the problems are reported by people using old versions of ACR/LR. LR3, in particular, was very bad with noise in shadows. If anyone is still using LR3, they should upgrade to LR5. The newest process makes a big difference.

Which translates to 'the new ones put in a lot more involuntary NR', and the point about that is that you lose something for the NR compared with having a camera which doesn't need the NR in the first place.

It may surprise you, but I did not apply noise reduction in LR5 other than the default 25% chroma. I simply did not push the black point, and in fact, increased contrast to make the blacks a little darker. I used a standard Nik filter recipe that I apply to many of my landscapes, but it does not involve noise-reduction, just some normal color and contrast adjustments.

It doesn't surprise me at all. I know that there is NR applied even at zero NR settings, and this involuntary NR has increased over time. For a generation, Canon's sensor improvements have been ascribed to better DIGICs, which in fact means more NR is the ex-camera JPEGs, and of course the computer processing to old have to adapt to match the in-camera JPEGs, so they gain more NR.

I did not see the point of the picture to be to bring out detail in the shadows in the leaves. In my view that is distracting detail. The point of the picture to me is the red ball, the blue sky, and the color of the late afternoon sun on the bright areas. I could have lifted the shadows more, without too much noise, but that was not my objective. Rather, I was applying normal processing and attempting to make the picture look good, such as it is. And as I said, I prefer a little black in the shadows to add punch, rather than a flat, washed-out HDR look.

You miss the point entirely, whatever the point of that picture, there are many where you're trying to retain details in the shadows. That available image was just being used as a working example. A typical one I struggle with with the Canon is texture in black leather furniture. You end up having to choose between NR which blurs the natural leather texture to nothingness or pattern noise which also obliterates it, even at 100 ISO.

-- hide signature --

Bob

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