D610 vs. 5D Mark III

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,479Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to ron purdy, 8 months ago

ron purdy wrote:

That's why I asked you try and you didn't even try to process. I am sure in this case D610 by default is better but also will show noises in shadow but just less noise. You need to process.

I will post a 100% cropped photo from that raw to give you an idea.

I appreciate you posting the file. However, this is not a Photoshop contest. My OP is about what these chips are capable of producing on their own.

From the look of it, in terms of ISO 100 noise that is not better than the file I originally posted. (you exposed for the highlights like I did, and the shadows, when lifted, are a wreck.)

I will post a comparable file from the D610 soon.

I have seen D600 and D800 files at base ISO that also show noises in shadow although much less after pushing up before processing. Once processed (and especially if I exposed correctly as this one is a bit underexposed), the difference becomes much smaller.

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just another Canon shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 1,967Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to ron purdy, 8 months ago

ron purdy wrote:

I appreciate you posting the file. However, this is not a Photoshop contest. My OP is about what these chips are capable of producing on their own.

From the look of it, in terms of ISO 100 noise that is not better than the file I originally posted. (you exposed for the highlights like I did, and the shadows, when lifted, are a wreck.)

I will post a comparable file from the D610 soon.

So your OP was not about better sharpness, less noise, etc., it was about all that in the deep shadows only. You think that thousands threads about DR are not enough?

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Samsung Galaxy S III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,294Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, 8 months ago

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

ron purdy wrote:

I appreciate you posting the file. However, this is not a Photoshop contest. My OP is about what these chips are capable of producing on their own.

From the look of it, in terms of ISO 100 noise that is not better than the file I originally posted. (you exposed for the highlights like I did, and the shadows, when lifted, are a wreck.)

I will post a comparable file from the D610 soon.

So your OP was not about better sharpness, less noise, etc., it was about all that in the deep shadows only. You think that thousands threads about DR are not enough?

You do understand that it involves the entire tonal range....primarily midtones...,not shadows.

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ron purdy
Senior MemberPosts: 2,493Gear list
Like?
D610 with no NR applied
In reply to Dave Luttmann, 8 months ago

Here is a somewhat similar shadowy part of an image from the D610 - ZERO NR applied, so you will notice that is is a lot sharper than the retouched sample just posted.

Out of the shadows comes real, useful detail, not just soft noisy stuff. I increased exposure a lot so you can see the areas which were effectively black in the original are now showing sharp detail and essentially no noise. Unlike the Canon, which needs NR, and thus lacks detail in the lightened areas.

D610 processed in ACR with NO N.R.

If you can't see the difference between this (unprocessed) in terms of sharpness and detail and the one you posted which has NR applied, then I can't help you.

You are trying to prove that 3 extra stops of D.R. do not make a difference, and you will have a hard time proving that

Goodnight all, I am off to watch Boardwalk Empire.

-ron

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just another Canon shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 1,967Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to Dave Luttmann, 8 months ago

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

So your OP was not about better sharpness, less noise, etc., it was about all that in the deep shadows only. You think that thousands threads about DR are not enough?

You do understand that it involves the entire tonal range....primarily midtones...,not shadows.

I understand that away from the deep shadows it is negligible, and I understand that the thread degenerated into an extreme shadow pulling to prove the difference. We all know that Canon's sensor has a higher read noise, we know that in some situations it is important not to have it, this is old news. There is no evidence presented in this thread that the D610 had better midtones, or more resolution there. I am not even saying that this is not true. This is a repetition of thousands of other DR threads, but it was presented at the beginning as something different.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Samsung Galaxy S III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Lee Taylor
Senior MemberPosts: 1,473
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to ron purdy, 8 months ago

ron purdy wrote:

I appreciate you posting the file. However, this is not a Photoshop contest. My OP is about what these chips are capable of producing on their own.

They're not capable of producing anything on their own. Without software you have an expensive piece of flattened beach sand.

Now, if you want to turn off certain software features in an attempt to measure specific differences at the level of flattened beach sand, that's fine as long as you make it clear. But it's not the way anyone actually works and produces prints. Even at ISO 100 the default RAW profiles call for some NR.

Sony has a patent on ADCs that gives them lower shadow noise and therefore more recoverable DR. (Out of your 5D3 vs. D610 IQ claims, this is the only one that holds up to scrutiny.) No denying that. Kudos to Sony and Nikon, and I wish Canon would find a way to work around the patent.

But...it's not nearly as dramatic as you make it out to be when you push shadows and not only fail to tailor NR to the situation, but turn it off completely. This is not practical or honest.

Is the right side better then what a D610 would put out? I don't know, probably not. But it's a whole heck of a lot better then what you posted and is actually usable.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Timbukto
Senior MemberPosts: 3,080Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, 8 months ago

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

So your OP was not about better sharpness, less noise, etc., it was about all that in the deep shadows only. You think that thousands threads about DR are not enough?

You do understand that it involves the entire tonal range....primarily midtones...,not shadows.

I understand that away from the deep shadows it is negligible, and I understand that the thread degenerated into an extreme shadow pulling to prove the difference. We all know that Canon's sensor has a higher read noise, we know that in some situations it is important not to have it, this is old news. There is no evidence presented in this thread that the D610 had better midtones, or more resolution there. I am not even saying that this is not true. This is a repetition of thousands of other DR threads, but it was presented at the beginning as something different.

Lets just agree that all systems pushed to their limits in different ways will be exposed for different weaknesses. When you are a Canon shooter defensive about noisy shadows and DR and low DxOMark rating, just say its 'not about the numbers'. And if you are a Nikon shooter defensive about the price performance of some of the latest gear...also just reply its 'not about the numbers'.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/11/nikon-58mm-f1-4-is-hopefully-not-about-the-numbers

Because I've seen in plain sight that yes Canon's expensive 5DMKIII does have noisy shadows and banding when pushed to its limit and Canon owners will somehow be defensive about that. And the newest Nikon 58mm 1.4 pushed to its limits (i.e. shot wide open), looks like a cheap lens to me instead of a $1600 one (and I thought this looking at full-size examples not Roger's test results), and Nikon users will be defensive about that. So lets just say its not about the numbers and leave it at that?

As much as Canon continues to make old-fashioned sensors...Nikon hasn't impressed me so much in certain lens offerings (their 85mm 1.8G remains the one lens I can covet and their 50mm 1.8G is probably better than Canon's 1.8, but besides that...).

I'm excited about the rumors of new lenses out of Canon...all of their recent lens debuts have been certainly impressive if you do care about numbers (and if expensive have been on sale now and then). Nikon's D610 is a good camera if your hand melds with the grip I'd say, but the D600 non-admittance of issues, Nikon DF, and 58 1.4 releases put me in wait and see mode for Nikon.

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ron purdy
Senior MemberPosts: 2,493Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, 8 months ago

I understand that away from the deep shadows it is negligible, and I understand that the thread degenerated into an extreme shadow pulling to prove the difference.

Once shadows are pulled, as I needed to do in the original photo of the kid with curly hair, then they become midtones. The hair in that image is midtones, and it's a mess now because of noise there is no detail or sharpness there at all. Agreed?

Darker parts of the image should be able to become lighter without drama or huge noise/banding issues. So, this is about the midtones as well as shadows.

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SushiEater
Senior MemberPosts: 1,587Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to ron purdy, 8 months ago

I totally agree with you!!!!! Now if only Nikon made D620 with CF card in it I'll be first in line.

 SushiEater's gear list:SushiEater's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Sigma 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Lee Taylor
Senior MemberPosts: 1,473
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to ron purdy, 8 months ago

ron purdy wrote:

The only editing that's been done here was to move the shadow slider and to increase the exposure overall by .3 stops - and as you can see, things got ugly fast.

How much did you move the shadow slider? What were the NR settings? What were the other settings? Are you willing to post the RAW file?

I've never seen chroma noise and banding this bad even with Canon crop cameras. And I'll be honest in saying I suspect this conversion was for drama and not for real use, that you purposely tailored the settings to magnify and emphasize the noise.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just another Canon shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 1,967Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to Timbukto, 8 months ago

Timbukto wrote:

Lets just agree that all systems pushed to their limits in different ways will be exposed for different weaknesses. When you are a Canon shooter defensive about noisy shadows and DR and low DxOMark rating, just say its 'not about the numbers'.

You got that wrong. Just check my posting history and what I posted today about the shadow noise of the 6D and LENR.

My point is that several thousand threads are enough. The OP tried to mislead us with his first post. Then it turned out that he meant DR. This is like starting a thread about the fact that Canon starts with C and Nikon starts with N but dressing it up as a sharpness and color fidelity thread.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Samsung Galaxy S III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Timbukto
Senior MemberPosts: 3,080Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, 8 months ago

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

Lets just agree that all systems pushed to their limits in different ways will be exposed for different weaknesses. When you are a Canon shooter defensive about noisy shadows and DR and low DxOMark rating, just say its 'not about the numbers'.

You got that wrong. Just check my posting history and what I posted today about the shadow noise of the 6D and LENR.

My point is that several thousand threads are enough. The OP tried to mislead us with his first post. Then it turned out that he meant DR. This is like starting a thread about the fact that Canon starts with C and Nikon starts with N but dressing it up as a sharpness and color fidelity thread.

He is only misleading if you are the type to be mislead. Because to me he was obviously being enthusiastic and had some new toy honeymooning going on. Yes his original claims also included sharpness and color fidelity, both of which I have no real dogma or concern. According to LensRental the 58mm 1.4 is slightly sharper than the Nikon 50mm 1.4G...yet if you dig into his previous findings the Canon 50mm 1.4 was also sharper than the Nikon 50mm 1.4G. It's a coma monster of a lens, but when I see angel wings on the 58mm 1.4 wide open, it doesn't look like they've cured coma for $1600.

I believe certain lenses will be sharper or provide more bang for the buck than another and you probably can't boil it down to a system being altogether 'sharper'. If anything I think Canon wins on overall lens sharpness for the price and file size/MP, etc. If you consider LoCA or CA to be false colors, than again Canon lenses tend to have less CA as well.

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David Hull
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,330Gear list
Like?
Re: RAW Files Please Re: Myth, Myth and Myth
In reply to Daniel Lee Taylor, 8 months ago

Daniel Lee Taylor wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

my latest example are from 6D and d800

Please upload the RAW files somewhere where we can all have a look.

I ask not because I think the 6D has the same DR as the D800, but because I suspect you're exaggerating the differences and proper processing will pull them closer.

I'll say again that I think Sony sensors have less shadow noise and more recoverable DR. But I despise when people tweak tests to exaggerate, and it looks like that's what's happening here.

He has been caught on that one already.

The other question worth asking what is the context of the crop -- what does the full size shot look like and does the pixel peeped enlargement really mean anything within the context of the shot.

-- hide signature --
 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billythek
Senior MemberPosts: 3,497
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to qianp2k, 8 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 4,978
Like?
Re: Myth, Myth and Myth
In reply to Mikael Risedal, 8 months ago

Mikael Risedal wrote:

my latest example are from 6D and d800...

Where are the RAW files?

I'm afraid, given your track record with the 'comparisons', and without the RAW files for us to assess, your "latest example" is basically useless. (just like your previous ones).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Lee Taylor
Senior MemberPosts: 1,473
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to billythek, 8 months ago

Nice! So we now have 3 variations with less noise then the posted sample (and your choices in particular just made for a nicer photo).

I think that's all she wrote...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fcimbar
Regular MemberPosts: 309Gear list
Like?
Re: your claim does not pass a simple test
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, 8 months ago

You can almost buy 2 cameras with the same money to get the same results id you are smart enough !

 fcimbar's gear list:fcimbar's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S1 Nikon Coolpix S10 Nikon D90 Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 28,110
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to billythek, 8 months ago

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. As has been noted, DPP hides a lot of the issues by selective and involuntary application of NR, as do most of the commercial raw converters (they wouldn't thrive if they produced apparently worse results than Canon). My own workflow uses RPP, an independent raw processor which applies no NR. For my studio work, I end up doing a lot of PP, simply to produce the output that is needed. Routinely with that, using the 5D the blacks get patterned and noisy at 100 ISO. With the D800 they don't. Now, I can spend some time applying NR to the 5D images and get some nice results - but not having to speeds my workflow and I do get more detail in the dark bits of the image. That's just me and my workflow, there is absolutely no reason why others should adopt my workflow, but also no reason that I should have to adapt mine to the inadequacies of the camera, when there are cameras that don't need it. I think this blind spot for Canon has likely led to almost the complete loss of the studio FF market that they used to own with the 1DsII and III, first to the D3X, and now to the D800 and coming soon the A7r (which looks like a very good studio tool and will shoot with Canon lenses).

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mikael Risedal
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,021
Like?
Re: If this were true Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, 8 months ago

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

dont understand what you are trying to tell me, one of the reason Nikon does better is a a steeper, thicker color filter than Canon have and red does not go towards orange as one example

The human color vision "suffers" from the same "problem":

Source: Wikipedia

For accurate color reproduction, you want the three spectra to span the human vision 3D space (see this). For smooth tonality, you want something more, which roughly speaking depends on the largest eigenvalues of the color matrix. It is not that simple though because we are more sensitive to errors in some colors (like skin tones) than others. Only a psychophysical approach can answer this (they mention this in a different context).

Nothing wrong with the DXO measurements, they just do not mean what you think they do.

what do I think they do? I know people who has measuring the CFA and the response in day light and Canon have change their filter during the years several times  , make them thinner to gain light and the color accuracy is not high  in Canons CFA  as in  Nikon CFA

Study the subject please before you are telling me what Im thinking

-- hide signature --

Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mikael Risedal
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,021
Like?
Re: If this were true Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to Daniel Lee Taylor, 8 months ago

Daniel Lee Taylor wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

well , easiest for you are to compare by your self from IR, take a Canon camera and a Nikon camera and look at iso, f-stop and time

I said they precisely control light/exposure in the DAVEBOX TEST. That is not the Davebox test. Look at the correct test and you'll find that the 5D3 is cleaner.

Granted this is in JPEG. The differences in RAW are negligible. You will never see it in real life.

That DXO is a joke shows your own ignorance.

That DxO is a joke shows their ignorance. I know better then to believe a test result that says a 14-bit ADC is doing something physically impossible.

show me and than we discuss, regarding 14 bit ADC it is explained carefully by The_Suede and many more, read out etc ,  search before you come with silly statements like you are doing

-- hide signature --

Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads