D610 vs. 5D Mark III

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
David Hull
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,450Gear list
Like?
Re: Myth, Myth and Myth
In reply to Mikael Risedal, 11 months ago

Mikael Risedal wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

schmegg wrote:

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).

and now its time for mudslinging , what a juvenile attempt

waiting for it

see if I can find the raw files , there are somewhere in my back up system and from spring

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

Please post your RAW files. At least we can show you after proper processing there will be no banding as shown your photos. Your incompetent processing skill should not be an excuse.

well then this people have the same problem as I have

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

Actually, Fred Miranda has no issue whatsoever.  The first and last part of that article are chock full of stunning shots made in Yosemite National Park (clearly one of the more challenging areas of the world for photography).  He was apparently unable to produce a bad image there (at least he didn't post one).  The question is if the camera is so bad, why did it do so well in parts one and three and why was it necessary to concoct a special example for part II?.

This is actually a pretty good review.  Unlike you, Mikael, he has put up a pretty unbiased presentation showing both the capabilities and limitations of the gear, demonstrating that when used correctly, the equipment is capable of producing excellent images.  No, Fred Miranda does not have the same problem YOU have, not even close.

http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digifotopro.nl%2Fcontent%2Fcanon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik

regarding my skills, I do not think you have anything to learn me regarding raw files PS, noise handling etc, I have tested scanners, cameras before some of you was born

sorry , trow your BS some where else

-- 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

-- 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
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,311Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to Dave Luttmann, 11 months ago

Dave Luttmann wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

ron purdy wrote:

Trust me Bill, I am not asking you to help me with post processing, bu thanks for the offer

I am simply acknowledging and confirming that (like everyone has said) the Nikon has the better chip and yields better files, hands down. *Especially in difficult lighting situations such as that sample I posted.*

Nobody disputes Sony sensor is much better when you need to push up a severely-underexposed photo where Nikon wins hands down over Canon.

you mean correctly exposed photos that maintain highlights and the entire tonal range. Nothing to do with severely underexposed images.

Here's a summary I posted for you that explains. It is support by the Zone System and exposing to the right. The Zone System was developed by Ansel Adams.....you may have heard of him. i'm not certain why you keep repeating false information.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52489644

I have now personally confirmed for myself what DxO and the rest of the testers have already documented.

Only dispute the method that you exposed on highlight that will result a severe underexposed photo, and then pushing many stops back. I am a strong believer of exposing on mid-tone (middle) or even a bit of overexposed (so-called ETTR, exposed to right). Jeff Schewe is one of strong advocators for ETTR method and he has many fantastic landscape photos if you check.

You do realize that ETTR and Jeff Schewe disagree with your "expose for the midtones" theory. I'm not sure why you are referring to people that disagree with you thinking they support you...they don't. ETTR conflicts entirely with your theory. Having met Jeff at one of Alain Briot's fine art workshops, I know full well his views on metering.

Sorry but when I saw your that poor sample, my thinking is that either you don't know how to take photos (that seem not the case when you demo those nice photos) or you don't know how to process under such contrast scenes that maybe the case.

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

Except making lots of noises, you have nothing better and actually nothing to offer.

Interesting reply. You argued against ETTR and the Zone System and lost. There is nothing empty in my description. the Zone System and ETTR are backed by the better part of half a century of use by the most knowledgeable photographers who have ever lived. You aren't arguing with me....you are arguing with them.

I said just above (and quoted below) that I prefer exposed on midtone or even ETTR as judge by histogram (middle or toward right). From where you read I against ETTR? Stop claiming something I actually never said. Exposing on highlight will result a severe underexposed photo (as judge by histogram) that is not a good approach.

"I am a strong believer of exposing on midtone (middle) or even a bit of overexposed (so-called ETTR, exposed to right)."

I offer the Zone System and ETTR as my proof.

You didn't' invent Zone system or ETTR. Instead you should show your photos rather bubble words to support what you claimed but we have seen nothing from you with substance. Oh, please don't try pretend to be Jeff Schewe or Ansel Adams as you're not even remotely closed, lol.

 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 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,311Gear list
Like?
Re: Myth, Myth and Myth
In reply to David Hull, 11 months ago

David Hull wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

schmegg wrote:

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).

and now its time for mudslinging , what a juvenile attempt

waiting for it

see if I can find the raw files , there are somewhere in my back up system and from spring

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

Please post your RAW files. At least we can show you after proper processing there will be no banding as shown your photos. Your incompetent processing skill should not be an excuse.

well then this people have the same problem as I have

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

Actually, Fred Miranda has no issue whatsoever. The first and last part of that article are chock full of stunning shots made in Yosemite National Park (clearly one of the more challenging areas of the world for photography). He was apparently unable to produce a bad image there (at least he didn't post one). The question is if the camera is so bad, why did it do so well in parts one and three and why was it necessary to concoct a special example for part II?.

For that particular high contrast building shot, it's mainly a test shot to demo better DR in Sony sensor that we all know by now. Meanwhile Fred did say it can get better result by giving more exposure (upto +1 EV he said), or careful post processing (that he didn't do except OOC raw for just a demo purpose). So obviously Fred's demo purpose has nothing should be contributed into Mikael's relentless anti-Canon campaign. Fred has an excellent well-balanced review.

This is actually a pretty good review. Unlike you, Mikael, he has put up a pretty unbiased presentation showing both the capabilities and limitations of the gear, demonstrating that when used correctly, the equipment is capable of producing excellent images. No, Fred Miranda does not have the same problem YOU have, not even close.

I didn't read he had DR issue in his real-world photos with 5D3 but how he preferred (and Canon lenses) and used 5D3 in his trip. He actually had problem with D800 especially with its poorly implemented LV.  As a result he used 5D3 far more in his trip at end of day.

http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digifotopro.nl%2Fcontent%2Fcanon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik

regarding my skills, I do not think you have anything to learn me regarding raw files PS, noise handling etc, I have tested scanners, cameras before some of you was born

sorry , trow your BS some where else

-- 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

-- hide signature --
 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 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jennajenna
Senior MemberPosts: 1,170
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to ron purdy, 11 months ago

ron purdy wrote:

I’ve been using Canons for the past 20 years or so. A couple days ago I bought a Nikon D610 and the 50mm 1.8 G on a lark.

My first impression: the D610 is pretty damn good.

First, the image quality is at least as good (and often better) than my much higher priced 5D3.

Also the AF on the D610 has been great so far. Even though is is lesser-spec’d than the Canon’s, the AF assist light helps tremendously in low light. It focuses perfectly well in very dim light, much, MUCH better low light AF than my old 5D2.

The D610 feels somewhat cheap (more plastic and hollow) than my 5D3, but the IQ is great. Even jpegs are yielding amazing results. And with RAW, both highlights and shadows look spectacular. Even at 100% view, there is just more integrity there than there is on the Canon. And the Nikon files are sharper when both are optimized. Also the Canon files consistently NEED noise reduction (even at low ISOs) where the Nikon needs none.

Shooting both kits each with a 50mm, the Nikon files are by far superior in terms of metering, shadow noise, detail, great colors, etc. I usually shoot people, but have recently been shooting travel and landscapes as well. And for this purpose, the D610 looks awesome. Another thing that works well is manually focusing - it’s just easier to tell where the focus is on the D610. The viewfinder is darker, and there is more snap in and out of focus.

I will post a few RAW files when I have a minute, but needless to say, I am very impressed. I will likely be keeping this camera. And I will purchase a couple more lenses to go with it. Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of converters which will work with these D610 files, as the camera is new...

Overall, the D610 files are simply take a lot less work (due to superior noise, sharpness and metering) to get them where I need them to be. And the AF has been as reliable as my 5D3. Though I am not really using follow-focus, which would likely work better on the 5D3.

For now I am keeping my Canons too.

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

a better comparison is with the canon 6d imo.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RicksAstro
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,431Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to ron purdy, 11 months ago

ron purdy wrote:

I’ve been using Canons for the past 20 years or so. A couple days ago I bought a Nikon D610 and the 50mm 1.8 G on a lark.

My first impression: the D610 is pretty damn good.

First, the image quality is at least as good (and often better) than my much higher priced 5D3.

Also the AF on the D610 has been great so far. Even though is is lesser-spec’d than the Canon’s, the AF assist light helps tremendously in low light. It focuses perfectly well in very dim light, much, MUCH better low light AF than my old 5D2.

The D610 feels somewhat cheap (more plastic and hollow) than my 5D3, but the IQ is great. Even jpegs are yielding amazing results. And with RAW, both highlights and shadows look spectacular. Even at 100% view, there is just more integrity there than there is on the Canon. And the Nikon files are sharper when both are optimized. Also the Canon files consistently NEED noise reduction (even at low ISOs) where the Nikon needs none.

Shooting both kits each with a 50mm, the Nikon files are by far superior in terms of metering, shadow noise, detail, great colors, etc. I usually shoot people, but have recently been shooting travel and landscapes as well. And for this purpose, the D610 looks awesome. Another thing that works well is manually focusing - it’s just easier to tell where the focus is on the D610. The viewfinder is darker, and there is more snap in and out of focus.

I will post a few RAW files when I have a minute, but needless to say, I am very impressed. I will likely be keeping this camera. And I will purchase a couple more lenses to go with it. Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of converters which will work with these D610 files, as the camera is new...

Overall, the D610 files are simply take a lot less work (due to superior noise, sharpness and metering) to get them where I need them to be. And the AF has been as reliable as my 5D3. Though I am not really using follow-focus, which would likely work better on the 5D3.

For now I am keeping my Canons too.

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

I've owned a D800/E and D600 and had a Nikon system for a few years and now have a 5D Mark III. I agree that at low ISO, the Sony chips are fantastic. On a bright, contrasty day, the ability to pull shadows is unparalleled. I absolutely loved the D800E's resolution and sharpness. You can crop incredibly much and still have a lot to work with.

I thought Nikon's lenses were great. The new 85 1.8G is much nicer than Canon's in terms of bokeh and overall sharpness. The 70-200 2.8 VRII is right up there with Canon's newest. The speed of AF was great and even the slow D800E was great for sports if you didn't need the fps. Allows for more "reach" from the 70-200 with the high resolution and lack of AA filter.

So why do I now use the 5DIII? AF consistency! Setting aside the D800E's left point AF and the D600 spot issues (both of which I experienced, but they weren't huge issues for me in real life), it was the AF using primes in mixed lighting conditions that killed it for me. With the 85 1.8G, I could either adjust the AF to work in daylight conditions or dimmer, indoor conditions. The differences were large. I could not come up with a setting that was effective for both that would work wide open. It would work consistently great for whichever I calibrated for, but then the other condition would be off.

To see the color temp effect, I suggest using the red flash AF assist on a Nikon flash in a dimly lit room with a high contrast target. For me on all Nikons I tried, the focus locks but was really far off, not close to usable. The on-camera AF assist light works just OK, but I would always get the squinting deer in the headlights look from the people in the pictures...completely unacceptable.

Also, I had one copy of the D800 and D600 each that went back because the AF calibration was far off for all my lenses. The replacements were closer to zero. Calibration consistency seems to be an issue for Nikon. Maybe the mirror settles over time.

The 5DIII I bought only needs 1 or 2 microadjustment ticks and the AF is just more assured.    I trust it in whatever conditions I'm in, which I couldn't say about the Nikons.

My ideal camera would be a D800E with a 5DIII AF module

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Timbukto
Senior MemberPosts: 3,451Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to RicksAstro, 11 months ago

RicksAstro wrote:

ron purdy wrote:

I’ve been using Canons for the past 20 years or so. A couple days ago I bought a Nikon D610 and the 50mm 1.8 G on a lark.

My first impression: the D610 is pretty damn good.

First, the image quality is at least as good (and often better) than my much higher priced 5D3.

Also the AF on the D610 has been great so far. Even though is is lesser-spec’d than the Canon’s, the AF assist light helps tremendously in low light. It focuses perfectly well in very dim light, much, MUCH better low light AF than my old 5D2.

The D610 feels somewhat cheap (more plastic and hollow) than my 5D3, but the IQ is great. Even jpegs are yielding amazing results. And with RAW, both highlights and shadows look spectacular. Even at 100% view, there is just more integrity there than there is on the Canon. And the Nikon files are sharper when both are optimized. Also the Canon files consistently NEED noise reduction (even at low ISOs) where the Nikon needs none.

Shooting both kits each with a 50mm, the Nikon files are by far superior in terms of metering, shadow noise, detail, great colors, etc. I usually shoot people, but have recently been shooting travel and landscapes as well. And for this purpose, the D610 looks awesome. Another thing that works well is manually focusing - it’s just easier to tell where the focus is on the D610. The viewfinder is darker, and there is more snap in and out of focus.

I will post a few RAW files when I have a minute, but needless to say, I am very impressed. I will likely be keeping this camera. And I will purchase a couple more lenses to go with it. Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of converters which will work with these D610 files, as the camera is new...

Overall, the D610 files are simply take a lot less work (due to superior noise, sharpness and metering) to get them where I need them to be. And the AF has been as reliable as my 5D3. Though I am not really using follow-focus, which would likely work better on the 5D3.

For now I am keeping my Canons too.

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

I've owned a D800/E and D600 and had a Nikon system for a few years and now have a 5D Mark III. I agree that at low ISO, the Sony chips are fantastic. On a bright, contrasty day, the ability to pull shadows is unparalleled. I absolutely loved the D800E's resolution and sharpness. You can crop incredibly much and still have a lot to work with.

I thought Nikon's lenses were great. The new 85 1.8G is much nicer than Canon's in terms of bokeh and overall sharpness. The 70-200 2.8 VRII is right up there with Canon's newest. The speed of AF was great and even the slow D800E was great for sports if you didn't need the fps. Allows for more "reach" from the 70-200 with the high resolution and lack of AA filter.

So why do I now use the 5DIII? AF consistency! Setting aside the D800E's left point AF and the D600 spot issues (both of which I experienced, but they weren't huge issues for me in real life), it was the AF using primes in mixed lighting conditions that killed it for me. With the 85 1.8G, I could either adjust the AF to work in daylight conditions or dimmer, indoor conditions. The differences were large. I could not come up with a setting that was effective for both that would work wide open. It would work consistently great for whichever I calibrated for, but then the other condition would be off.

To see the color temp effect, I suggest using the red flash AF assist on a Nikon flash in a dimly lit room with a high contrast target. For me on all Nikons I tried, the focus locks but was really far off, not close to usable. The on-camera AF assist light works just OK, but I would always get the squinting deer in the headlights look from the people in the pictures...completely unacceptable.

Also, I had one copy of the D800 and D600 each that went back because the AF calibration was far off for all my lenses. The replacements were closer to zero. Calibration consistency seems to be an issue for Nikon. Maybe the mirror settles over time.

The 5DIII I bought only needs 1 or 2 microadjustment ticks and the AF is just more assured. I trust it in whatever conditions I'm in, which I couldn't say about the Nikons.

My ideal camera would be a D800E with a 5DIII AF module

-- hide signature --

Would you rate the D600 as having the same AF consistency issue as the D800, better, worse? I have no AF consistency issues with 6D (after MFA)...my Canon 85mm 1.8 is a two decade old optic so can't compete with one made 1-2 years ago in some regards, but the IQ is definitely good enough if not still impressive and its AF speed is screaming and accuracy never hair pulling.

 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
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,311Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to RicksAstro, 11 months ago

RicksAstro wrote:

My ideal camera would be a D800E with a 5DIII AF module

Or D800E's Sony sensor in 5DIII body with Canon processor As many prefer 5DIII's AF system (as you said), deeper buffer (also clearing up buffer noticeably faster), ergonomic, gripping, menu, color tonality and skin tone (that likely form processor) and Canon's lenses choice in general. Canon should buy Sony's sensors before they come out a rival one.

-- hide signature --
 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 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JackM
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,672Gear list
Like?
He asked for it.
In reply to snooked123, 11 months ago

snooked123 wrote:

Why is it that the moment anyone who shoots Canon talks about Nikon equipment, people start listing down all the things they love about Canon and hate about Nikon. Please just let the op make the call and do whatever he feels like doing. If in a year he realizes his mistake, he can come back to Canon otherwise big deal. Why do we act like we own Canon stock and if one person switches we will loose our life savings :).

If he didn't want this, he wouldn't come here to tell everyone he's switching.

 JackM's gear list:JackM's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm X100S Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,311Gear list
Like?
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
In reply to billythek, 11 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.

Exactly. No excuse. To achieve better quality photos, you need to shoot in raw format and process photos, Canon or Nikon alike.

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.

Some third party programs such as Photo Ninja handle RAW files even better under certain circumstance such as deal with banding issue even better.

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.

Nice try Bill. There are many different approaches.

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.

Exactly I will also largely respect shadows but only lift moderately especially if not unexposed photo. We need to judge a photo as a whole rather on a specific area. OP didn't show entire photo in his similar tree's leaves. He just gave +3 stops lifting as he claimed. Although shadows did get lifted (still can see noises/grains) but with the price of otherwise normally exposed parts under sunlight overblown. That's not a right process.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

 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 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,311Gear list
Like?
Re: And here is yet another perspective...
In reply to DFPanno, 11 months ago

DFPanno wrote:

I am an amateur that enjoys photography and post-processing but I do not have the time to become as proficient as the pros/hardcore hobbyists on these fora.

Sure, not everyone is a pro but that doesn't mean we should not spend time to process photos.  Actually many PJs (pros) don't have time to process RAW but shoot in JPEG in opposite.  Most so-called Pros are just making living in taking photos that not necessarily mean they always take best photos or know the processing best.

I can tell you that in my opinion (and perhaps I am missing something) Sony sensor files are easier to work with. They are more forgiving and give you greater latitude in making a nice photo.

True such as if photo is severely underexposed when you need to lift deep dark shadows. If a photo is right exposed on midtone or even a bit overexposed as judged by histogram, there are not much difference.

If I were an expert then maybe I could make my Canon files dance the way the Sonys do but I am not and therefore I cannot.

You should try as we did. You can see with such PP, Canon files even under very contrast scenes can be pretty close to Sony/Nikon photos.

In any case even if I had the skill I would probably prefer to be doing something else.

If photography is your serious hobby, you really need to try a bit harder especially if you have already invested lots.

I would never buy another camera with a 5D3 equivalent file. I will buy a better Canon sensor or buy something else.

Depends on what you shoot. If you do mainly landscape I'd agree 36mp offers from Sony/Nikon does have advantages in resolution and DR (especially when photos are severely underexposed). But not everyone needs to print very large, 22mp is enough to most people. If you exposed correctly with proper processing you still can get excellent photos from Canon cameras. 5DIII is more versatile and suitable in taking action photos. No mention my favorite Canon lenses cannot run on Nikon cameras and we will wait and see how they perform on Sony A7R/A7 thru adapter.  I take photos from studio, portrait, to airshow and wildlife.  By this sense 5DIII is a far better choice over D600/D610 on my needs no mention I have already collected some best lenses in DSLR industry, 17mm TS-E, 24-70L II, 700-200L II and 500L.  Extreme shadow pushing and resolution are not on my #1 or #2 priority (colors and lens choices are) and I don't want to fully open shadow.

Just my $.02

-- hide signature --
 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 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads