5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

Started Jul 19, 2013 | Discussions
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?
2

SubPrime wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

6D photo color overally look more punching, more dynamic and require less processing. I am sure I can adjust other settings to make D600 close to 6D look but require more work.

Yet you admit you had to use a brush to clean up the shadows on the 6D.

Only because the lower part of the photo is severely underexposed. I understand it's for testing purpose. If I took this scene in real world, as I said I'd use a GND filter against sky and expose at least one full stop or even 1.5-2 stops more at lower part. That will dramatically change the story. Not only both photos from 6D and D600 will be noticeably better - less noise/grain in original dark areas, more details and sharper at lower part but then the gap in bushes area between 6D and D600 will suddenly largely disappear when that part is exposed correctly.

It's pretty much even as far as I can see. Anyone who has invested in these cameras will have a workflow sorted out in Lightroom, ACR or Capture One, along with presets to get the image 90% of the way towards completion at the click of a mouse.

I prefer 6D better dynamic look that has more pleasing mid-tone. I found when I process CR2 files in LR, I only need to touch panels of Basic, Details, Lens Corrections and I don't need to touch all other color or tone related bars. Unless you can use one preset to apply all photos rather have to keep adjusting, you'd have save tremendous time in PP when processing CR2 files.

And having a wider DR means you can often do more with the file anyway.

Agree but it doesn't replace traditional techniques. By using better technique you will end with better result regardless of cameras.

-- hide signature --
cpkuntz
cpkuntz Senior Member • Posts: 1,003
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?
2

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Karl Gnter Wnsch wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

These are what I did by upsampling 5DIII file to the same size of D800E in CS6, everything is default/zero setting in ACR, the steps everyone can duplicate. Certainly you can see difference by pixel peeping but is pretty small even at D800E full size.

I would suggest you stop pixel peeping for once and look at the picture as a (partial) whole - The image on the left is far more pleasing than the washed out one on the right. You need to start tossing the idiotic amount of DR compressed into the right image - the trees below the building have no depth whatsoever and that is down to the too large DR that was captured on the right and "preserved" in processing.

They both have about the same amount of resolution but the one on the right has more DR - to the detriment of the picture as a whole!

then might I suggest you learn to post process to avoid this detriment. Geeesh.

-- hide signature --

regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with the D800E in this image.  It's not as contrasty, but why is that a bad thing?  It's easy to see the details.  In addition, if you want more contrast, just change the tone curve.  I worked a bit with the raw files originally in DXO Optics, and, like ACR, the Canon is by default a lot more contrasty.  It's easy to make the images look identical (except for resolution - which the D800E has a bit more of).

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

cpkuntz wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Karl Gnter Wnsch wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

These are what I did by upsampling 5DIII file to the same size of D800E in CS6, everything is default/zero setting in ACR, the steps everyone can duplicate. Certainly you can see difference by pixel peeping but is pretty small even at D800E full size.

I would suggest you stop pixel peeping for once and look at the picture as a (partial) whole - The image on the left is far more pleasing than the washed out one on the right. You need to start tossing the idiotic amount of DR compressed into the right image - the trees below the building have no depth whatsoever and that is down to the too large DR that was captured on the right and "preserved" in processing.

They both have about the same amount of resolution but the one on the right has more DR - to the detriment of the picture as a whole!

then might I suggest you learn to post process to avoid this detriment. Geeesh.

-- hide signature --

regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with the D800E in this image. It's not as contrasty, but why is that a bad thing? It's easy to see the details. In addition, if you want more contrast, just change the tone curve. I worked a bit with the raw files originally in DXO Optics, and, like ACR, the Canon is by default a lot more contrasty. It's easy to make the images look identical (except for resolution - which the D800E has a bit more of).

Rick posted RAW files, and everyone can process by own.   So far we have seen people used different processing software ACR, Phase One and Photo Ninja and honestly I don't much difference from each of them, certainly not shoulder and head difference. It's silly to exaggerate the difference even upsampling 5D3 to D800E size.  Such tiny difference will not show up in print.

-- hide signature --
cpkuntz
cpkuntz Senior Member • Posts: 1,003
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

It's a glitch.  In the OP from the original thread, Rick states clearly that the lenses were at the same aperture.  The bottom line is that both images look great, DXO and ACR apply a bit more contrast to Canon CR2 than NEF for some reason by default, but the tone curves can be altered to make the images look pretty similar.  The D800E has more resolution, but you have to look closer for it than I expected in this particular image.  For most print sizes you wouldn't likely notice the difference, but that's with this particular image.  In some tests the D800E has a bit of a more obvious advantage, but not by much.  Obviously the higher resolution final display, the more the advantage of the D800E will be noticeable.  On a 4K display, you'd probably notice the difference.  On an 8K display, well, the Canon doesn't go to 8K, so you'd probably see the difference there, too.

Great analysis all around by a lot of folks.  Thanks to Rick for posting the comparison.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

cpkuntz wrote:

It's a glitch. In the OP from the original thread, Rick states clearly that the lenses were at the same aperture.

That's what I thought

The bottom line is that both images look great, DXO and ACR apply a bit more contrast to Canon CR2 than NEF for some reason by default, but the tone curves can be altered to make the images look pretty similar. The D800E has more resolution, but you have to look closer for it than I expected in this particular image.

Actually reflected in DXOMark test that they tied likely at MTF 50 or 30 (not sure which one they cap) but extra 14mp extend beyond but harder to see until at pixel peeping level.

For most print sizes you wouldn't likely notice the difference, but that's with this particular image. In some tests the D800E has a bit of a more obvious advantage, but not by much.

It depends on lenses.  With Sigma 35/1.4, the sharpest 35mm prime, the gap will be bigger.  With respective 24-70/2.8 zoom the gap will be (noticeably) smaller.

Obviously the higher resolution final display, the more the advantage of the D800E will be noticeable. On a 4K display, you'd probably notice the difference. On an 8K display, well, the Canon doesn't go to 8K, so you'd probably see the difference there, too.

Exactly, but also need better lenses to leverage mega pixels.

Great analysis all around by a lot of folks. Thanks to Rick for posting the comparison.

Agreed,  very well controlled test.

-- hide signature --
Timbukto Veteran Member • Posts: 4,988
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

Jay A wrote:

I hate to sound like a jerk, but I am getting so tired of people trying to compare cameras and lenses by posting images from them on websites. Honestly, it's like trying to compare audio qualities between a $50,000 audiophile system and a $25 system by listening to each of them through your cell phone.

Someone made mention of the limiting factor having something to do with the lenses used. Well, when making these judgements, the limiting factor is the monitor you view these photographs on!

Can't anyone see this?

That said, having owned both a D800e and now a 5D MKIII I can say...yes the Nikon has better potential as far as how the final product will look. But one must realize that the way to realize this difference is by printing the images...and printing them BIG. You are comparing a 22mp sensor to a 36mp sensor. What do you think is magically happening to make the 22mp sensor produce images that look as good as or better than a 36mp sensor? It's the same argument the micro 4/3 people make by stating that their images look as good if not better than one from a 5D MKIII or a D800e. Got news for you guys..it just aint so! They may look as good to you, but use comparable lenses and blow both images up to 30x40 and then tell me which looks better.

Again, sorry to sound like jerk about this, but plain and simple, you cannot judge anything by viewing on a monitor from a website.

How appropriate...yes lets bring $50,000 audiophool systems into a discussion about diminishing or even reversal of retruns.

If there is one thing nice about camera's and images, at least you can actually see differences vs hear imaginary improvements in one cable vs another.

 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
SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

qianp2k wrote:

Only because the lower part of the photo is severely underexposed. I understand it's for testing purpose. If I took this scene in real world, as I said I'd use a GND filter against sky and expose at least one full stop or even 1.5-2 stops more at lower part. That will dramatically change the story.

Yes and no. I don't have a problem with noise itself, it;s pattern noise that frustrates me no end.

The problem with the Canon sensor, and it's the one thing I feel that is stopping me going completely with Canon, is the pattern noise at low ISO. I hate to sound alarmist, but for me, pattern noise appears far too often for my liking, even in well exposed images and frankly, I think it's completely unacceptable. You can forgive and easily deal with uniform noise, but pattern noise is a major major problem.

So yes, you can jump through hoops with GND's or whatever, but all you can hope to do is reduce the severity of this problem.

I prefer 6D better dynamic look that has more pleasing mid-tone. I found when I process CR2 files in LR, I only need to touch panels of Basic, Details, Lens Corrections and I don't need to touch all other color or tone related bars. Unless you can use one preset to apply all photos rather have to keep adjusting, you'd have save tremendous time in PP when processing CR2 files.

I disagree. There are times when I prefer the Canon colors and others when I prefer what Nikon delivers. There are many variables and there have been situations where I have obtained indistinguishable results shooting both.

Yes, I agree that using ACR/LR, the Canon files tend to need less tweaking, especially with skin tones, but the flip side of that is that you are also more locked in to what Canon gives you.

I generally stay away from LR/ACR if I can avoid it, and I am noticing a trend among pros to move to Capture One, which handles both Canon and Nikon raw files better. Pattern noice from Canon is actually much less obvious in Capture One than LR/ACR.

Also, I am not always happy with the look of the Canon profiles from ACR. The portrait profile can sometimes produce a pasty anemic look.

What the Canon excels at are vibrant colors - autumn tones especially. I never got Nikon to get the look I get from Canon with autumn leaves.

SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

qianp2k wrote:

It seem the top photo (5D3) is brighter so appears the bottom one (D800) is more contrast from your processing. I'd suggest you to dim -1/3 exposure on 5D3 one and let's see again.

I agree that both shots are over exposed, and reducing by .5 gives a much more pleasing result, but as you point out, we are comparing default outputs.

Personally I prefer 5D3 warmer look at least from my default ACR processing.

I do too, though I can't say I like the colors from either shot.

I also just notice the 5D3 photo was taken at F2.0 while D800E was taken at F8.0. Is that real or a EXIF glitch?

I noticed that too. I didn't change the EXIF, so it might be worth asking the OP. I suspect it is a glitch, seeing as the ISO and shutter speeds are identical.

Jay A Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

Timbukto wrote:

Jay A wrote:

I hate to sound like a jerk, but I am getting so tired of people trying to compare cameras and lenses by posting images from them on websites. Honestly, it's like trying to compare audio qualities between a $50,000 audiophile system and a $25 system by listening to each of them through your cell phone.

Someone made mention of the limiting factor having something to do with the lenses used. Well, when making these judgements, the limiting factor is the monitor you view these photographs on!

Can't anyone see this?

That said, having owned both a D800e and now a 5D MKIII I can say...yes the Nikon has better potential as far as how the final product will look. But one must realize that the way to realize this difference is by printing the images...and printing them BIG. You are comparing a 22mp sensor to a 36mp sensor. What do you think is magically happening to make the 22mp sensor produce images that look as good as or better than a 36mp sensor? It's the same argument the micro 4/3 people make by stating that their images look as good if not better than one from a 5D MKIII or a D800e. Got news for you guys..it just aint so! They may look as good to you, but use comparable lenses and blow both images up to 30x40 and then tell me which looks better.

Again, sorry to sound like jerk about this, but plain and simple, you cannot judge anything by viewing on a monitor from a website.

How appropriate...yes lets bring $50,000 audiophool systems into a discussion about diminishing or even reversal of retruns.

If there is one thing nice about camera's and images, at least you can actually see differences vs hear imaginary improvements in one cable vs another.

Actually, have you ever heard a $50,000 audio system in a room built for it? Very impressive and it's not imaginary at all.

Timbukto Veteran Member • Posts: 4,988
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

Jay A wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

Jay A wrote:

I hate to sound like a jerk, but I am getting so tired of people trying to compare cameras and lenses by posting images from them on websites. Honestly, it's like trying to compare audio qualities between a $50,000 audiophile system and a $25 system by listening to each of them through your cell phone.

Someone made mention of the limiting factor having something to do with the lenses used. Well, when making these judgements, the limiting factor is the monitor you view these photographs on!

Can't anyone see this?

That said, having owned both a D800e and now a 5D MKIII I can say...yes the Nikon has better potential as far as how the final product will look. But one must realize that the way to realize this difference is by printing the images...and printing them BIG. You are comparing a 22mp sensor to a 36mp sensor. What do you think is magically happening to make the 22mp sensor produce images that look as good as or better than a 36mp sensor? It's the same argument the micro 4/3 people make by stating that their images look as good if not better than one from a 5D MKIII or a D800e. Got news for you guys..it just aint so! They may look as good to you, but use comparable lenses and blow both images up to 30x40 and then tell me which looks better.

Again, sorry to sound like jerk about this, but plain and simple, you cannot judge anything by viewing on a monitor from a website.

How appropriate...yes lets bring $50,000 audiophool systems into a discussion about diminishing or even reversal of retruns.

If there is one thing nice about camera's and images, at least you can actually see differences vs hear imaginary improvements in one cable vs another.

Actually, have you ever heard a $50,000 audio system in a room built for it? Very impressive and it's not imaginary at all.

Seeing as the actual *room* probably has the highest bearing on the sound quality of a $1000 system much less a $50,000 one, it doesn't tell me much...

And yes I've heard many megabuck speaker and headphone systems and the industry is fraught with snake oil.

Also I took a blind test years ago to distinguish between an original PCM recording vs the mp3 encoding at various bitrates where the recording was spliced at different intervals for different encodings, and I was just about the only one to be able to determine the difference, so I can hear just fine.

 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
Jay A Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

At any rate, back to the original discussion.

My point was, it is necessary to have about 72 pixels per inch to view a photograph on a monitor. Anything higher and you just will not be able to see any difference. On the other hand, a typical inkjet printer is capable of creating prints with much higher resolution and today's digital cameras are VERY capable of producing images with much higher resolution.. So, if you are judging image quality using a computer monitor, you are not seeing what the photograph is capable of displaying.

From Luminous Landscape: " images on-screen typically need a maximum of 72 PPI. If a file has higher resolution than that it simply looks no different on screen. The only real difference will be that the file will be bigger and will therefore be slower to download."

If one posts downloadable images at their original sizes, then a viewer can download those images, print them (the bigger, the better), and make a judgement. On the other hand, if someone makes judgements by viewing the results only on his monitor, he is kidding himself. Yes, SOME comparisons can be made, but there is much more that cannot.

I know it is very common to do that which I am suggesting should not be done. It's done every single day, all over the world by millions of people. But every single one of those people are making their judgements based on what they see on monitor screens and not based on what a camera is truly capable of.

Don't like the audio analogy? Well how bout this...judging one camera against another merely by looking at files on a computer monitor is about as reliable as judging one camera against another merely by using only the $50 kit lenses supplied with those two cameras. I know this is an extreme statement. I know one can pixel peep (among other things) using a computer monitor and yes this does help some in making comparisons...but in the overall scheme of things...you need to make (preferably big) prints to do justice.

Canoman21 Regular Member • Posts: 206
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?
2

Well said!

Too many pixel peepers playing with themselves!

If the picture looks good, and people say "it looks good" who gives a rats a**se on what the stats are.

The first thing that gets asked when people are looking at my photo is " where was that taken?"  Not ...."how many megapixels is your camera"......

 Canoman21's gear list:Canoman21's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 60D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +13 more
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 24,300
Limits

Jay A wrote:

At any rate, back to the original discussion.

My point was, it is necessary to have about 72 pixels per inch to view a photograph on a monitor. Anything higher and you just will not be able to see any difference.

Unless, you zoom in and match native resolutions. Then it is pretty easy to see differences in resolution.

From Luminous Landscape: " images on-screen typically need a maximum of 72 PPI. If a file has higher resolution than that it simply looks no different on screen. The only real difference will be that the file will be bigger and will therefore be slower to download."

True, if you're talking about limiting to full frame....zsame applies to print if you limit how close you can stand.

On the other hand, if someone makes judgements by viewing the results only on his monitor, he is kidding himself. Yes, SOME comparisons can be made, but there is much more that cannot.

Unless you zoom in Then very easy to make valid comparison as long as you keep things equivalent. Only think you might not be able to compare is how the images look printed on a certain paper.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

SubPrime wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Only because the lower part of the photo is severely underexposed. I understand it's for testing purpose. If I took this scene in real world, as I said I'd use a GND filter against sky and expose at least one full stop or even 1.5-2 stops more at lower part. That will dramatically change the story.

Yes and no. I don't have a problem with noise itself, it;s pattern noise that frustrates me no end.

The problem with the Canon sensor, and it's the one thing I feel that is stopping me going completely with Canon, is the pattern noise at low ISO. I hate to sound alarmist, but for me, pattern noise appears far too often for my liking, even in well exposed images and frankly, I think it's completely unacceptable. You can forgive and easily deal with uniform noise, but pattern noise is a major major problem.

The Canon pattern noise is obvious in pushing up underexposed photos.  If you expose correctly or even a bit of overexposed you can largely avoid pattern noises.

So yes, you can jump through hoops with GND's or whatever, but all you can hope to do is reduce the severity of this problem.

I just said for that particular scene I'd use better technique regardless what camera I will use 5D3 or D800 or 6D or D600 that will generate better final photo regardless.

I prefer 6D better dynamic look that has more pleasing mid-tone. I found when I process CR2 files in LR, I only need to touch panels of Basic, Details, Lens Corrections and I don't need to touch all other color or tone related bars. Unless you can use one preset to apply all photos rather have to keep adjusting, you'd have save tremendous time in PP when processing CR2 files.

I disagree. There are times when I prefer the Canon colors and others when I prefer what Nikon delivers. There are many variables and there have been situations where I have obtained indistinguishable results shooting both.

Personally I prefer Canon color rendition in mid-tone and skin tone.  I have seen enough photos from all major Canon and Nikon cameras including many from real professionals.  But it's just my personal opinion.  I understand it's subjective.

Yes, I agree that using ACR/LR, the Canon files tend to need less tweaking, especially with skin tones, but the flip side of that is that you are also more locked in to what Canon gives you.

I generally stay away from LR/ACR if I can avoid it, and I am noticing a trend among pros to move to Capture One, which handles both Canon and Nikon raw files better.

From what I have seen, other raw processing software such as Capture One or Photo Ninja does have some advantage in dealing with noise/grain or pattern noises but not very obvious unless view at pixel-peeping level so not a big deal for me.  LR5/CS6 give me lots of features and great search database other software might not have.

Pattern noice from Canon is actually much less obvious in Capture One than LR/ACR.

So what you complaining about?  I'm a bit disappointed LR5 still uses the same LR4 process engine but only added some new features.  Hope LR6 will dramatically improve process quality especially in CR2 pattern noises.  But by then Canon may introduce 6D II with a 14-stop DR sensor

Also, I am not always happy with the look of the Canon profiles from ACR. The portrait profile can sometimes produce a pasty anemic look.

I agreed in portrait profile that DPP still is better but I found I can easily adjust to look close.  In landscape or event photos I have no complaints in ACR Camera Standard RAW for processing CR2 files.

What the Canon excels at are vibrant colors - autumn tones especially. I never got Nikon to get the look I get from Canon with autumn leaves.

yap, more popup and more dynamic.

-- hide signature --
Jay A Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: Limits
1

Unless, you zoom in and match native resolutions. Then it is pretty easy to see differences in resolution.

Not quite true. If a monitor is capable of displaying only so much, you are not going to see any more than it's capable of displaying. Yes, you can see a lower resolution comparison but it is hardly necessary to blow anything up in order to know that a 36mp file is going to give you more resolution than a 22mp file.

From Luminous Landscape: " images on-screen typically need a maximum of 72 PPI. If a file has higher resolution than that it simply looks no different on screen. The only real difference will be that the file will be bigger and will therefore be slower to download."

True, if you're talking about limiting to full frame....zsame applies to print if you limit how close you can stand.

Not sure what you are talking about.

On the other hand, if someone makes judgements by viewing the results only on his monitor, he is kidding himself. Yes, SOME comparisons can be made, but there is much more that cannot.

Unless you zoom in Then very easy to make valid comparison as long as you keep things equivalent. Only think you might not be able to compare is how the images look printed on a certain paper.

Again, I think you are limiting your discussion to seeing resolution differences between two different mp files. Is that all people do when they post comparison images from two cameras? I don't think it is...if it were, then why even bother..I mean we all know a 36mp file is going to have more resolution than a 22mp file..don't we? Why bother viewing anything in that case? I think rather that when people post images and discuss differences between cameras like the D800 and the 5D MKIII, they are looking for more than just that in the images. If so, again I say a monitor is just not the right place to do so.

Getting back to the original post in this thread. The OP posted some downsized images comparing the 2 cameras and then made mention that he was called to task for having downsized them. The feeling was that you cannot make a proper judgement based on downsized files. Well, essentially, viewing on a computer monitor is like doing the same thing. No, it may not be downsizing the original file but yes it is essentially limiting the file to 72 ppi. It is unfair to judge these photos like that, as they are capable of much better. On the other hand, a print will not have this limitation. It will show more flaws (and good) than a monitor can. I guess if you are satisfied with viewing differences on a monitor, it works for you...but my point is that it is only a very limited comparison that you are making and you may be missing out on much more important aspects of the file.

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 24,300
Well said

qianp2k wrote:

SubPrime wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Only because the lower part of the photo is severely underexposed. I understand it's for testing purpose. If I took this scene in real world, as I said I'd use a GND filter against sky and expose at least one full stop or even 1.5-2 stops more at lower part. That will dramatically change the story.

Yes and no. I don't have a problem with noise itself, it;s pattern noise that frustrates me no end.

The problem with the Canon sensor, and it's the one thing I feel that is stopping me going completely with Canon, is the pattern noise at low ISO. I hate to sound alarmist, but for me, pattern noise appears far too often for my liking, even in well exposed images and frankly, I think it's completely unacceptable. You can forgive and easily deal with uniform noise, but pattern noise is a major major problem.

The Canon pattern noise is obvious in pushing up underexposed photos. If you expose correctly or even a bit of overexposed you can largely avoid pattern noises.

By exposing correctly, do you mean for the primary subject only and ignoring details in other areas of the scenes DR? Limiting ones self to less demanding scenes. with little detail at the edges of DR, also greatly helps avoid the issue.


I prefer 6D better dynamic look that has more pleasing mid-tone. I found when I process CR2 files in LR, I only need to touch panels of Basic, Details, Lens Corrections and I don't need to touch all other color or tone related bars. Unless you can use one preset to apply all photos rather have to keep adjusting, you'd have save tremendous time in PP when processing CR2 files.

I disagree. There are times when I prefer the Canon colors and others when I prefer what Nikon delivers. There are many variables and there have been situations where I have obtained indistinguishable results shooting both.

Personally I prefer Canon color rendition in mid-tone and skin tone. I have seen enough photos from all major Canon and Nikon cameras including many from real professionals. But it's just my personal opinion. I understand it's subjective.

Well said.

Yes, I agree that using ACR/LR, the Canon files tend to need less tweaking, especially with skin tones, but the flip side of that is that you are also more locked in to what Canon gives you.

I generally stay away from LR/ACR if I can avoid it, and I am noticing a trend among pros to move to Capture One, which handles both Canon and Nikon raw files better.

From what I have seen, other raw processing software such as Capture One or Photo Ninja does have some advantage in dealing with noise/grain or pattern noises but not very obvious unless view at pixel-peeping level so not a big deal for me. LR5/CS6 give me lots of features and great search database other software might not have.

I find CS6 indispensable but ACR often not the best RAW convertor. Often many better alternatives when making the initial RAW to TIFF conversion. That changes though with each update.


What the Canon excels at are vibrant colors - autumn tones especially. I never got Nikon to get the look I get from Canon with autumn leaves.

yap, more popup and more dynamic.

That is one advantage of the default 10% over-saturation in the Canon color implementation. Very noticeable in a comparison. The Canon model is often a better starting point from a subjective standpoint.  A very nice compromise vs say the KR standard vivid. Leads to a few inaccuracies but those are so easy to fix that it's a non-player.

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

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 20,093
Re: 5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

cpkuntz wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Karl Gnter Wnsch wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

These are what I did by upsampling 5DIII file to the same size of D800E in CS6, everything is default/zero setting in ACR, the steps everyone can duplicate. Certainly you can see difference by pixel peeping but is pretty small even at D800E full size.

I would suggest you stop pixel peeping for once and look at the picture as a (partial) whole - The image on the left is far more pleasing than the washed out one on the right. You need to start tossing the idiotic amount of DR compressed into the right image - the trees below the building have no depth whatsoever and that is down to the too large DR that was captured on the right and "preserved" in processing.

They both have about the same amount of resolution but the one on the right has more DR - to the detriment of the picture as a whole!

then might I suggest you learn to post process to avoid this detriment. Geeesh.

-- hide signature --

regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with the D800E in this image. It's not as contrasty, but why is that a bad thing? It's easy to see the details. In addition, if you want more contrast, just change the tone curve. I worked a bit with the raw files originally in DXO Optics, and, like ACR, the Canon is by default a lot more contrasty. It's easy to make the images look identical (except for resolution - which the D800E has a bit more of).

Agreed.  When I tested both the 5D3 and the D800, I could easily see the rez difference on a 20x30 print when using my 50mm lenses.  The D800 gives you more rez and DR to work with.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 +16 more
Rick Knepper
OP Rick Knepper Forum Pro • Posts: 15,528
This concern plus others have been aired out on the Nikon forum

John Sheehy wrote:

Some might criticize the methodology and some might criticize the extreme nature of the crop but I can assure everyone that no matter the conditions, comparing an equal crop from these two systems will produce visible differences unless the crops are very minor.

Your downsampled images are much less pixel-sharp than your originals, so you are equalizing them somewhat in the downsizing process.

You have converted the D800E images with less contrast, making them look less detailed.

ad nauseum so I am a bit weary from the discussions and I am sure folks are weary of hearing from me but suffice it to say that the images posted were one of several comparisons andwere never intended to be the definitive head to head comparison. I keep reviewing the verbiage used and I do not see how this could have been misunderstood. Let's not fixate on my comparisons alone.

I posted other scenarios in the first thread and provided RAWs so that each individual could do what they will with the files so that my noodlings could be completely ignored if the reader so chose.

My current plans are for a D3x vs. D800 comparison (probably restricted to the Nikon forum) and possibly a 5D3/24-70 II vs. D800E/24-70G comparison.

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS R Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GF 23mm F4 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 +8 more
Rick Knepper
OP Rick Knepper Forum Pro • Posts: 15,528
Re: BTW Rick

SubPrime wrote:

May I ask what you are using for your gallery images? I am using the old DPreview gallery and it's not a elegant as the one you are using.

Are there any instructions on how to display the images and utilizing the same tools?

As Billy pointed out, I used the Insert Image icon at the top right but I use the first choice and copy/paste the link to my Flickr images there.

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS R Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GF 23mm F4 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 +8 more
Rick Knepper
OP Rick Knepper Forum Pro • Posts: 15,528
Re: I'd like to see the G15 thrown into the mix...

Great Bustard wrote:

...to see if there's any substantial difference. I'm betting there won't be. So, does this mean that the reason for choosing one system over another is DOF range, noise in low light (noting that less noise in lower light comes as a direct result from wider apertures necessarily resulting in a more shallow DOF), and/or operation?

Without knowing anything about the G15. I wouldn't dare speculate, but didn't someone just recently prove in a Canon forum that a recent model crop beat the 5D in resolution quite handily due to the higher pixel density at capture?

I am thinking that the main reason for someone to care about a comparison within the same format is for the resolution and DR but then I do not know for sure hence the reason for the link I suspect.

I would think all of the other matters you mention would be a given.

For reference:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Seriously -- if you've not read it, give it an honest read.

Rick Knepper wrote:

Subtitle: Cropping, downsizing and other table scraps

This thread refers to a recent thread comparing the 5D3 to the D800E:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51783073

Additional images and comparisons below if you wish to skip the set-up.

This will be my take on the comparison. There appears to be some lively conversations still active in original thread and it is getting full so I don’t want to use up the remaining “bandwidth”. I normally respond to everyone who takes the time to courteously post to my threads but in this instance, I limited my responses so as to give these ongoing conversations the bandwidth they deserve. So, thank you all very much for your examples and commentary (even those fanbois of both brands who tried to discredit the comparison).

I was criticized for providing a down-sized version of the D800E file which I rectified later (not to mention the fact that I had provided the RAWs with the initial post from which anyone could do anything they wished with the files).

The criticism came mainly from those whose applications apparently call for enlargement. I mean, do we even need to see such a comparison? Can’t we just stipulate that more MPs will always help in Printing Large.

It is that other 95% of photographers and their applications (myself included) which involve reductions that need some special illumination. I am sure this percentage could be hotly debated but for example, 100% of my applications involve reductions.

My primary application: create 1800x1200 images for display on my NEC 2690 monitor. There are future applications I am consideing but I will save that discussion for the end of this post. 1800x1200 isn’t a typical web-sized image, it’s nearly as physically large as a 13x19 print when viewed on my monitor though the dimensions are significantly reduced from its originals. I don’t know what pixel pitch folks are viewing with or how DPI factors into how others view these files.

So, we know information is being thrown away as we down-size, but what is the point at which too much information has been thrown away? I read an estimate in one of the threads that a 2x reduction does not harm IQ. Back in the day, when I compared my newly acquired 5D2 (21 MP) to my 5D (12 MP), I was able to discern additional detail in the 5D2 capture when both RAWs were reduced to 1800x1200 without the overall IQ being harmed.

The burning question for me and anyone doing reductions particularly if they are thinking of upgrading from 21/24 MPs to 36 MPs is: is there a law of diminishing return at play for my specific application?I am on record in the past as having asked this question at least rhetorically, and it only cost me $3k to find out definitively.

The following images are the same images from the original post, only processed and down-sized to the aforementioned dimensions. I processed the images without thought to matching anything. I made processing choices that looked good to me for the given file as if I were processing it as a keeper. Bear in mind that I am processing these files primarily for display pn my uncalibrated monitor so comments regarding color will probably be irrelevant. We are here to discuss resolution.

5D3 downsized to 1800x1200

D800E downsized to 1800x1200

Is there a diminishing return for 1800x1200 images when stepping up to 36 MP captures from 21 MP captures? Or even a reversal of return? Simple math makes it clear the total reduction is larger for the 36 MP image in this particular case and much more information is being thrown away. What about visually? Information can be thrown away without making a visible impact. What is the ultimate reduction size of your application? Use the RAWs from the original post to find your own point of diminishing return.

What about cropping?

The following crops were executed as follows: Loaded both images in ACR and neutralized the settings for both images (all settings turned to zero). Made a crop in the 5D3 file of an area I wanted to feature, then synchronized that crop with the D800E (since the D800E crop ends up in a slightly different position, I manually re-positioned the crop by eye). The resulting file sizes were:

5D3 = 2697x1798

D800E = 3446x2297

I converted both RAWs to the highest quality jpeg along with a down-sizing to 1800x1200 (my personal target dimension).

5D3 cropped & downsized to 1800x1200

D800E cropped & downsized to 1800x1200

Some might criticize the methodology and some might criticize the extreme nature of the crop but I can assure everyone that no matter the conditions, comparing an equal crop from these two systems will produce visible differences unless the crops are very minor.

Based on this overall comparison (previous thread included), I believe the return on IQ may have been reversed slightly for my intended application. However, anyone that has made it through the higher grades of high school and/or a few years in college know that one test doesn't prove anything. The answer for each individual is dependent on their own applications.The D800E images will stand up as long as I don't lean too close to the monitor.

Luckily for me and my investment in the D800E, I have near-future intentions to move to a larger editing and viewing display thereby reducing the reductions so to speak. I am also investigating the use of a 4k TV as a "picture frame" for my iamges. In 4k TV's infancy, there is already a 4k TV at Amazon selling for $1200.

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS R Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GF 23mm F4 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads