D610 vs. 5D Mark III

Started Nov 10, 2013 | Discussions
schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III

bobn2 wrote:

I think this blind spot for Canon has likely led to almost the complete loss of the studio FF market

Evidence? Is this fact or hyperbole?

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: D610 with no NR applied

ron purdy wrote:

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

From perspective of entire photo or just dark shadow area?

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

I still see grains and chrome noises in your pushed area.  But I agree Sony sensor can push deep dark shadow much better. The only question is that do you really need to push deep shadow that much for a photo still look naturally?

D610 processed in ACR with NO N.R.

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

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

In your pushed partial area (without showing entire photo), sure shadow is lifted but also with the price of highlight blown in your sample above.  My point is that you still need to process as I did in my sample to recover highlight while pushing up shadows.  How much shadows you need to push if you exposed correctly?  Can you show entire your photo rather just that small area?

Goodnight all, I am off to watch Boardwalk Empire.

-ron

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III

schmegg wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

I think this blind spot for Canon has likely led to almost the complete loss of the studio FF market

Evidence? Is this fact or hyperbole?

In studio you use lights and strobe flashes, so DR is not that critical. If Bob means resolution, then 36mp from Nikon and Sony does have advantage but not every client needs to print to 60x40" big. And Canon mega pixel camera is coming and likely will be released in market in one year. If print less than 60x40" then the difference between 36mp and 22mp is not that huge. Canon also has some advantages such as really nice lenses and has some very pleasing colors and skin tone. The top studios use MF cameras that have obvious advantage in color tonality and resolution (the actual resolved resolution thru lenses not just paper MP in sensor) over any FF cameras.

schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
1

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

I think this blind spot for Canon has likely led to almost the complete loss of the studio FF market

Evidence? Is this fact or hyperbole?

In studio you use lights and strobe flashes, so DR is not that critical.

Indeed.

If Bob means resolution, then 36mp from Nikon and Sony does have advantage but not every client needs to print to 60x40" big.

I didn't read resolution into Bob's post - but perhaps. Seemed to me he was entering the discussion that the rest were having regarding DR and shadow noise.

Lets wait and see if he has any evidence to back up his claim that Canon has almost 'completely lost the studio FF market'. Seems like an overblown extrapolation based on personal biases to me.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 506
Just one side of the medal ...
2

Glad you are happy with your new camera.

But a pitty that this thread ended up again in a rather pointless debate about the superiority of one model over another (like a thousand times before. Cognitive dissonance?). Not entirely your fault I guess (or was it on purpose ..?).

The way I see it this is a pointless debate between pixel peepers. Any 'true' photographer (whatever that may be) knows that it's not all about 'scene-referred data' but more about 'output-referred data' and how to get there. That's because 'true photographers' are less self-indulgent pixel peepers and more focused on sharing their images with the rest of the world.

The ways to do that are limited. You do that either in print or on a display (HD, 4K). Both have serious limitations. Even the not yet widely available 4K displays have a low resolution compared to the source material  and common HD displays even less. And the data manipulations that are used in modern displays make, that your source material will likely look quite different than when you are pixel peeping at 100%.

And althought prints have less resolution limitations (also dependent on the print size of course) they have a limited dynamic range (of about 6 stops).

So to get from scene-referred to output-referred needs a lot of processing and compressing. The process of rendering to print (the other side of the medal) is at least as important as getting the right scene-referred data. This has always been the case with photography, be it on film or with digital sensors. That's why the here often mentioned Adams and people like Cartier Bresson were not just great 'picture takers' but also masters in the darkroom. They mastered both processes of getting scene-referred data and of output-referred data. When the process of getting the output-referred data is executed properly, the differences between scene-referred data of different cameras will be evened out. Or in other words, the output (the final print, the complete image on a display) will be the same.

In our photostudio we have a lot of different cameras (different types and different brands). To get a job here you must have mastered both processes mentioned. Anyone here can produce output that looks exactly the same independent of the brand of camera used (within the same type of camera). And I am sure some of the debaters here can do that too.

So this debate is pointless unless some have the strong urge to promote their personal preferences as being a universal truth just to feel good ....

Instead of debating it would be wiser to spend more time mastering both processes

MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III

I am GLAD Nikon is getting better cameras, so it will MAKE Canon do the same!

The D600 with the dirt problem.. UGH..

I will say, I do agree with the Canon having better skin tones

If I was a PURE landscape shooter, I would own Nikon for the cameras, but some of Canon's lenses are amazing.

Slideshow Bob wrote:

I'm not doubting how happy you are with the camera (and I'll admit that I haven't used a D610), but for "people" photographs, I'd expect the 5DIII to have better skin tones. Of the cameras I've used (Canon, Nikon, and Fuji), I'd rate the Nikon last for skin tones. I always thought the Nikons were great for mechanical stuff, and I use them when shooting aircraft. But IMHO, unless you want to get into colour calibration cards, Canon does people better.

Or am I missing something with Nikon's latest DSLR?

SB

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III

ron purdy wrote:

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

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

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

The only problem is that your sample was badly executed at the first place regardless of what camera you used. We have seen tons of those extreme-shadow-pulling games where Sony sensor win hands down, nobody disagreed that.

Only issue is that do you truly believe this is the right way for photography? Then good luck, your D610 certainly does much better, but still crappy after you pushing up deep dark shadow 4-6 stops back, just lesser of evil.

For that particular photo, either you could compose differently from different angle (not against a bright background) or simply using a flash to fill-flash regardless of what camera you use.

My posted sample is just a test shot as I said. I usually don't shoot under such contrast scenes that no more than 5% of my total photos. I'd not even keep it but just a record of the hotel I used to live as I said but not the one I will print and hang on my wall Nevertheless after properly processed, it's not bad even viewed at 100% cropped size. If you took D610 at the same scene, I have no doubt you will have more details and cleaner in deep dark areas of the tree (I don't want to open deep dark areas completely on my taste), but not really much better if we view from entire photo as a whole.

Sure I'd like Canon will develop such sensor in near future in future 6D2 or 5D4, but meanwhile I do appreciate Canon traditional advantages in more pleasing color tonality (midtone), skin tone and better lenses that I use (two f/2.8 zoom, 17 TS-E and super tele lenses).  I use my 5D3 in variety of photos from studio, portrait, to landscape, to airshow and wildlife and I am happy in general.  I am sure your D610 will win in such extreme shadow pushing area but not in much broader areas of photography in general.

I agreed as other said your OP is misleading.  You're not talking D610 vs 5D3 in general in features, in variety of photos you can leverage from each camera.  Instead you slipped into the old beaten-to-death topic of extreme shadow pushing that we have seen enough and debated enough.

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: If this were true Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III

Mikael Risedal wrote:

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

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

Your response shows that you have no idea what I am talking about and what is in that wikipedia page. Speaking about studying the subject, try to read it, and if you do not understand it, say nothing.

It is not that simple as "thin filters".

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
billythek Veteran Member • Posts: 5,260
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

 billythek's gear list:billythek's gear list
DxO One Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 22,065
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
3

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.

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 offer the Zone System and ETTR as my proof.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 +17 more
Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: Myth, Myth and Myth

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

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: If this were true Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

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

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

Your response shows that you have no idea what I am talking about and what is in that wikipedia page. Speaking about studying the subject, try to read it, and if you do not understand it, say nothing.

It is not that simple as "thin filters".

so explain what you are saying so I understand

1. are the CFA in Canon steep as in Nikon

2. is the color accuracy equal in 5500K from Canon , now Im talking about the CFA

3. Are there a difference in the red  between Canon and Nikon  and theirs CFA

4. Has Canon thinned out their color filters to enhance light sensitivity?

5. Has Canon experimented with the green channel and had two different shades of green for example in 7D ?

return when you have the right answers

-- 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

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Myth, Myth and Myth

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 in your photos. Your incompetent processing skill should not be an excuse.

Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: If this were true Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III

Mikael Risedal wrote:

so explain what you are saying so I understand

  1. are the CFA in Canon steep as in Nikon.

This is irrelevant. The question is not how steep they are but how well you can approximate the human color vision, under different lighting, in the colors that matter (which is highly subjective). Very steep color filters will do a terrible job at that.

  1. is the color accuracy equal in 5500K from Canon , now Im talking about the CFA

Hard to say and even harder to define. DXO do measure the Sensitivity Metamerism Index, and it is somewhat higher for Nikon in general but not always, for example the 5D2 has a higher indices than the D610 under daylight and tungsten light. And this is just one number which does not tell us what happens for different colors, and for those "which matter".

  1. Are there a difference in the red CFA

There are differences in all CFAs but Canon's is closer to the human vision. Which does not automatically make it better. The cones of your eyes cannot separate well red from green either.

  1. Has Canon thinned out their color filters to enhance light sensitivity

Nobody knows. If they did that, this would lower the noise with RAW measurements but would increase it in direct comparisons because the color matrix would be "big". Also, have you actually measured the physical thickness of the filters?

  1. Has Canon experimented with the green channel and had two different shades of green for example in 7D ?

I do not know, and do not care since for me, the 7D has the worst sensor of the newer Canon cameras. Every two cameras from the same manufacturer have different CFA filters, Nikon included.

return when you have the right answers

Do not patronize me. You are hardly the ultimate authority when it comes to right answers.

BTW, did you read that wiki page? Do it.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: Myth, Myth and Myth

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

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

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,146
Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III
3

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.

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.

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.

It's not 'poor', it's different. The PP I apply is to produce a particular set of requirements. The truth is, whatever your PP regime, you'll get there easier with a camera with high DR and low pattern noise than one without those things. It's actually supremely arrogant to say anothers PP technique is 'poor' just because it's different from yours.

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.

Which translates to 'the new ones put in a lot more involuntary NR', and the point about that is that you lose something for the NR compared with having a camera which doesn't need the NR in the first place.

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.

It doesn't surprise me at all. I know that there is NR applied even at zero NR settings, and this involuntary NR has increased over time. For a generation, Canon's sensor improvements have been ascribed to better DIGICs, which in fact means more NR is the ex-camera JPEGs, and of course the computer processing to old have to adapt to match the in-camera JPEGs, so they gain more NR.

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.

You miss the point entirely, whatever the point of that picture, there are many where you're trying to retain details in the shadows. That available image was just being used as a working example. A typical one I struggle with with the Canon is texture in black leather furniture. You end up having to choose between NR which blurs the natural leather texture to nothingness or pattern noise which also obliterates it, even at 100 ISO.

-- hide signature --

Bob

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Myth, Myth and Myth

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

Mainly for his report purposes for a balance, otherwise any readers no doubt will find out which camera he actually preferred and used in his trip.

Fred also admitted he didn't process RAW further (rather just OOC RAW) and said it could address the issue if gave a bit more exposure (ETTR). Provided he posted CR2 raw somewhere I can process and get rid of banding that I am 100% sure.

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 handling

Regardless what camera you can get far better result in PP. Otherwise you are better to shoot JPEG directly from cameras that will be better than shooting RAW with zero processing.

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

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: If this were true Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

so explain what you are saying so I understand

  1. are the CFA in Canon steep as in Nikon.

This is irrelevant. The question is not how steep they are but how well you can approximate the human color vision, under different lighting, in the colors that matter (which is highly subjective). Very steep color filters will do a terrible job at that.

  1. is the color accuracy equal in 5500K from Canon , now Im talking about the CFA

Hard to say and even harder to define. DXO do measure the Sensitivity Metamerism Index, and it is somewhat higher for Nikon in general but not always, for example the 5D2 has a higher indices than the D610 under daylight and tungsten light. And this is just one number which does not tell us what happens for different colors, and for those "which matter".

  1. Are there a difference in the red CFA

There are differences in all CFAs but Canon's is closer to the human vision. Which does not automatically make it better. The cones of your eyes cannot separate well red from green either.

  1. Has Canon thinned out their color filters to enhance light sensitivity

Nobody knows. If they did that, this would lower the noise with RAW measurements but would increase it in direct comparisons because the color matrix would be "big". Also, have you actually measured the physical thickness of the filters?

  1. Has Canon experimented with the green channel and had two different shades of green for example in 7D ?

I do not know, and do not care since for me, the 7D has the worst sensor of the newer Canon cameras. Every two cameras from the same manufacturer have different CFA filters, Nikon included.

return when you have the right answers

Do not patronize me. You are hardly the ultimate authority when it comes to right answers.

BTW, did you read that wiki page? Do it.

If you don't know, why are you discussing then ? is your only purpose to defend Canon?

-- 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

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: If this were true Re: D610 vs. 5D Mark III

Daniel Lee Taylor wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

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

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

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

That DXO is a joke shows your own ignorance.

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

real life? you have trouble to understand the word DR and what you can do or not in real life

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

-- 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

DFPanno
DFPanno Veteran Member • Posts: 5,505
And here is yet another perspective...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Just my $.02

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads