Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600?? Locked

Started Jun 2, 2013 | Questions thread
This thread is locked.
Timbukto Veteran Member • Posts: 4,988
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??

qianp2k wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

This is what people do not understand about DR...there is DR on the image capture side...and there is also DR on the print/publish side.  And to have the image of higher DR you actually do *not* lift shadows.  People with an eye for picture quality tend to like plasma screens for blacker blacks.  Dynamic range is defined as the max signal - min signal.  So the image with blacker blacks actually has higher dynamic range in *display* and at that point the fact that one sensor may have captured worse black tones is *moot*.

We all hope Canon future sensors/cameras will improve DR. But I agreed there is vast exaggeration of Nikon/Sony DR advantage by someone. If you expose photos normally on mid-tone as the way should be in most scenarios, there is really on much difference between Canon and Nikon/Sony cameras. So far all those boasting of Nikon 14-stop DR are all those games of extreme shadow pulling by severely underexposing photos on highlights then pull deep dark shadows 4-6 stops. I am sure in such scenarios, Nikon cameras win hands down and we have seen many such game demo. But they are just lesser of evil as entire photos after extreme shadow pulling from a severe underexposure look pretty crappy, very noisy in original deep shadow areas, surreal color tonality and damage of the most critical mid-tone. The difference in such scenario is crappy photo from Nikon vs unusable one from Canon. Sure Nikon wins but wins badly

-- hide signature --

Yes many samples I've seen so far have been contrived.  The 'oh look I saved the highlights on this specular highlight and so now these 20 pixels in the image are no longer 255, 255, 255!'.  To me it is absolutely no different from me saying I dislike the LoCA or CA fringing on certain Nikon lenses.  Yes you can see issues, but how much of an issue it causes is really up for debate.

In other words people go on and on and on about DxOMark scores, but the real-world significance is no greater than the higher LoCA or CA of Nikon lenses, but no one goes on and on about that with a new post every day about how much some Nikon G glass has LoCA fringing, or how much CA the Nikon 24-70G has, etc.  Sometimes I see a few posts from a Nikon owner that do think they get a lot of LoCA from their new G primes.  Lenstips makes the same observation as well.  The problem is DxOMark doesn't care at all about LoCA and barely care about CA for that matter.  DR and shadow performance reigns over anything to them.  It somehow negatively even effects the 6D's low-light performance even though its low-light performance is *better* when analyzing DxOMark's *own* data.

So yes I like having the 6D which has great low-light performance, does not have dust issues, and has GPS/wifi as well as super quiet shutter and availability of lenses I like (including the 40mm f2.8 pancake).  Speaking of DR, the DR of the 6D's ISO 12800 is almost the same as the D600's ISO 6400, and its the 6D's manufacturer ISO that is closer to 'true' ISO rating (i.e. less inflated and thus higher sensitivity to light at a given ISO).

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow