DR test D800 vs D5III

Started Apr 1, 2012 | Discussions
David Hull
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,330Gear list
Like?
Re: DR test D800 vs D5III
In reply to SubPrime, Apr 2, 2012

SubPrime wrote:
David Hull

Keep in mind that it the example shots in that blog were your own, you could make that four stop lifted 5DIII shot look essentially identical to the D800 shot with an application of Nik Define2.

That's hardly the point.

The comparison was not about noise but DR. Noise reduction won't create it for you, and thus is not going to help you recover highlight or lift shadows.

IMO, The problem with the 5DII was never lack of DR; it measures a tad over 11 EV which is plenty for most purposes. The issue has been the deterministic characteristic of its noise which was very difficult to work with in post. The noise in the 5DIII appears to not only be lower in level, but unidirectional in terms of its deterministic characteristics making it a lot easier to deal with in post as has been shown in several examples here and there in various threads. Any reduction of noise in the shadows whether achieved in HW or in post via SW, results in an effective increase in usable DR. In most that I have seen so far, a 5 stop shadow lift is easily achievable with the 5DIII where it probably was not with the 5DII. The Sony can do more than that by virtue of its lower read noise.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rwbaron
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,753Gear list
Like?
Re: DR test D800 vs D5III
In reply to Karl Burke, Apr 2, 2012

Karl Burke wrote:

rwbaron wrote:

Scott Larson wrote:

gigamel wrote:

D800 has better shadow recovery (we knew that), but ALSO better highlight recovery!! autch

That's exactly why no serious photographer ever used slide film. That Velvia crap was worthless! You couldn't see a damn thing in those shots with only eight stops.

I hope you're being facetious with the above comments. If not, you have no clue about the film era.

Yes, we both were (for me, the film era is ongoing also) - the point being, look at all the incredible imagery captured with tools that would be written off in any sensor debate on DPR now as being worthless because they "only" have 8 stops of usable dynamic range.

That doesn't mean that progress is useless or that advances are not to be welcomed. What it does mean is that we might benefit from a greater sense of perspective on the inevitable technological limitations of our current tools.

Agree,

Thanks for the clarification.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

 rwbaron's gear list:rwbaron's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David Hull
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,330Gear list
Like?
Re: DR test D800 vs D5III
In reply to Jon Rty, Apr 2, 2012

Jon Rty wrote:

And by that logic you can make a 5DII look essentially identical to the 5DIII at ISO 6400 with a little DeNoize. You can clean up noise, but you cant increase SNR in post. And SNR is where the difference between the D800 and 5DIII shadows are.

There are well established methodologies for improving SNR in post which are employed routinely in areas such as astrophotography for example. There have been several threads here that have demonstrated that in the case of the 5DIII it is easily possible to lift the shadows 4 to 5 stops if the proper noise processing is applied. If you want to routinely lift shadows 5 or 6 stops as in the so-called ISO-less paradise, you would be using the wrong tool but if you occasionally need to pull something out of the muck because you screwed up the exposure for example, the 5DIII is going to be up to the task.

David Hull wrote:

Keep in mind that it the example shots in that blog were your own, you could make that four stop lifted 5DIII shot look essentially identical to the D800 shot with an application of Nik Define2. There are several examples of that having been done floating around among the various threads. The pattern noise in the 5DIII seems to be pretty benign compared to that of its predecessor.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carlk
Forum ProPosts: 15,789Gear list
Like?
Re: On par with DXO
In reply to mvmv, Apr 2, 2012

Where is the DxO 5DIII test? Is it out?

mvmv wrote:

On par with DXO. D800 has better dynamic range in low ISO, but worst in high ISO. Also signal/noise is better in d800 only in ISO100, otherwise worst.

Very, very carefully constructed comparison!

Jpg DXO results:

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/hands-on-canon-5d-mark-iii-review-1067683/page:3#articleContent

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
B E
B E
Regular MemberPosts: 263
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to David Hull, Apr 2, 2012

David Hull wrote:

Flashlight wrote:

David Hull wrote:

.. you could just use the camera the way it was designed to be used which in the case of Canon would be to take the ISO=1600 shot with the ISOat ah... well... 1600 ;-). This photo is indistinguishable from the Nikon shot.

The testers already had the 'perfect' exposure, so they didn't have to take one four stops underexposed and up the exposure four stops in post. Everybody knows that.

The point is that in some situations the subject contrast is too high to be captured in one image. You can take several exposures and make an HDR, but that is no good with moving subjects, like at a wedding.

How did they do weddings before the advent of the D800?

Not as well as they can WITH the D800.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carlk
Forum ProPosts: 15,789Gear list
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to B E, Apr 2, 2012

B E wrote:

David Hull wrote:

How did they do weddings before the advent of the D800?

Not as well as they can WITH the D800.

Good answer for a bad question.

Now may I ask how human being survived living in caves?

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carlk
Forum ProPosts: 15,789Gear list
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to David Hull, Apr 2, 2012

David Hull wrote:

Flashlight wrote:

David Hull wrote:

Flashlight wrote:

David Hull wrote:

.. you could just use the camera the way it was designed to be used which in the case of Canon would be to take the ISO=1600 shot with the ISOat ah... well... 1600 ;-). This photo is indistinguishable from the Nikon shot.

The point is that in some situations the subject contrast is too high to be captured in one image. You can take several exposures and make an HDR, but that is no good with moving subjects, like at a wedding.

The typical wedding shooter is going to be looking for low light performance for the most part. In the higher ISO ranges the two cameras have identical dynamic range and pretty much identical noise performance. The Sony based cameras only shine for a particular group of photographers who want to shoot at the very bottom of the ISO range – that is not where the bulk of wedding work is done.

Where I live brides always hope for a bright sunny wedding day

Yea.. for outdoor work higher DR may come into play, I was more thinking of the indoor stuff where flash isn't allowed which I have seen a lot.

That situation is actually pretty rare. I don't think any of the photographers is too thrilled about shooting high ISO if can be avoided. Most good wedding photographers I see have flashes on bracket fixed on the camera all the time.

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
eNo
eNo
Forum ProPosts: 11,732
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to David Hull, Apr 2, 2012

David Hull wrote:

How did they do weddings before the advent of the D800?

Very differently, actually, if we hark back to film. 300-400 shots max, very little coverage in dark reception venues, very grainy photos in dark churches where flash was not allowed. Of course IMO, cameras like the D700 and even the 5DII have been doing quite well for some time far exceeding those days of old. We're getting to the point where we're nibbling at the margins, really.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Splash page: http://downeyweddingphotography.com
Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
eNo
eNo
Forum ProPosts: 11,732
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to David Hull, Apr 2, 2012

David Hull wrote:

The typical wedding shooter is going to be looking for low light performance for the most part. In the higher ISO ranges the two cameras have identical dynamic range and pretty much identical noise performance. The Sony based cameras only shine for a particular group of photographers who want to shoot at the very bottom of the ISO range – that is not where the bulk of wedding work is done.

Holy cow... ever heard of outdoor bride & groom portrait sessions, under demanding dynamic range caused by early afternoon sun? What about outdoor weddings, which yes, are becoming more popular in exactly the places where light is hard and a little shadow lifting at base ISO may be required when flash can't totally tame the sun?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Splash page: http://downeyweddingphotography.com
Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rwbaron
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,753Gear list
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to eNo, Apr 2, 2012

eNo wrote:

David Hull wrote:

How did they do weddings before the advent of the D800?

Very differently, actually, if we hark back to film. 300-400 shots max, very little coverage in dark reception venues, very grainy photos in dark churches where flash was not allowed. Of course IMO, cameras like the D700 and even the 5DII have been doing quite well for some time far exceeding those days of old. We're getting to the point where we're nibbling at the margins, really.

I agree and it's like saying the Audi R8 is not a good car because the Bugatti Veyron exists. I'd still be perfectly happy with the R8 ;).

Bob

-- hide signature --
 rwbaron's gear list:rwbaron's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rwbaron
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,753Gear list
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to eNo, Apr 2, 2012

eNo wrote:

David Hull wrote:

The typical wedding shooter is going to be looking for low light performance for the most part. In the higher ISO ranges the two cameras have identical dynamic range and pretty much identical noise performance. The Sony based cameras only shine for a particular group of photographers who want to shoot at the very bottom of the ISO range – that is not where the bulk of wedding work is done.

Holy cow... ever heard of outdoor bride & groom portrait sessions, under demanding dynamic range caused by early afternoon sun? What about outdoor weddings, which yes, are becoming more popular in exactly the places where light is hard and a little shadow lifting at base ISO may be required when flash can't totally tame the sun?

Valid point but more than a few stops?

These discussions always seem to degrade to foolishness. Outdoor weddings were never shot mid-day in bright Sunlight with 10D's, D200's or ? with completely satisfied customers?

Bob

-- hide signature --
 rwbaron's gear list:rwbaron's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carlk
Forum ProPosts: 15,789Gear list
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to rwbaron, Apr 2, 2012

rwbaron wrote:

Outdoor weddings were never shot mid-day in bright Sunlight with 10D's, D200's or ? with completely satisfied customers?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41102809

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David Hull
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,330Gear list
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to eNo, Apr 2, 2012

eNo wrote:

David Hull wrote:

The typical wedding shooter is going to be looking for low light performance for the most part. In the higher ISO ranges the two cameras have identical dynamic range and pretty much identical noise performance. The Sony based cameras only shine for a particular group of photographers who want to shoot at the very bottom of the ISO range – that is not where the bulk of wedding work is done.

Holy cow... ever heard of outdoor bride & groom portrait sessions, under demanding dynamic range caused by early afternoon sun? What about outdoor weddings, which yes, are becoming more popular in exactly the places where light is hard and a little shadow lifting at base ISO may be required when flash can't totally tame the sun?

I think we are all familiar with this sort of thing and seen it done -- quite successfully -- with all brands of of equipment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Splash page: http://downeyweddingphotography.com
Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rwbaron
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,753Gear list
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to carlk, Apr 2, 2012

carlk wrote:

rwbaron wrote:

Outdoor weddings were never shot mid-day in bright Sunlight with 10D's, D200's or ? with completely satisfied customers?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41102809

Bad answer to a good question.
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

 rwbaron's gear list:rwbaron's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David Hull
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,330Gear list
Like?
Re: On par with DXO
In reply to carlk, Apr 2, 2012

carlk wrote:
Where is the DxO 5DIII test? Is it out?

mvmv wrote:

On par with DXO. D800 has better dynamic range in low ISO, but worst in high ISO. Also signal/noise is better in d800 only in ISO100, otherwise worst.

Very, very carefully constructed comparison!

Jpg DXO results:

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/hands-on-canon-5d-mark-iii-review-1067683/page:3#articleContent

Bill Claff has done the same test and his results are "out". I am pretty sure that DxO will show the same thing which is that in the higher ISO ranges the two cameras are pretty much the same. His latest data shows taht the DR of the 5DII and 5DIII are pretty much the same.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40851187

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schwoofi
Regular MemberPosts: 222Gear list
Like?
I think the 5D3 high ISO DR will come out slightly ahead of the D800 ...
In reply to David Hull, Apr 2, 2012

I think the 5D3 high ISO DR will come out slightly ahead of the D800 by approx 2/3 stop. DxO measures the DR slightly different than Bill Claff. DxO shows a larger difference between high res and low res sensors.

We will see - hopefully soon.

Best regards

 schwoofi's gear list:schwoofi's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schwoofi
Regular MemberPosts: 222Gear list
Like?
Higher ISO (100-800) DR -> Fuji, as I have learned recently [nt]
In reply to rockport5, Apr 2, 2012

Higher ISO (100-800) DR -> Fuji, as I have learned recently [nt]

 schwoofi's gear list:schwoofi's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Shaun Bell
Senior MemberPosts: 1,255Gear list
Like?
Re: You totally missed the point
In reply to rwbaron, Apr 2, 2012

Back in the film days it was easier, given film retains highlights quite well. But with digital, we just got used to allowing the least important side of the histogram so suffer. There was not getting around it, on a bright sunny day the capture had to fall off somewhere. Most photographers have been asking for more DR, but has mostly fell on deaf ears as resolution was king for sales. Those who never run into extremely contrasty light, or can easily compensate with strobes DR isn't as important. For weddings...I wound say not to a extra few stops of DR. Though we haven't seen DXO marks for the Canon, I'm sure it will be better than the MII. If not, at least you Canon shooters have an RF strobe. That rocks! Hey Nikon, how about it?

 Shaun Bell's gear list:Shaun Bell's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D700 Nikon D3X +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pgb
pgb
Senior MemberPosts: 1,142Gear list
Like?
Re: DR test D800 vs D5III
In reply to cpkuntz, Apr 2, 2012

Yes for those that need more DR it is amazing. Lets be conservative and say its a stop better in the shadows and a stop in the highlights. That's a useful improvement.

Will I switch systems, no, but it will make me think twice before buying more EF
lenses for a while.

Nison have a great sensor, Canon should buy it as their very competitive in everything else.

Of course both cameras will take stunning pictures.

cpkuntz wrote:

Wow. The D800 dynamic range really is amazing, if these tests are accurate. ISO 1600 of properly exposed 5D III looks better, though.

Still, wow, the D800 is quite an achievement. I don't really push exposures in post, more than -2/3 to +2/3. It would be nice to have the option, I guess. I have Canon glass, though.

The main take home of all this is that I wish the 5D III would get a price reduction to $3000.

-- hide signature --

In the beginning was the rhythm but I had forgotten and was waiting for the beat.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photo_rb
Regular MemberPosts: 478
Like?
Re: Of course...
In reply to TrojMacReady, Apr 2, 2012

The Nikon image is a bit larger and the Canon files were shot with a longer focal length so they are probably using the same portion of the sensor.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads