Fred Miranda comparison confirms DXO results. 5D III blown away.

Started Apr 26, 2012 | Discussions
carlk
Forum ProPosts: 15,688Gear list
Like?
Re: nope
In reply to gipper51, Apr 26, 2012

gipper51 wrote:

It's like telling your rich friend: "Hey buddy, but this limiter chip in your Ferrari so it only goes 65mph and my Buick will get us to New York just as fast!".

That's a great analogy. A Buick is as fast as a Ferrari at 65mph. A p&s makes as good 8x12 print as 5DIII/D800 does. It's just pointless to use the lower denominator as standard of measure.

 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: 5,231Gear list
Like?
Re: Old news
In reply to carlk, Apr 26, 2012

carlk wrote:

stephenmelvin wrote:

This was reported a few days ago, and it's not a surprise, really.

Thing is, the DR advantage of the D800 goes away rapidly as the ISO goes up. It's about 2 1/2 stops at ISO 100, but by ISO 160, it's under two stops (9.12 vs 10.84). At ISO 320, the advantage is about a stop (8.89 vs 9.95) and by ISO 1280, they're practically the same.

So while the low ISO dynamic range of the D800 is extremely good, depending on how a photographer uses his camera, it may matter greatly, or it may not matter at all.

As for me, maybe one photo in ten is taken at ISO 100. I'd like to have the extra DR, sure, but it's not where I make my living.

Op said he's a nature shooter. I'm sure he's not too interested in high ISO shooting. Matter of fact no body should be shooting high ISO if can be avoided because it always compromises the IQ no matter what camera you're using.

The other way to put it is the best IQ D800 can produce (@ ISO100) can be better than the best IQ 5DIII can. That point should not be missed by people who are looking for ways to get the best IQ they could.

This, of course, depends on the nature of his "nature" photography. Not all nature photography is done at ISO 100. I would be willing to bet that not a lot of it is done there. The best shots are often golden hour shots in the early morning or early evening. There are also situations where the subject is in the shade (animals up early, out late etc.).

As the guy above correctly points out, the two stop advantage of the Sony design only exists at base ISO and is down to one stop by 400 and essentially gone at 800. For all practical purposes -- with the exception of purely contrived examples such as the one being discussed here – the output of these two cameras will be indistinguishable.

Better advice for the OP would be to take inventory of his shooting scenarios, determine what ISO ranges he needs and whether he will gain any advantage from the DR. The resolution is another story, depending (again) on his subject matter, the extra cropping might come in handy.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Adobe Photoshop CS6
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryJP
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,823Gear list
Like?
Re: Fred Miranda comparison confirms DXO results. 5D III blown away.
In reply to Montana500, Apr 26, 2012

Montana500 wrote:

I've always wondered about the dynamic range of my Canon cameras at low ISO (especially 7D and 5D II). Well, now I know why. This isn't even close, folks. The Nikon sensor is quite simply in another league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

This is an enormous benefit for nature shooters.

Yes, but it has apparently caused Fred Miranda no great problems in shooting nature with his Canons.

Even, ironically, in almost all the great photos (not test photos) that accompany the article.

-- hide signature --
 GaryJP's gear list:GaryJP's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Canon PowerShot G1 X Sony RX100 II G1 X II Canon EOS-1D Mark III +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
3systermuser
Contributing MemberPosts: 972
Like?
Re: Fred Miranda comparison confirms DXO results. 5D III blown away.
In reply to rwbaron, Apr 26, 2012

Bob, I am sorry but I have to tell you one thing that the Nikon D800 sensor is not made by Sony, and I am personally gussing it an Aptina sensor.

rwbaron wrote:

Already posted and discussed ad nauseam on this forum. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know the advantages of the Sony Exmor sensor by now. Maybe someday Canon will be using it too or according to some their DSLR division will go the way of the dodo bird.

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

-- hide signature --

derek.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
j900
Regular MemberPosts: 113
Like?
Re: Fred Miranda comparison confirms DXO results. 5D III blown away.
In reply to 3systermuser, Apr 26, 2012

Would you care to provide a link to your source? All accounts I've read point to a Sony exmor sensor. Plus, there is a 36MP sony sensor on hold for next year's sony full frame camera that shares the same specs as the D800 sensor. According to sonyalpharumors there is an agreement that provides nikon one year of exclusive use before sony trickles it down on other models.

Please also check this link - I would very much doubt that the sensor is from another design/tech/mfg than Sony:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=41064067

3systermuser wrote:

Bob, I am sorry but I have to tell you one thing that the Nikon D800 sensor is not made by Sony, and I am personally gussing it an Aptina sensor.

rwbaron wrote:

Already posted and discussed ad nauseam on this forum. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know the advantages of the Sony Exmor sensor by now. Maybe someday Canon will be using it too or according to some their DSLR division will go the way of the dodo bird.

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

-- hide signature --

derek.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KAllen
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,729Gear list
Like?
Re: But that's not how it works
In reply to stephenmelvin, Apr 26, 2012

stephenmelvin wrote:

gipper51 wrote:

stephenmelvin wrote:

gipper51 wrote:

kelpdiver wrote:

not convinced about the decision to interpolate (and not describe how) the canon image to 36mp. That seems even less appropriate than downscaling the D800 down. Leaves you wondering how much of the difference is real versus the upscale.

Why would throwing information away from the bigger file to match the lower res camera be the better way?? By this method an 80mp medium format camera will only be 'marginally' more detailed than a 8mp 20D if you scaled it down.

You always scale the lower res camera up.

Nope, you scale the higher res camera down. It will still possess an advantage, since it starts with a lot more information.

That's how DXO does it for part of their test.

That may be their method, but that's just stupid IMHO for the real world...for the very reason I listed above.

But that's not how it works in the real world, when you print the image out. You do print, don't you?

So, for example, you want to print an 8x12 on a printer that's 300 ppi. That's about 8 megapixels. Guess what? The RIP throws the extra resolution away.

This is why the D800's resolution advantage doesn't show up until the prints get really big.

It's like telling your rich friend: "Hey buddy, but this limiter chip in your Ferrari so it only goes 65mph and my Buick will get us to New York just as fast!".

It's nothing like that.

-- hide signature --

.Why stop at downsizing to level the field, why not clip the DR of the 800 to match the 5D It might make some kind of bizarre scientific sense to cripple the Nikon advantage but not a practical one.

You pay your money and make your choice for the best you can get. You don't buy the Nikon thinking I'll throw away any advantage it has to match a lesser capable camera.

As for seeing the advantage in print, I never print, well hardly. My images go off to the client, design agencies mostly that no doubt view on screen, should I send them a note with my Canon files saying that if you downsize a Nikon file it looks only slightly better than my Canon. Should I say the extra detail in my competitors Nikon shadows hardly shows when you go to press if it's downsized?

I'm sitting looking at two images on my computer right now, I never shot them as a test, it just turned out to be a good comparison.

In February I did a job on my 1DsmkIII, an aerial job from a helicopter. I've shot, processed and invoiced the client no problem.

A few days ago I sent some rolls of film off for processing, one roll it turns out I took on the same flight and there is a similar shot to one I took on the Canon.

The difference is night and day. The film (Portra 160) just sings, the shadow detail is amazing (the Canon struggled with the harsh winter light) the film has saturated colours but keeps a gentle Winters glow.I have tried to match the Canon raw file to the film but you can't, it does not have the information in it. I think I'm going to have to go the Nikon route at great expense. You will need to have a love is blind attitude to not see Nikon has a significant advantage. My 1DsmkIII based on image quality does not even match my 50 year old Rolleiflex with a roll of Portra in and I doubt the Nikon does either but it's closer.

Knobbling the Nikon down to the 5D is just an insane idea, I can't believe anyone could argue that is the best way to compare two cameras abilities.

Kevin.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ah Pek
Contributing MemberPosts: 819
Like?
Question is what type of image do you want?
In reply to Montana500, Apr 26, 2012

If you like CGI type HDR then by all means pull 4 stops. I personally hate overcooked HDR.

Also, the fredmiranda shots are before further recovery and processing. Of course, the Canon cannot pull 4 stops like the Nikon but the difference would narrow with further processing.

Coming from Velvia film, my preference is for contrasty images with a pop. My eyes are not accustomed to HDR. They simply look fake to me unless very conservatively done.

I foresee a lot of D800 images are going to look like HDR because users will pull shadows not because it improves the image but because they think they can.

In 99% of the time, my 5D2 has sufficient latitude. The other 1%, I'm quite happy to merge exposures.

-- hide signature --

'The majesticness of that duck is overwhelming!' - Bulbol

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chironNYC
Senior MemberPosts: 1,363
Like?
Re: But that's not how it works
In reply to KAllen, Apr 26, 2012

I think it's pretty simple. Going down maintains an advantage by reducing noise for the higher res camera. Going up increases the noise on the lower res camera. Question is if the two methods are 1) proportionately equal in distributing a res advantage with regard to noise, and 2) which method matches real world operations.

I think the real world criterion calls for down sizing. I don't know about whiether the two metods are proportionate in how they treat the differences. Mirand would have to give us a down-res comparison to answer the question in regard to his particular exposures.

KAllen wrote:

stephenmelvin wrote:

gipper51 wrote:

stephenmelvin wrote:

gipper51 wrote:

kelpdiver wrote:

not convinced about the decision to interpolate (and not describe how) the canon image to 36mp. That seems even less appropriate than downscaling the D800 down. Leaves you wondering how much of the difference is real versus the upscale.

Why would throwing information away from the bigger file to match the lower res camera be the better way?? By this method an 80mp medium format camera will only be 'marginally' more detailed than a 8mp 20D if you scaled it down.

You always scale the lower res camera up.

Nope, you scale the higher res camera down. It will still possess an advantage, since it starts with a lot more information.

That's how DXO does it for part of their test.

That may be their method, but that's just stupid IMHO for the real world...for the very reason I listed above.

But that's not how it works in the real world, when you print the image out. You do print, don't you?

So, for example, you want to print an 8x12 on a printer that's 300 ppi. That's about 8 megapixels. Guess what? The RIP throws the extra resolution away.

This is why the D800's resolution advantage doesn't show up until the prints get really big.

It's like telling your rich friend: "Hey buddy, but this limiter chip in your Ferrari so it only goes 65mph and my Buick will get us to New York just as fast!".

It's nothing like that.

-- hide signature --

.Why stop at downsizing to level the field, why not clip the DR of the 800 to match the 5D It might make some kind of bizarre scientific sense to cripple the Nikon advantage but not a practical one.

You pay your money and make your choice for the best you can get. You don't buy the Nikon thinking I'll throw away any advantage it has to match a lesser capable camera.

As for seeing the advantage in print, I never print, well hardly. My images go off to the client, design agencies mostly that no doubt view on screen, should I send them a note with my Canon files saying that if you downsize a Nikon file it looks only slightly better than my Canon. Should I say the extra detail in my competitors Nikon shadows hardly shows when you go to press if it's downsized?

I'm sitting looking at two images on my computer right now, I never shot them as a test, it just turned out to be a good comparison.

In February I did a job on my 1DsmkIII, an aerial job from a helicopter. I've shot, processed and invoiced the client no problem.

A few days ago I sent some rolls of film off for processing, one roll it turns out I took on the same flight and there is a similar shot to one I took on the Canon.

The difference is night and day. The film (Portra 160) just sings, the shadow detail is amazing (the Canon struggled with the harsh winter light) the film has saturated colours but keeps a gentle Winters glow.I have tried to match the Canon raw file to the film but you can't, it does not have the information in it. I think I'm going to have to go the Nikon route at great expense. You will need to have a love is blind attitude to not see Nikon has a significant advantage. My 1DsmkIII based on image quality does not even match my 50 year old Rolleiflex with a roll of Portra in and I doubt the Nikon does either but it's closer.

Knobbling the Nikon down to the 5D is just an insane idea, I can't believe anyone could argue that is the best way to compare two cameras abilities.

Kevin.

-- hide signature --

Peter

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chironNYC
Senior MemberPosts: 1,363
Like?
Re: Fred Miranda comparison confirms DXO results. 5D III blown away.
In reply to GaryJP, Apr 26, 2012

Yes, in the end Miranda used the Canon for virtually all his shots. He thought the Nikon sensor was great--if only he could have gotten the camera to focus.

And if Nikon made the lenses he needed.

He finally gave up on trying to use the d800 and used the 5d3. That's the real point of his comparison.

GaryJP wrote:

Montana500 wrote:

I've always wondered about the dynamic range of my Canon cameras at low ISO (especially 7D and 5D II). Well, now I know why. This isn't even close, folks. The Nikon sensor is quite simply in another league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

This is an enormous benefit for nature shooters.

Yes, but it has apparently caused Fred Miranda no great problems in shooting nature with his Canons.

Even, ironically, in almost all the great photos (not test photos) that accompany the article.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

Peter

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bradleyg5
Regular MemberPosts: 397
Like?
Re: Question is what type of image do you want?
In reply to Ah Pek, Apr 26, 2012

You are right, high dynamic range images look totally unrealistic. I mean here I am sitting in my shaded house looking out the window. What a ridiculously unrealistic image my eyesballs are rendering, looks like complete rubbish, I can see shadows, contrast and detail inside my room while simultaneously viewing shadows and contrast outside. I really hope human eyes can evolve to render such scenes more realistically like velvia film, where either the interior is crushed black or the exterior is clipped white.

Ah Pek wrote:

If you like CGI type HDR then by all means pull 4 stops. I personally hate overcooked HDR.

Also, the fredmiranda shots are before further recovery and processing. Of course, the Canon cannot pull 4 stops like the Nikon but the difference would narrow with further processing.

Coming from Velvia film, my preference is for contrasty images with a pop. My eyes are not accustomed to HDR. They simply look fake to me unless very conservatively done.

I foresee a lot of D800 images are going to look like HDR because users will pull shadows not because it improves the image but because they think they can.

In 99% of the time, my 5D2 has sufficient latitude. The other 1%, I'm quite happy to merge exposures.

-- hide signature --

'The majesticness of that duck is overwhelming!' - Bulbol

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dareshooter
Senior MemberPosts: 1,022
Like?
Re: Question is what type of image do you want?
In reply to bradleyg5, Apr 26, 2012

If my eyes saw the world the same way as the cartoon like exaggerated edge effect type HDR images I'd go visit an optometrist

bradleyg5 wrote:

You are right, high dynamic range images look totally unrealistic. I mean here I am sitting in my shaded house looking out the window. What a ridiculously unrealistic image my eyesballs are rendering, looks like complete rubbish, I can see shadows, contrast and detail inside my room while simultaneously viewing shadows and contrast outside. I really hope human eyes can evolve to render such scenes more realistically like velvia film, where either the interior is crushed black or the exterior is clipped white.

Ah Pek wrote:

If you like CGI type HDR then by all means pull 4 stops. I personally hate overcooked HDR.

Also, the fredmiranda shots are before further recovery and processing. Of course, the Canon cannot pull 4 stops like the Nikon but the difference would narrow with further processing.

Coming from Velvia film, my preference is for contrasty images with a pop. My eyes are not accustomed to HDR. They simply look fake to me unless very conservatively done.

I foresee a lot of D800 images are going to look like HDR because users will pull shadows not because it improves the image but because they think they can.

In 99% of the time, my 5D2 has sufficient latitude. The other 1%, I'm quite happy to merge exposures.

-- hide signature --

'The majesticness of that duck is overwhelming!' - Bulbol

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Silat Shooter
Contributing MemberPosts: 744
Like?
Re: Question is what type of image do you want?
In reply to bradleyg5, Apr 26, 2012

As an owner of a bag full of expensive Canon lenses and a 1D Mark IV and 5D III, my heart sank when I read the article and saw the images comparing the shadow recovery of each. I'm sure if the results would have favored the Mark III, this forum would have been filled with posts of "36 megs is overkill, and Canon is king of what really matters".

But after recovering from my initial anger that Canon hadn't done enough with the sensor on the new 5D Mark III, I must say that to my eye the 5D Mark III IQ is noticeably better than the Mark II. I also realized that most of my images are shot at ISO 800 to 3200, and that the AF of the new body is truly superb. Also that there are a number of smaller user interface improvements I'm happy to have and especially like the Silent/Quiet mode on the Mark III. I also realized that most of my prints are rarely larger than 24" with a few occasional prints of 30" and rarely beyond that. So it helped me to relax and realize that the Mark III is a really nice update on the 5D Mark II.

Do I still think it's more than it should be...yes. Do I wish it had more dynamic range...yes (but probably for my own ego more so than how I'd use it). Do I wish it had more of a megapixel bump, not necessarily 36 megs...yes (again more for ego and cropping ability) . Having handled both the D800 and 5D Mark III, I can honestly say that I prefer the handling, silent mode and AF of the Canon. So will use it till the next big thing comes along and we start this all over again...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 8,307Gear list
Like?
Re: Fred Miranda comparison confirms DXO results. 5D III blown away.
In reply to Montana500, Apr 26, 2012

It's funny that many over-exaggerate the advantages of extra two-stop shadow noise from Sony sensors as it's the main factor to decide IQ. In real world, I have yet to find much need to shoot such highly contrasty scenes under such poor light and need to pull extreme 4-stop or more as shown in his samples on page 2. Absolutely Nikon/Sony cameras won in such games of extreme shadow pulling but not really in real world photos. At end, it's 5D3 Fred used most times as he said to shoot real world photos. I have seen some real world photos from D800/D800E (and the one in Fred's article) and I have not seen any special from them. The same cases when you compare 60D to D7000 real world photos for example and I have yet to see D7000 generates obvious better photos in general. IQ is determined by many factors not just shadow noise at base ISO alone. Mid-tone still largely decides IQ and lens is equally important or even more than sensor. Canon has better lens' choices than Nikon on my needs, TS-E, 15mm f/2.8 fisheye, 500L, 100-400L and 70-200L/4.0 IS that I own all better than Nikon counterparts (or Nikon lacks of). They are far more important than extra 2-stop shadow noise advantage to me.

Montana500 wrote:

I've always wondered about the dynamic range of my Canon cameras at low ISO (especially 7D and 5D II). Well, now I know why. This isn't even close, folks. The Nikon sensor is quite simply in another league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

This is an enormous benefit for nature shooters.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dmanthree
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,277Gear list
Like?
Re: nope
In reply to stephenmelvin, Apr 26, 2012

stephenmelvin wrote:

gipper51 wrote:

kelpdiver wrote:

not convinced about the decision to interpolate (and not describe how) the canon image to 36mp. That seems even less appropriate than downscaling the D800 down. Leaves you wondering how much of the difference is real versus the upscale.

Why would throwing information away from the bigger file to match the lower res camera be the better way?? By this method an 80mp medium format camera will only be 'marginally' more detailed than a 8mp 20D if you scaled it down.

You always scale the lower res camera up.

Nope, you scale the higher res camera down. It will still possess an advantage, since it starts with a lot more information.

That's how DXO does it for part of their test.

That's ridiculous. If you're comparing two sensors, why manipulate one or the other at all? Scaling down cripples the higher-res sensor, does it not? Why not just perform an absolute measurement and compare numbers (resolution, etc)?

If that's how DxO compares things, their results don't mean a lot.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX30V Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mikael Risedal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,927
Like?
Re: Fred Miranda comparison confirms DXO results. 5D III blown away.
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 26, 2012

AS so long you have Canon deny in absurdity

https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/DR5dmk2VsD7000

video: part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_737987&hd=1&feature=iv&src_vid=Dp2OeIcB1ak&v=Dwp7jfcsRSo

qianp2k wrote:

It's funny that many over-exaggerate the advantages of extra two-stop shadow noise from Sony sensors as it's the main factor to decide IQ. In real world, I have yet to find much need to shoot such highly contrasty scenes under such poor light and need to pull extreme 4-stop or more as shown in his samples on page 2. Absolutely Nikon/Sony cameras won in such games of extreme shadow pulling but not really in real world photos. At end, it's 5D3 Fred used most times as he said to shoot real world photos. I have seen some real world photos from D800/D800E (and the one in Fred's article) and I have not seen any special from them. The same cases when you compare 60D to D7000 real world photos for example and I have yet to see D7000 generates obvious better photos in general. IQ is determined by many factors not just shadow noise at base ISO alone. Mid-tone still largely decides IQ and lens is equally important or even more than sensor. Canon has better lens' choices than Nikon on my needs, TS-E, 15mm f/2.8 fisheye, 500L, 100-400L and 70-200L/4.0 IS that I own all better than Nikon counterparts (or Nikon lacks of). They are far more important than extra 2-stop shadow noise advantage to me.

Montana500 wrote:

I've always wondered about the dynamic range of my Canon cameras at low ISO (especially 7D and 5D II). Well, now I know why. This isn't even close, folks. The Nikon sensor is quite simply in another league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

This is an enormous benefit for nature shooters.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mforbes
Regular MemberPosts: 378Gear list
Like?
Re: Fredmiranda Proves What?
In reply to WalterSrChat, Apr 26, 2012

Fascinating comments from some guy that referenced in his opinion a flawed lens review by DXO in order to discredit the DXO score on the Nikon D800 sensor. First he slings this conspiracy that Miranda may have used an adapter on the 5D3 to cripple it, nice try but maybe he did in your World but not in the real one. Then he makes one of the greatest statements ever on this site, if the Nikon D800 and Canon 5D3 had the same number of pixels and used the exact same lens, only then could you do a test with any merit. Brilliant. Hey, he will be here all week, be sure to tip your bartender and waitress! What a joke.

 mforbes's gear list:mforbes's gear list
Canon PowerShot A720 IS Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Nikon D3 Nikon D700 +35 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KAllen
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,729Gear list
Like?
Re: But that's not how it works
In reply to chironNYC, Apr 26, 2012

chironNYC wrote:

I think it's pretty simple. Going down maintains an advantage by reducing noise for the higher res camera. Going up increases the noise on the lower res camera. Question is if the two methods are 1) proportionately equal in distributing a res advantage with regard to noise, and 2) which method matches real world operations.

I think the real world criterion calls for down sizing. I don't know about whiether the two metods are proportionate in how they treat the differences. Mirand would have to give us a down-res comparison to answer the question in regard to his particular exposures.

KAllen wrote:

stephenmelvin wrote:

gipper51 wrote:

stephenmelvin wrote:

gipper51 wrote:

kelpdiver wrote:

not convinced about the decision to interpolate (and not describe how) the canon image to 36mp. That seems even less appropriate than downscaling the D800 down. Leaves you wondering how much of the difference is real versus the upscale.

Why would throwing information away from the bigger file to match the lower res camera be the better way?? By this method an 80mp medium format camera will only be 'marginally' more detailed than a 8mp 20D if you scaled it down.

You always scale the lower res camera up.

Nope, you scale the higher res camera down. It will still possess an advantage, since it starts with a lot more information.

That's how DXO does it for part of their test.

That may be their method, but that's just stupid IMHO for the real world...for the very reason I listed above.

But that's not how it works in the real world, when you print the image out. You do print, don't you?

So, for example, you want to print an 8x12 on a printer that's 300 ppi. That's about 8 megapixels. Guess what? The RIP throws the extra resolution away.

This is why the D800's resolution advantage doesn't show up until the prints get really big.

It's like telling your rich friend: "Hey buddy, but this limiter chip in your Ferrari so it only goes 65mph and my Buick will get us to New York just as fast!".

It's nothing like that.

-- hide signature --

.Why stop at downsizing to level the field, why not clip the DR of the 800 to match the 5D It might make some kind of bizarre scientific sense to cripple the Nikon advantage but not a practical one.

You pay your money and make your choice for the best you can get. You don't buy the Nikon thinking I'll throw away any advantage it has to match a lesser capable camera.

As for seeing the advantage in print, I never print, well hardly. My images go off to the client, design agencies mostly that no doubt view on screen, should I send them a note with my Canon files saying that if you downsize a Nikon file it looks only slightly better than my Canon. Should I say the extra detail in my competitors Nikon shadows hardly shows when you go to press if it's downsized?

I'm sitting looking at two images on my computer right now, I never shot them as a test, it just turned out to be a good comparison.

In February I did a job on my 1DsmkIII, an aerial job from a helicopter. I've shot, processed and invoiced the client no problem.

A few days ago I sent some rolls of film off for processing, one roll it turns out I took on the same flight and there is a similar shot to one I took on the Canon.

The difference is night and day. The film (Portra 160) just sings, the shadow detail is amazing (the Canon struggled with the harsh winter light) the film has saturated colours but keeps a gentle Winters glow.I have tried to match the Canon raw file to the film but you can't, it does not have the information in it. I think I'm going to have to go the Nikon route at great expense. You will need to have a love is blind attitude to not see Nikon has a significant advantage. My 1DsmkIII based on image quality does not even match my 50 year old Rolleiflex with a roll of Portra in and I doubt the Nikon does either but it's closer.

Knobbling the Nikon down to the 5D is just an insane idea, I can't believe anyone could argue that is the best way to compare two cameras abilities.

Kevin.

-- hide signature --

Peter

Which real World situation would that be then, A Cat on a Window ledge for Flikr or a display print for a trade stand.

I can only assume if you are in the market for the 800, it's because you want what it can do in comparison with other cameras. So testing it by not seeing what it can do is pointless. Testing any camera by down grading it is not much of a test is it?

Here's an idea why not have some point and shoot as the bench mark, then every time a new camera gets tested we downscales it's performance to match the P&S, that way we can really see which camera performs the best. Just to make it really fair there could be a pinhole made so lens variation does come into it.

Do you seriously want to know what a camera does when it's hands are tied behind it's back.

Kevin.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 8,307Gear list
Like?
Re: Fred Miranda comparison confirms DXO results. 5D III blown away.
In reply to Mikael Risedal, Apr 26, 2012

I have seen all these crappy samples. Do I ever deny Sony sensor advantage in shadow noises? I said Nikon/Sony cameras own in such games of extreme shadow pulling. But they are not real world photos people would shoot about. Check those samples. They are all crappy and surreal after 4-stop extreme pulling that most people would throw away. Read what I said again that I don't see Nikon/Sony cameras have obvious advantages in real world photos, let me repeat again, real world photos. I have seen some D800 photos in Nikon forum and the real world in Fred's sample (the only one in page 3), and I simply don't see they are any special. Why at end it's 5D3 Fred used most times and he has reasons for that?

These are real world photos I shoot (just a few in my recent Italy trip) in highly contrasty lighting conditions. And I only need to pull shadow moderately or even lifting shadow bar to 100% in LR4. The shadow areas are pretty dark in original raw files under harsh bright noon sunlight. I just don't see why I need to pull a complete dark window/door 4-stop or more in real world photos for example.

Mikael Risedal wrote:
AS so long you have Canon deny in absurdity

https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/DR5dmk2VsD7000

video: part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_737987&hd=1&feature=iv&src_vid=Dp2OeIcB1ak&v=Dwp7jfcsRSo

qianp2k wrote:

It's funny that many over-exaggerate the advantages of extra two-stop shadow noise from Sony sensors as it's the main factor to decide IQ. In real world, I have yet to find much need to shoot such highly contrasty scenes under such poor light and need to pull extreme 4-stop or more as shown in his samples on page 2. Absolutely Nikon/Sony cameras won in such games of extreme shadow pulling but not really in real world photos. At end, it's 5D3 Fred used most times as he said to shoot real world photos. I have seen some real world photos from D800/D800E (and the one in Fred's article) and I have not seen any special from them. The same cases when you compare 60D to D7000 real world photos for example and I have yet to see D7000 generates obvious better photos in general. IQ is determined by many factors not just shadow noise at base ISO alone. Mid-tone still largely decides IQ and lens is equally important or even more than sensor. Canon has better lens' choices than Nikon on my needs, TS-E, 15mm f/2.8 fisheye, 500L, 100-400L and 70-200L/4.0 IS that I own all better than Nikon counterparts (or Nikon lacks of). They are far more important than extra 2-stop shadow noise advantage to me.

Montana500 wrote:

I've always wondered about the dynamic range of my Canon cameras at low ISO (especially 7D and 5D II). Well, now I know why. This isn't even close, folks. The Nikon sensor is quite simply in another league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

This is an enormous benefit for nature shooters.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ken Phillips
Forum ProPosts: 16,325
Like?
I won't cry about it ...
In reply to Montana500, Apr 26, 2012

... instead, I'll buy the 800E and two or three premium Nikkors for landscape/still life/studio. So simple ...
KP

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SubPrime
Senior MemberPosts: 1,231
Like?
Re: Fred Miranda comparison confirms DXO results. 5D III blown away.
In reply to chironNYC, Apr 26, 2012

chironNYC wrote:

Yes, in the end Miranda used the Canon for virtually all his shots. He thought the Nikon sensor was great--if only he could have gotten the camera to focus.

Unless he took up photography 5 years ago when Live View was introduced, then one has to ask how he mamaged witout it previously.

And if Nikon made the lenses he needed.

It does, he just prefers the Canon lenses.

He finally gave up on trying to use the d800 and used the 5d3. That's the real point of his comparison.

No it just goes to show he doesn't know the D800 and was more intent on showing off his own images that doing a comparison.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads