5D3 vs D800 - A Technical Analysis (UPDATED & EXTENDED) - With Samples

Started Mar 30, 2012 | Discussions
5tve Contributing Member • Posts: 678
Re: serious question: Why are you here?

chironNYC wrote:

No, you misread what he wrote:

In what he wrote, the number "1" is the numerator and "2x the focal length" is the denominator.

-- hide signature --

Peter

a shutter speed of at least 1/2 x focal length

That's right 1 is the numerator / is the division sign & 2 is the denominator so we get 1/2 & multiply by the focal length . Seems a very simple sum to me.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=1%2F2
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_divide_the_numerator_by_the_denominator

I must say I'm a bit disappointed by your reaction to my posts I expected more comments on the lines of "how could the OP have got it so wrong"

 5tve's gear list:5tve's gear list
Nikon D7000 Sony a6000 OnePlus One
Jan Madsen Senior Member • Posts: 2,398
Re: serious question: Why are you here?

chironNYC wrote:

No, you misread what he wrote:

In what he wrote, the number "1" is the numerator and "2x the focal length" is the denominator.

-- hide signature --

Peter

That's not how you read a formula with division sign in it. Division sign takes precedence. Paranthesis must be used then. So it is not a misreading, but probably a miswriting.

-- hide signature --

  • Jan

chironNYC Senior Member • Posts: 2,409
Re: serious question: Why are you here?

What he was saying was obvious unless you are looking for a chance to insult someone or to deliberately misunderstand them.

Jan Madsen wrote:

chironNYC wrote:

No, you misread what he wrote:

In what he wrote, the number "1" is the numerator and "2x the focal length" is the denominator.

-- hide signature --

Peter

That's not how you read a formula with division sign in it. Division sign takes precedence. Paranthesis must be used then. So it is not a misreading, but probably a miswriting.

-- hide signature --

  • Jan

-- hide signature --

Peter

 chironNYC's gear list:chironNYC's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a7 III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +11 more
Jan Madsen Senior Member • Posts: 2,398
Re: serious question: Why are you here?

chironNYC wrote:

What he was saying was obvious unless you are looking for a chance to insult someone or to deliberately misunderstand them.
--
Peter

Not with Legion5, he has spewed out lots of absurd statements. Frightening...
--

  • Jan

chironNYC Senior Member • Posts: 2,409
Re: serious question: Why are you here?

As I just said...

Jan Madsen wrote:

chironNYC wrote:

What he was saying was obvious unless you are looking for a chance to insult someone or to deliberately misunderstand them.
--
Peter

Not with Legion5, he has spewed out lots of absurd statements. Frightening...
--

  • Jan

-- hide signature --

Peter

 chironNYC's gear list:chironNYC's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a7 III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +11 more
5tve Contributing Member • Posts: 678
Re: serious question: Why are you here?

5tve wrote:

chironNYC wrote:

No, you misread what he wrote:

In what he wrote, the number "1" is the numerator and "2x the focal length" is the denominator.

-- hide signature --

Peter

a shutter speed of at least 1/2 x focal length

That's right 1 is the numerator / is the division sign & 2 is the denominator so we get 1/2 & multiply by the focal length . Seems a very simple sum to me.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=1%2F2
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_divide_the_numerator_by_the_denominator

I must say I'm a bit disappointed by your reaction to my posts I expected more comments on the lines of "how could the OP have got it so wrong"

You wrote 2x the focal length
what Legion5 wrote was 1/2 x focal length

I read it correctly so if if anyone uses the D800 handheld with a 200 mm lens they will need a speed of 100th of a second to get a sharp shot.
You cannot argue I misread it it is simply not true.

Now if you was to argue that Legion5 made a mistake & probably meant to write something else that sounds very plausible to me.
The only person who knows what he meant is Legion5 .

I think you partially right about this thread should become a classic that will be referred to over the years though I suspect for different reasons.

Thank you for all this work and thoughtful analysis. I especially appreciate the level of expertise and the calm, reasonable way you make your points.

This thread should become a classci and get referred to over the next couple of years.

 5tve's gear list:5tve's gear list
Nikon D7000 Sony a6000 OnePlus One
OP Legion5 Senior Member • Posts: 1,047
Replies to Various Posts

SubPrime wrote:

Legion5 wrote:

I didn't see your first post, sorry about that, I can't read every reply. I'm not sure which specific values you're discussing but I used around 30 sharpening and 60 noise reduction for the high ISO tests. Let me know if you have a more specific request.

Thank you but you could have opened the files again in ACR and read off the values you used when you last opened them - they are stored in the XMP sidecar file.

I also asked you the following:
1. Did you use the same values for both raw files?
2. Did you resize using ACR or in Photoshop?

3. Why didn't you merge the 2 into one file without NR and shaprening and then apply NR and sharpening then?

Send me a PM with your e-mail and I'll e-mail you the XMP files if you want to play around with them.

All told nearly every contrast and color parameter was adjusted to correct for color cast and contrast differences between the two cameras as much as possible so it's not just two values.

1. No the 5D3 required less noise reduction to reach an identical level of grain, also because the files are of a different resolution values where pixel size was entered (ie sharpening) had to be equivalent not necessarily equal.

2. ACR

3. Noise reduction algorithms didn't understand interpolated noise well, it causes them to not work very well. Ultimately doing everything ACR was the most scientific solution after testing various methods of doing the comparison.

Jan Madsen wrote:

5tve wrote:

Did he really mean 1/2 x focal length hand held ?

He must have ment 2x, but these posts are filled with contradictions/omissions to support some pre-determined view (at all costs).
--

  • Jan

I'm not really sure where you're coming from with that. There is a strong focus on eliminating any bias here. The 1 / 2x focal length is information from a Nikon Fan - a review of the D800 by one of the first Nikon professionals to get their hands on one who noted that you needed a higher than usual shutter speed to take advantage of the extra resolution the D800 has to offer. In the review it was directly noted that the D800 needed twice the shutter speed of it's predecessor after extensive testing, which makes sense from a physics standpoint given it has nearly double the linear resolution, so the distance the camera can move to maintain a sharp image is halved.

The point of this thread is to help people gain understanding. Bias is directly opposed to that. I'd appreciate it if the sensationalist comments were kept to a minimum.

5tve wrote:

With regard to the cnet link, several photographers who have discussed their article feel the cnet 6400 ISO example is a very clear illustration of the detail advantage of the 5D3 at 6400 ISO, certainly the 5D3 is noticeably sharper and the comparison shows that. You're right that article's writer actually feels they are similar enough at that ISO and are different enough right after. Either way what's significant to some isn't to others, that's why both this thread and the article has samples. I'll have to add that correction given the opportunity.

With regard to the dynamic range, I did not compare the D800 in DX mode, while the DX mode chart is similar in it's findings to my comparison, I actually just compared them in real world back to back testing, which is necessary for dynamic range comparisons. Dynamic range data tends to be all over the place, for example DXOMark's dynamic range data is significantly different from what you posted, and differs significantly from the real world. This is because noise tends to exhibit many unusual behaviors towards the extremes of contrast that is poorly represented in tests but very obvious to the naked eye. For example with your data it shows the 5D2 and 5D3 being nearly identical, despite the fact that it's been found there is a significant difference between the 5D2 and 5D3 in the real world with DR. Overall I'd say that the data you posted correlates to a degree with the real world, and DXO's data correlates even better with the real world (strictly speaking about dynamic range). Either way the 5D3 is slightly better at high ISO vs to D800 to varying degrees depending on who you ask by around a quarter stop, all sources point to the advantage being fairly minor so at least the data is close enough.

With regard to the lensrentals test and their conclusions about detail and ISO. I don't think you have an understanding of what their test means. Their test was done without noise reduction on purpose, if you shoot without noise reduction the conclusion that the D800 has a 10% resolution advantage over the 5D3 with the best primes at ISO 3200 holds true, this was brought up as a counter-point in the last thread with examples. However nobody shoots without NR so the point is moot. A lot of tests under lab conditions can be misleading to varying degrees, That's why I made this thread and developed a comparison methodology that was as helpful and realistic as I could make it.

With regard to not sharpening my samples as much as possible, that was a request in the previous thread, where I did so to show the differences better. The more you sharpen the images the more the advantages in each category become apparent, but nobody shoots at 500% sharpening, so this can mislead people into thinking differences are greater than they actually are. The only place I used extreme sharpening was when I was showing two things were identical where maximizing the difference drives home the point.

5tve Contributing Member • Posts: 678
Re: Replies to Various Posts

Legion5 wrote:

Jan Madsen wrote:

5tve wrote:

Did he really mean 1/2 x focal length hand held ?

He must have ment 2x, but these posts are filled with contradictions/omissions to support some pre-determined view (at all costs).
--

  • Jan

I'm not really sure where you're coming from with that. There is a strong focus on eliminating any bias here. The 1 / 2x focal length is information from a Nikon Fan - a review of the D800 by one of the first Nikon professionals to get their hands on one who noted that you needed a higher than usual shutter speed to take advantage of the extra resolution the D800 has to offer. In the review it was directly noted that the D800 needed twice the shutter speed of it's predecessor after extensive testing, which makes sense from a physics standpoint given it has nearly double the linear resolution, so the distance the camera can move to maintain a sharp image is halved.

The point of this thread is to help people gain understanding. Bias is directly opposed to that. I'd appreciate it if the sensationalist comments were kept to a minimum.

Quoting your first post in this thread.

Conclusions about resolution:

To gain a resolution advantage with the D800 over the 5D3 you must in combination shoot at less than ISO 1600, with primes, a shutter speed of at least 1/2 x focal length(unless your prime has IS or you're using a tripod), and between f/4.0 and f/8.0.

Normal speed for most photographers to safely shoot hand held is at least 1 x focal length yet you say they can get away with using a longer exposure.

Can you provide a link to the review where someone says you need to use 2 x focal length to get sharp shots.

Please post your findings on dynamic range I would love to see your photos
the only reliable information we have so far are from B Claff's charts.
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm

With regard to the lensrentals test and their conclusions about detail and ISO. I don't think you have an understanding of what their test means. Their test was done without noise reduction on purpose, if you shoot without noise reduction the conclusion that the D800 has a 10% resolution advantage over the 5D3 with the best primes at ISO 3200 holds true, this was brought up as a counter-point in the last thread with examples. However nobody shoots without NR so the point is moot. A lot of tests under lab conditions can be misleading to varying degrees, That's why I made this thread and developed a comparison methodology that was as helpful and realistic as I could make it.

That's an astonishing claim to make

nobody shoots without NR

So you advocate anyone performing Lens resolution at high ISO should perform NR before publishing the results.

Or maybe you are saying if a reviewer publishes Lens resolution tests at high ISO

you can look at the figures & estimate in your head how much resolution would be lost if you had done the test & applied noise reduction ?

 5tve's gear list:5tve's gear list
Nikon D7000 Sony a6000 OnePlus One
philchan Forum Member • Posts: 76
Re: You are not in the same league as Legion5

Bob,

Agreed with your views, kinda wish the D800 is Canon & vice versa (and with their corresponding prices!)

phil

SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: Replies to Various Posts

Legion5 wrote:

All told nearly every contrast and color parameter was adjusted to correct for color cast and contrast differences between the two cameras as much as possible so it's not just two values.

Hence my request for all the values to be shared. You're demonstrated the unacny ability to make make a file look worswe than what you started with.

1. No the 5D3 required less noise reduction to reach an identical level of grain, also because the files are of a different resolution values where pixel size was entered (ie sharpening) had to be equivalent not necessarily equal.

Rubbish. If you are resizing the files to match the D800 resolution, then the resolution values should be identical.

3. Noise reduction algorithms didn't understand interpolated noise well, it causes them to not work very well. Ultimately doing everything ACR was the most scientific solution after testing various methods of doing the comparison.

Sorry, but there is nothign scieitifc about what you are doing. Your insistence on manipulating data is the antithesis of a scientific approach.

I'm not really sure where you're coming from with that. There is a strong focus on eliminating any bias here.

The 1 / 2x focal length is information from a Nikon Fan - a review of the D800 by one of the first Nikon professionals to get their hands on one who noted that you needed a higher than usual shutter speed to take advantage of the extra resolution the D800 has to offer.

Why would you need higher shutter speech when shooting on a tripod?

In the review it was directly noted that the D800 needed twice the shutter speed of it's predecessor after extensive testing, which makes sense from a physics standpoint given it has nearly double the linear resolution, so the distance the camera can move to maintain a sharp image is halved.

Sorry, but the experience of D800 users shoowint handlheld has rejected that myth.

The point of this thread is to help people gain understanding. Bias is directly opposed to that. I'd appreciate it if the sensationalist comments were kept to a minimum.

I'd appreciate it is you gave up pretending to be unbaised an scientific.

With regard to the cnet link, several photographers who have discussed their article feel the cnet 6400 ISO example is a very clear illustration of the detail advantage of the 5D3 at 6400 ISO, certainly the 5D3 is noticeably sharper and the comparison shows that.

Sorry, but citing what several photographers think is not at all convinving. Anyone who has tkaen the time to test the raw files side by side has refuted those claims that the 5D3 is noticeably sharper. In fact, my tests and those from Slideshopw Bob prove the exact opposite.

Either way the 5D3 is slightly better at high ISO vs to D800 to varying degrees depending on who you ask by around a quarter stop, all sources point to the advantage being fairly minor so at least the data is close enough.

Actually, others point to the 5D3 being slihghtly better at 12,800 and the D800 being better at 25,600.

SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: Replies to Various Posts

Legion5 wrote:

Send me a PM with your e-mail and I'll e-mail you the XMP files if you want to play around with them.

draganvranic11@gmail.com

bronxbombers Forum Pro • Posts: 18,226
Re: You are not in the same league as Legion5

chironNYC wrote:

Bob,

You are not in the same technical league as Legion5. This is what he does for a living, at a very high technical level with top photographers. He produces finished graphic images for a living for national campaigns. Try to learn from him. He is offering you something.
--
Peter

sideshow bob is at higher TECHNICAL level

OP Legion5 Senior Member • Posts: 1,047
Re: Replies to Various Posts

Listen, I've extensively consulted with professors at Cambridge University, staff at DxOMark and imaging-resource and and Canon and Nikon's own technical guys on the facts I have presented. The information I have here deserves as much respect as what you would find from the most trusted and top sources out there.

When I speak to experts I receive polite and very well informed discussions that are genuinely useful along with extremely nice treatment - DxOMark offered me a business proposal to help show the effects of signal processing on camera performance in a reasonable way. Canon let me spend 8 hours on the phone badgering their top US technical guys with questions and offered to send me a 1DX to analyze in the future. Nikon let me talk with their tech guys for around 4 hours.

When I read this forum on the other hand I am met with impossibly ignorant replies by complete trolls who seem to have made it their job to personally attack everything.

Example:

Rubbish. If you are resizing the files to match the D800 resolution, then the resolution values should be identical.

No. During raw conversion the sharpening is applied to the original resolution not to the rendered resolution. Otherwise files would look completely different depending on what resolutions you rendered them at. This kind of garbage is very insulting and ignorant along with every other word in your post and several other posts.

I have no interest in dealing with this sort of negative behavior.

SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: Replies to Various Posts

Legion5 wrote:

Listen, I've extensively consulted with professors at Cambridge University, staff at DxOMark and imaging-resource and and Canon and Nikon's own technical guys on the facts I have presented.

If that were true, then surely the data produced by DXO would reflect your own findings, which in turn would suggest you would have no dispute with their conclusions.

The information I have here deserves as much respect as what you would find from the most trusted and top sources out there.

Sorry, but you are seriosly delusional. The trusted sources are trusted for a reason - they are credible and they present technical findings without messing with the data. They don't decide what the data should look like before presentign theri findings. IR would be met with the same scorn and ridicule you have experienced if they were to arbitrarily apply "real word" NR and sharpening to their test images.

Most importantly, their findings are consistent and repeatable - unlike yours.

Your findings are nothing short of farcical. You presented results that are not only unrepetable by everyone who has conducted the same test for themselves, but have been contradicted by everyone who has done so.

If the information you presented deserved respect, you wouldn't be demanding it.

Your information represents sloppy arguments, highly questionable methodocolgy and flawed logic. Your first thread claimed to be a technical analysis, which turned out to be anything but technical. Your follow up argument was then eviscerated by Slideshowbob.

Having been heavily criticized for manipulatuing the data, you them chose to take the image manipulation to a whole new level in a thread you claimed to be "scientific".

When I speak to experts I receive polite and very well informed discussions that are genuinely useful along with extremely nice treatment

That's truly mind boggling, because even among Canon shooters (who one woudl expect would be pleased with your findings), your posts are the object of contempt and ridicule. The few that respond favourably to your posts are hard core Canon fanboys who are hungry to lap up any morsel of information (true or false) that presents their beloved camera as superior to the Nikon.

When I read this forum on the other hand I am met with impossibly ignorant replies by complete trolls who seem to have made it their job to personally attack everything.

If you feel so hard done by, why are you wasting your precious and valuable time posting to such an ignorant audience? Wouldn't your time be better spent speaking to "experts" and the R&D teams at Canon and Nikon, or testing the 1DX?

No. During raw conversion the sharpening is applied to the original resolution not to the rendered resolution.

But the file you are upscaling is performed on the rendered resolution is it not?

This kind of garbage is very insulting and ignorant along with every other word in your post and several other posts.

I am pretty sure many partiicpants on this forum find the intellectual dishonesty and conflation in your threas an insult to their intelligence.

I have no interest in dealing with this sort of negative behavior.

Then stop trolling.

Slideshow Bob Senior Member • Posts: 1,750
Re: Replies to Various Posts

And did the "professors at Cambridge University, staff at DxOMark and imaging-resource and and Canon and Nikon's own technical guys" agree with the following statement, which you made in your OP....

"Above ISO 1600 the 5D3 just has both more detail and less noise than the D800. At 1600 ISO they are equal in both respects. At 3200 there is an edge to the 5D3 and at 6400 the 5D3 just pulls away and just keeps widening the gap."

...???

Let's review the actual results at ISO 3200 again, just so everyone can see what is really produced by these cameras above ISO 1600...

Remember to click on the original image link to see the full size image. I'm going to need you to point out where the 5DIII image contains more detail, because basically, it doesn't!

And let's not forget your classic "unbiased technical analysis" where you supposedly pushed the ISO 800 shots 5 stops and achieved the following result...

which is fantastic! Wow, that D800 looks really bad! But wait, what we really get when we push the 5DIII and D800 by 4 stops (well, +4 exposure in ACR) is this...

How come your result is so far from what the cameras actually produce? Is there a reason that your processed D800 example looks worse than the original RAW file? Is there a reason you NR'd the 5DIII shot to death, but not the D800 shot? If your testing is unbiased, shouldn't they both look pretty similar? After all, the difference in noise levels between them is pretty small at the RAW level, isn't it?

But most of all, the fact that you think that Canon and Nikon's own technical guys would "consult" with you regarding a comparison with their competitors products makes you a laughing stock. Why don't you actually try that. Go on. Pick up the phone, call Canon's technical guys, start talking about the D800, and see how far you get.

Your idea of "unbiased" is nothing of the kind. You're busted pal. Your "comparisons" are the worst garbage I've seen here. You trying to make out that your results are the product of consultation with truly knowledgable people only makes you look more desperate, especially given that your "results" contradict what some of those same knowledgeable people have published on the web for all to see.

Respect? For a liar? You've got to be kidding!

SB

Legion5 wrote:

Listen, I've extensively consulted with professors at Cambridge University, staff at DxOMark and imaging-resource and and Canon and Nikon's own technical guys on the facts I have presented. The information I have here deserves as much respect as what you would find from the most trusted and top sources out there.

When I speak to experts I receive polite and very well informed discussions that are genuinely useful along with extremely nice treatment - DxOMark offered me a business proposal to help show the effects of signal processing on camera performance in a reasonable way. Canon let me spend 8 hours on the phone badgering their top US technical guys with questions and offered to send me a 1DX to analyze in the future. Nikon let me talk with their tech guys for around 4 hours.

When I read this forum on the other hand I am met with impossibly ignorant replies by complete trolls who seem to have made it their job to personally attack everything.

Example:

Rubbish. If you are resizing the files to match the D800 resolution, then the resolution values should be identical.

No. During raw conversion the sharpening is applied to the original resolution not to the rendered resolution. Otherwise files would look completely different depending on what resolutions you rendered them at. This kind of garbage is very insulting and ignorant along with every other word in your post and several other posts.

I have no interest in dealing with this sort of negative behavior.

chironNYC Senior Member • Posts: 2,409
Ignorance and Rudeness and Finding Another Forum

Legion,

The astroturfers and trolls have managed to almost fully corrupt this forum and they seem to have a special enmity for anything you post. While I suspect "they" are really one or two people with personality disorders and multiple screen names (note how often the same four or five names post in the same threads but not in others), it makes it very difficult to actually discuss what you are saying.

I suggest that you might want to take the very interesting and useful work that you are doing over to someplace like photo.net or fredmiranda which are much more actively moderated and have a much more honest ethos than what goes on around here.

The people who meet you with rudeness and ignorance are not posting or discussing anything in good faith, so there really is no point in talking to them. They are either paid to spread FUD about the 5d3 or they are severely disturbed, or possibly both.

Since Andy Westlake won't really control them, they will continue to destroy any thread you start.

But what you are doing is clearly very valuable. Take it to another venue, and let us know where you go.

Peter

Legion5 wrote:

Listen, I've extensively consulted with professors at Cambridge University, staff at DxOMark and imaging-resource and and Canon and Nikon's own technical guys on the facts I have presented. The information I have here deserves as much respect as what you would find from the most trusted and top sources out there.

When I speak to experts I receive polite and very well informed discussions that are genuinely useful along with extremely nice treatment - DxOMark offered me a business proposal to help show the effects of signal processing on camera performance in a reasonable way. Canon let me spend 8 hours on the phone badgering their top US technical guys with questions and offered to send me a 1DX to analyze in the future. Nikon let me talk with their tech guys for around 4 hours.

When I read this forum on the other hand I am met with impossibly ignorant replies by complete trolls who seem to have made it their job to personally attack everything.

Example:

Rubbish. If you are resizing the files to match the D800 resolution, then the resolution values should be identical.

No. During raw conversion the sharpening is applied to the original resolution not to the rendered resolution. Otherwise files would look completely different depending on what resolutions you rendered them at. This kind of garbage is very insulting and ignorant along with every other word in your post and several other posts.

I have no interest in dealing with this sort of negative behavior.

-- hide signature --

Peter

 chironNYC's gear list:chironNYC's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a7 III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +11 more
Slideshow Bob Senior Member • Posts: 1,750
Re: Ignorance and Rudeness and Finding Another Forum

You think the folks over at photo.net and fredmiranda want to be lied to? Hmmm, I think you're wrong. Again.

But hey, since you and your buddy are supposedly posting interesting and useful work, maybe you can explain this...

But I'm guessing that you'll run away, just like Legion5 does. Neither of you have the stones to face up to the incontrovertible evidence that proves you wrong, which I guess is what is to be expected from the trolls. Suggesting that the unsuspecting members of other forums are more likely to be taken in by the kind of garbage you and your buddy spew is pretty insulting.

Have a good one.

SB

chironNYC wrote:
Legion,

The astroturfers and trolls have managed to almost fully corrupt this forum and they seem to have a special enmity for anything you post. While I suspect "they" are really one or two people with personality disorders and multiple screen names (note how often the same four or five names post in the same threads but not in others), it makes it very difficult to actually discuss what you are saying.

I suggest that you might want to take the very interesting and useful work that you are doing over to someplace like photo.net or fredmiranda which are much more actively moderated and have a much more honest ethos than what goes on around here.

The people who meet you with rudeness and ignorance are not posting or discussing anything in good faith, so there really is no point in talking to them. They are either paid to spread FUD about the 5d3 or they are severely disturbed, or possibly both.

Since Andy Westlake won't really control them, they will continue to destroy any thread you start.

But what you are doing is clearly very valuable. Take it to another venue, and let us know where you go.

Peter

Legion5 wrote:

Listen, I've extensively consulted with professors at Cambridge University, staff at DxOMark and imaging-resource and and Canon and Nikon's own technical guys on the facts I have presented. The information I have here deserves as much respect as what you would find from the most trusted and top sources out there.

When I speak to experts I receive polite and very well informed discussions that are genuinely useful along with extremely nice treatment - DxOMark offered me a business proposal to help show the effects of signal processing on camera performance in a reasonable way. Canon let me spend 8 hours on the phone badgering their top US technical guys with questions and offered to send me a 1DX to analyze in the future. Nikon let me talk with their tech guys for around 4 hours.

When I read this forum on the other hand I am met with impossibly ignorant replies by complete trolls who seem to have made it their job to personally attack everything.

Example:

Rubbish. If you are resizing the files to match the D800 resolution, then the resolution values should be identical.

No. During raw conversion the sharpening is applied to the original resolution not to the rendered resolution. Otherwise files would look completely different depending on what resolutions you rendered them at. This kind of garbage is very insulting and ignorant along with every other word in your post and several other posts.

I have no interest in dealing with this sort of negative behavior.

SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: Replies to Various Posts

Slideshow Bob wrote:

And did the "professors at Cambridge University, staff at DxOMark and imaging-resource and and Canon and Nikon's own technical guys" agree with the following statement, which you made in your OP....

Forget that, what I wanna know is what he and the R&D guys at Nikon spoke about for 4hours, and why Legion has 4 hours to spend on the phone. Is he retired?

And with all that free time, why didn't he take up Canon's offer to let them test the 1DX. Imagine the volumes of completely useless and vaccuous analysis he could have conducted on the his manipulated images from that beast?

SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: Ignorance and Rudeness and Finding Another Forum

I stand corrected,

I earlier made reference to the handful of peopel who agreed with Legion's analysis, but it turns out that chironNYC is the only taker.

chironNYC wrote:

I suggest that you might want to take the very interesting and useful work that you are doing over to someplace like photo.net or fredmiranda which are much more actively moderated and have a much more honest ethos than what goes on around here.

On no not fredmiranda. The moderators will take one look at the copious garbage Legion comes up with and ban him before he's even introduced himself.

The people who meet you with rudeness and ignorance are not posting or discussing anything in good faith, so there really is no point in talking to them.

Yeah, as though posting fudged and grossly manipulated results that is contradicted by everyone else's findings is an act of good faith.

Since Andy Westlake won't really control them, they will continue to destroy any thread you start.

Actually Andy Westlake made it clear that brand bashing threads were not acceptable, but they continue regardless.

Peace On Earth Contributing Member • Posts: 699
Re: Part 2: 5D3 vs D800 - A Technical Analysis (UPDATED & EXTENDED) - With Sample

Conclusions about resolution:

To gain a resolution advantage with the D800 over the 5D3 you must in combination shoot at less than ISO 1600, with primes, a shutter speed of at least 1/2 x focal length(unless your prime has IS or you're using a tripod), and between f/4.0 and f/8.0.

what can zoom lense like 24-70 make use of the resolution of D800 ?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads