Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: mr purdy on April 14, 2012, 12:04:32 am
-
These videos are some of the best camera tests I have seen in years.
Part 1: studio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTo7UxbJX8
Part 2: low light action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W9EeDCaVFM
-
Hi,
Part two is about sports/report type of shooting in bad light. Tells what the Canon is really good at!
Best regards
Erik
These videos are some of the best camera tests I have seen in years.
Part 1: studio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTo7UxbJX8
Part 2: low light action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W9EeDCaVFM
-
It seems like they are trying too hard to defend the 5DIII's good points though
Marc
-
Harping on the frame rate is a bit silly. The D800 is categorically not a PJ camera. The differences in AWB were interesting.
-
Hi,
I essentially agree. Nikon aims for ultimate mage quality and Canon seems to set it's focus on photojournalism and sport. The reason is probably that Nikon needed an affordable 20+ MP camera and Canon probably has not the sensor technology to compete head on with Nikon.
Best regards
Erik
Harping on the frame rate is a bit silly. The D800 is categorically not a PJ camera. The differences in AWB were interesting.
-
The D800 is categorically not a PJ camera.
Why? PJ has been done with cameras that don't have the specs of the D800. There really is not such thing as a landscape camera or a PJ camera. That is just marketers speaking and I have long ago learnt to ignore those folks. The D800 will make a fine camera for photojournalism and documentary work.
-
It seems like they are trying too hard to defend the 5DIII's good points though
Marc
It seemed to me that in their attempt to be "fair and balanced", they were unwilling to call out the pros/cons of each camera and mostly tried to minimize or gloss over them. For instance saying "Yeah the D800 has more detail but the 5D3 has enough", or not going into DR much at all except to say they're both "good enough", and saying both have similar noise performance without getting into what that really mean for the higher-res D800. The only clear-cut "winner" they seemed willing to declare was the 5D3 AF.
(disclaimer, I haven't watched part 2 yet)
-
It seemed to me that in their attempt to be "fair and balanced", they were unwilling to call out the pros/cons of each camera and mostly tried to minimize or gloss over them. For instance saying "Yeah the D800 has more detail but the 5D3 has enough", or not going into DR much at all except to say they're both "good enough", and saying both have similar noise performance without getting into what that really mean for the higher-res D800. The only clear-cut "winner" they seemed willing to declare was the 5D3 AF.
(disclaimer, I haven't watched part 2 yet)
You should watch part 2.
I didn't feel that they made excuses for anything. I felt that in their practical experience the many of the differences were minimal. They way relatively tiny differences in detail, but not much to sweat about. Same with D.R. - slight differences are there but not enough to change the character of the photo to the extent that you would switch systems or anything ;-)
Anyway this sure beats shooting stuffed animals on a tabletop, rez charts, or brick walls, IMO.
Again, watch part 2.
The only thing which really surprises me is how good the Canon's AF is - and it's better than the Nikon's.
-
Hi,
They did actually not do anything testing DR, really. The night shot was possibly closest to a DR-test.
Best regards
Erik
You should watch part 2.
I didn't feel that they made excuses for anything. I felt that in their practical experience the many of the differences were minimal. They way relatively tiny differences in detail, but not much to sweat about. Same with D.R. - slight differences are there but not enough to change the character of the photo to the extent that you would switch systems or anything ;-)
Anyway this sure beats shooting stuffed animals on a tabletop, rez charts, or brick walls, IMO.
Again, watch part 2.
The only thing which really surprises me is how good the Canon's AF is - and it's better than the Nikon's.
-
Why? PJ has been done with cameras that don't have the specs of the D800. There really is not such thing as a landscape camera or a PJ camera. That is just marketers speaking and I have long ago learnt to ignore those folks. The D800 will make a fine camera for photojournalism and documentary work.
I'd have to disagree on that. A camera isn't much good for landscapes if it doesn't have the resolution to make large prints (60" wide) which still show fine detail close-up (closer than 'typical viewing distances' - we all know gallery audiences like to stick their noses into prints!), or if the lens can't provide corner-to-corner sharpness. A MFDB is pretty useless for journalism.
-
Hi,
They did actually not do anything testing DR, really. The night shot was possibly closest to a DR-test.
Best regards
Erik
Studio lighting can test DR too, but who knows how the lights were set, etc.
It would be nice to have a few of their RAW files...
Best,
-
I'd have to disagree on that. A camera isn't much good for landscapes if it doesn't have the resolution to make large prints (60" wide) which still show fine detail close-up (closer than 'typical viewing distances' - we all know gallery audiences like to stick their noses into prints!), or if the lens can't provide corner-to-corner sharpness.
Both of these cameras will show fine detail on a 60" print even at close viewing distances. Many other cameras will as well. All my lenses produce corner to corner sharpness and that has nothing to do with camera type. So the 5DmkIII is no less a "landscape" camera than the D800.
A MFDB is pretty useless for journalism.
Why? I use a Pentax 645D for documentary photography. Steve McCurry uses a Hasselblad MFD camera. I know photographers that use 4x5 for journalism.
I see nothing that supports that a particular type of camera (and the irony is the 5DmkIII and D800 are the same type of camera) is for a particular type of photography. Unless, of course, I was a marketer.
-
Well I would love to have both but for me the 5d mk111 is a great upgrade and would like to have tow of them . Yes I do journalism and low light and concerts. For concerts 6 fps is about ideal 4 is too slow and 10 fps too much I say that as I have mk1v and dial them down to 6 fps for the last three years. The nikon I would make to work but it is too slow in reality. 60 inch prints wow that is huge. My printer goes 24 wide inch wide and have no desire for larger. But I wish I could afford both but cannot. We really have great choices these days. Now canon make a 30 plus meg so I do not dream of medium format anymore.
-
It seemed to me that in their attempt to be "fair and balanced", they were unwilling to call out the pros/cons of each camera and mostly tried to minimize or gloss over them. For instance saying "Yeah the D800 has more detail but the 5D3 has enough", or not going into DR much at all except to say they're both "good enough", and saying both have similar noise performance without getting into what that really mean for the higher-res D800.
I had the same feeling that the reviewers were reluctant too harshly criticize either camera. But in part II, the external reviewer is a photo journalist who comments that his target is newsprint (don't need much resolution for that) and even for double page spread in a magazine, either camera should do fine. In part I, the reviewer is a portrait photographer who is using controlled lighting so DR may not really be an issue there either. So it may really be that at this point DR and resolution are good enough in both cameras for those uses.
It would be nice if for part III they got a landscape photographer or someone who is making fine art prints, but I think they said it's going to focus on video capability.
-
Why? PJ has been done with cameras that don't have the specs of the D800. There really is not such thing as a landscape camera or a PJ camera. That is just marketers speaking and I have long ago learnt to ignore those folks. The D800 will make a fine camera for photojournalism and documentary work.
Not the way PJs shoot today. They have come to rely on the high frame rate to fire off a quick burst then pick the best frame of the bunch. The days of being careful, waiting, anticipating and capturing the right moment are long gone. For the most part. There is the odd one who's more conservative in their use of the burst rate but not many. Look at the video. That's exactly what they did and talked about in reviewing the images. It's not quite 'spray 'n pray' but it's not far off.
I'd have to disagree on that. A camera isn't much good for landscapes if it doesn't have the resolution to make large prints (60" wide) which still show fine detail close-up (closer than 'typical viewing distances' - we all know gallery audiences like to stick their noses into prints!), or if the lens can't provide corner-to-corner sharpness. A MFDB is pretty useless for journalism.
Really depends on the size of prints you make. Not everyone prints big. Some still view photography as a more intimate viewing experience and prefer smaller prints as a result.
I essentially agree. Nikon aims for ultimate mage quality and Canon seems to set it's focus on photojournalism and sport. The reason is probably that Nikon needed an affordable 20+ MP camera and Canon probably has not the sensor technology to compete head on with Nikon.
Not sure Canon is unconcerned with image quality, Erik. And there are fewer of those white lenses at sporting events too. Nikon's been making inroads into the PJ realm for a number of years now.
-
I think this was a interesting comparison. I think that they did a good job being neutral and not leaning towards one or the other. I think it is clear that both cameras are pretty solid performers.
Speed and low light performance : 5DMIII
Resolution : D800
I was disappointed in Canon at first, but thinking about it, I'm not sure there are not many lenses from either side that handle this resolution. But I guess we will see if I am wrong with more and more users of both cameras.
-
Speed and low light performance : 5DMIII
Well, I have not shot the 5DIII, but the AF and low light performance of the D800 are pretty much incredible in my book.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I agree, what I have seen looks really clean from D800. I have shot neither camera, but the Canon has more fps (speed) and I'm sure it does have a edge in ISO, but I think the edge is smaller than expected in ISO.
Well, I have not shot the 5DIII, but the AF and low light performance of the D800 are pretty much incredible in my book.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd have to disagree on that. A camera isn't much good for landscapes if it doesn't have the resolution to make large prints (60" wide) which still show fine detail close-up (closer than 'typical viewing distances' - we all know gallery audiences like to stick their noses into prints!), or if the lens can't provide corner-to-corner sharpness. A MFDB is pretty useless for journalism.
Who the hell determined that landscape photography doesn't qualify as landscape photography unless it's printed at 60" wide? This is preposterous.
Roy
-
Who the hell determined that landscape photography doesn't qualify as landscape photography unless it's printed at 60" wide? This is preposterous.
Roy
Indeed! I have been in NY for 20 years, and seen Ansel Adams prints a million times. Not one of them was 60" wide :P
-
I'm sure both cameras are excellent, but when you look at Michael's D800 comparison with the D800e, it makes me think that under the same conditions, the 5D3 would come in a distant third. That's because this is a landscape site, with a bias toward landscape work -- out of doors, with a premium on fine resolution. For journalism work, almost any current camera would work, well down into the amateur DSLRs. I note that the new Nikon D3200 will have a 24mp sensor, will sell for $700 *with* an 18-55mm (27-~82mm effective) lens.
On the other hand, *no* famous landscape photo relies for its fame on resolution.
-
I note that the new Nikon D3200 will have a 24mp sensor, will sell for $700 *with* an 18-55mm (27-~82mm effective) lens.
Yes: along with the Sony A77 and NEX7, the sensor resolution gap from very affordable hobbyist level to the D800 or even the Leica S2 or a HD4-40 is rather modest: at 300ppi, it is the difference between print widths of 20" vs 25" ... with Canon's 22MP sensors "languishing" at a mere 19" and the D4 and 1D X another inch or two behind.
And Erik K. has shown that a variety of lenses are capable of making good use of the A77 sensor's resolution, so hopefully no one will repeat claims about these "tiny pixels" being hopelessly diffraction limited, or absolutely needing "Zeiss glass" rather than crappy Nikon lenses.
-
Indeed! I have been in NY for 20 years, and seen Ansel Adams prints a million times. Not one of them was 60" wide :P
It is a can of worms to even bring him up, but Adams did not have the dynamic range in the toe that people seem to consider so critical now. Adams prints had big swaths of deep blacks (dmax?) that seemed to swallow all the light in the room. He had different materials, and those materials contributed to his art that make up a huge part of the landscape tradition that we are building on. We have new tools, and new things are possible, including small prints. Awhile back I saw a exhibit of original Edward Weston prints. Photos I have seen in books, posters, calendars.... well, the "originals" were 4x5 contact prints. Quite beautiful IMHO, they blew me away.
But back to the video reviews, I found them refreshing. After reading so much speculation and "math," charts, graphs, etc, finally people are actually taking pictures with these cameras. Also, consider the source. They are a camera store, after all. They have to sell to both camps, keep their respective camera reps happy. I also found it refreshing that someone will admit to shooting jpgs. I hope there is not lynch party out for that guy!
I do sympathize with someone trying to sell a 60" print in a gallery. That has to be a tough customer, a tough way to make a living.
It is spring time, where I live, go takes some photos! Make some art, or whatever!
John
-
Indeed! I have been in NY for 20 years, and seen Ansel Adams prints a million times. Not one of them was 60" wide :P
What the hell does AA know about landscape compared to the pixel peepers on this site? :)
-
What the hell does AA know about landscape compared to the pixel peepers on this site? :)
probably because the technical capability didn't exist. New technology opens up new possibilities. If Shakespeare lived today, he'd probably make movies. If Mozart were allive, he'd probably have written music for the electric guitar.
-
probably because the technical capability didn't exist. New technology opens up new possibilities. If Shakespeare lived today, he'd probably make movies. If Mozart were allive, he'd probably have written music for the electric guitar.
And AA would undoubtly be a stitcher! :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And AA would undoubtly be a stitcher! :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
I know you said that tongue-in-cheek...but it's an interesting comment, and I sort of doubt it -- I think a lot of his most famous pictures are of one precise moment, or, at least, give you that sense.
-
... I do sympathize with someone trying to sell a 60" print in a gallery. That has to be a tough customer, a tough way to make a living...
But that's how Peter Lik makes his millions, not by selling 4x5s, but by bathtub-size ones (http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html). Size matters and size sells.
-
I know you said that tongue-in-cheek...but it's an interesting comment, and I sort of doubt it -- I think a lot of his most famous pictures are of one precise moment, or, at least, give you that sense.
On the other hand, some of his great 8x10” format pictures involve exposure times of about a minute (f/64, very slow film, shadowed scenes) -- not so "precise" a moment. I guess that AA today would experiment with stitching for some shots. After all, he was a gear-head and lab rat as well as an artist.
By the way, he did produce at least a few very large prints, perhaps mostly for special events like a World's Fair exhibit. But print formats like 20"x16" and less seem more usual for his gallery prints. And with those jumbo prints seemingly intended for viewing from further away in situations with large crowds viewing, they quite likely did not need more resolution that a carefully examined 20x16.
Another note: at f/64 in 10"x8" format, the diffraction limit on resolution is about as for f/8 in 35mm format ---how many pixels worth is that?!
-
I took DxOMark's Dynamic Range plot, IMO the most useful since it shows noise performance in the deep shadows (where noise is really an issue), for every ISO value. Canon 5D3, 5D2 and Nikon D800 are compared:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/rd.gif)
Interpretation to whom may be interested:
At base ISO (typical tripod or well lit applications):
- Both Canons perform the same, so no improvement in the new 5D3's sensor.
- Nikon D800 outperforms the Canons by more than 2 stops, this means deep shadows noise in the Canons is more than 4 times Nikon's level of noise (noise is doubled for every extra stop in the deep shadows). Translating this into a real case, for example in arquitecture or interiors, this may mean one shot is enough in the D800 and at least one extra shot is needed in the Canons in a reasonably high DR scene.
At high ISO (typical handheld low light applications):
- Sony's sensor in the Nikon behaves as the ISOless sensors found in the Pentax K5, Nikon D7000,... This means nearly 1 stop of DR is lost for every 1 stop ISO is pushed. It's almost not worth pushing ISO in order to get proper RAW exposure because noise improvement is minimal.
- Canons on the other side both behave as typical Canons, nearly maintaining their DR capability when pushing ISO, specially in the first steps 100->200, 200->400,... so it's critical in them pushing ISO as soon as RAW underexposure can take place at base ISO.
- The result is that from ISO1600 there is no winner between the D800 and the 5D3, which means a slight improvement over the 5D2.
IMO Canon must improve its DR at base ISO, or they will suffer in the mid/long term against the competition. More than 2 stops is a huge advantage for tripod photographers!.
Regards
-
As far as I can tell, the improvement at high Exposure Index but not at low indicates that compared to the 5D2, the 5D3
- Has significantly less read noise from the photosites, this being the noise floor seen at high EI, low light situations.
- Has about the same noise level downstream, entering the signal after variable gain for EI adjustment has been applied, with this downstream noise dominating at low EI, meaning with low gain levels.
This is noise either in the output stages of the variable gain amplifier, or in transportation from there to the ADC, or in the ADC. My guess is the first, with this variable gain applied early, in the signal transfer from photosite to sense capacitors at the end of each column of photosites. That early amplification strategy (if I am right about it) seems to be beneficial for achieving low noise in low light (high EI) situations, slightly better than the D800 achieved, bit at the cost of performance in good light thst is good, but no longer "state of the art".
Maybe Canon judges this to be the best balance that it can currently achieve for expected use patterns. And with its excellent AF and Canon's excellent longer focal length offerings, this might be good for users whose most challenging situations are subjects like wildlife and sports and other action.
-
While looking at the charts and graphs, I am reminded that the 5D2 (and original 5D for that matter) served me well in terms of IQ, and NOT ONCE did I miss my exposure so badly that I had to bring up shadows so far as to reveal the pattern noise (shooting fashion and food.) Not once.
As to DXO: I have seem a number of side-by-side tests with 5D2 vs. 5D3, and the newer camera has a lot less noise and such in the shadows, so I am curious as how it ends up with the same DR measurement according to DXO.
e.g.:
(http://galleries.stevemelvin.com/670C0973.jpg)
(http://galleries.stevemelvin.com/670C0973-2.jpg)
(http://galleries.stevemelvin.com/670C0973-4.jpg)
And here is the final image:
http://galleries.stevemelvin.com/670C0973-3.jpg
These are not my images - they were posted by www.stevemelvin.com to show a test of the 5D3's D.R. capabilities.
As you can see in the samples above, even with a HUGE push in the shadows, the new 5D3 seems to have much less of a pattern noise issue when jacking up the shadows ;-) That last image is a 100% crop.
So for my work, I am sure that the new 5D3 will be fine as well. Aside from some"landscape" guys, I find it hard to believe that many people shoot in such a way that they need to rely on bringing up shadows by 3, 4, or 5 stops to get the image they need. What happened to proper exposure? :P
I know these debates will go on until the end of time, but rest assured: MANY HUGE ad campaigns will budgets in the millions (Guess, Disney, Lancome, Avon, Ralph Lauren, Louis Vuitton...) are shot on a daily basis with these cameras and no one seems to be complaining too badly.
-
It has less *pattern* noise in the shadows, but DR measurements don't include pattern noise.
It has less shadow noise at very high ISOs, but that isn't where DR is measured - DR is significantly lower at high ISO anyway.
Shadow noise, minus pattern noise, is about the same at base ISO. Which is why DR is similar.
-
While looking at the charts and graphs, I am reminded that the 5D2 (and original 5D for that matter) served me well in terms of IQ, and NOT ONCE did I miss my exposure so badly that I had to bring up shadows so far as to reveal the pattern noise (shooting fashion and food.) Not once.
I think the main case for bringing shadows up substantially is not fixing exposure errors, or studio work wth controlled lighting, but some naturally lit scenes with very high subject brightness range, like a mixture of bright sky above and deep shadows below, or an interior with view through a window to a sunlit outside. Or like your example! Situations that caused us old-timers to resort to printing at very low contrast and/or with lots of dodging and burning to fit into the six stop or so range of a print.
P. S. And I do not dispute that the difference might only be relevant to a small proportion of cases, with most extreme SBR challenges. That is the hazard of looking at numbers without context. For example, if the DR scores were 20 stops vs 30, would that ever matter in practice?
By the way, what ISO speed is your example at? [EDIT] sorry, I mean where can I get details of Stephen Melvin's example: I misread this as being your photo and you being him. [END EDIT]
-
It has less *pattern* noise in the shadows, but DR measurements don't include pattern noise.
It has less shadow noise at very high ISOs, but that isn't where DR is measured - DR is significantly lower at high ISO anyway.
Shadow noise, minus pattern noise, is about the same at base ISO. Which is why DR is similar.
Whatever you want to call it - the above example looks to me to be a far cry from what boosting shadows on the 5D2 would get you.
AND, importantly, while one file is prettier and more useful than the other, they receive the same "score." Raising the question of how useful such tests are.
BJL: I know there are times when extreme DR is needed. That is why I mentioned the kinds of work I do. But even when I shoot travel landscapes it is rarely an issue in any practical sense. (again IMO)
Just my opinions :P
-
Stephen Ron, [sorry also for the name confusion]
Sorry, I was editing my reply while you responded. I think we pretty much agree about putting the extent of the issue in practical context.
-
I'd say the differences are very relevant in my day-to-day photography.
With my 5D2, I need to use multiple blended exposures for almost every shot where the horizon won't allow a GND. Many of my shots have strong backlighting, or otherwise high dynamic range. When using my friend's D3x, I don't need to - I can get great results just by pushing the shadows a bit.
Multiple exposures aren't always practical - often, there will be moving elements in a scene (leaves rustling in the wind, grass moving a bit) which make it impossible to stack them, and many public places (including many national monuments in some countries) won't allow tripods. Moreover, many competitions explicitly forbid photos created from multiple exposures.
And the improved dynamic range make lenses with bulbous front elements - the Nikon 14-24, for example, before the customised Lee filter holder came out - much more useable.
-
I'd say the differences are very relevant in my day-to-day photography.
With my 5D2, I need to use multiple blended exposures ... When using my friend's D3x, I don't need to - I can get great results just by pushing the shadows a bit.
It might be nice to survey 5D2/5D3 users in this forum, on how often and in what circumstances a few more stops of DR (at base ISO speed) would help, by avoiding ND filters, HDR blending or such. I have no idea of how many are in shadowblades's situation vs how many are in Stephen Melvin's (mr purdy or Ron Purdy's) vs other scenarios.
-
It might be nice to survey 5D2/5D3 users in this forum, on how often and in what circumstances a few more stops of DR (at base ISO speed) would help,
Don't get me wrong, it would be great to have 20 stops of DR at all times!
I am just making the point that I have had not one shoot which failed due to lack of DR.
(but again, I am no Ansel Adams ;-)
(http://www.ronpurdy.com/folio6/IMG_1314.jpg)
-
As to DXO: I have seem a number of side-by-side tests with 5D2 vs. 5D3, and the newer camera has a lot less noise and such in the shadows, so I am curious as how it ends up with the same DR measurement according to DXO.
There does indeed seem to be a lot of conflicting reports about the relative performance of the 5D2 and 5D3. Unless one is able to examine the RAW files, one is not able to determine or verify the accuracy of the conclusions and the soundness of the methodology. Even when the RAW images are made available, there may be no guarantee that the lighting conditions were the same for both shots, especially when comparing sun-lit, outdoor scenes with the sun blazing through shifting clouds, as in the shot you present from Stephen Melvin.
Nevertheless, as an owner of the original 5D, I'm well aware of the banding problem. I would have thought that Canon would have fixed it in the 5D2. If they haven't, perhaps just improved the situation slightly, they should certainly have fixed the problem in the 5D3.
However, I don't think I've ever seen any comparisons of 5D2 and 5D3 deep shadows showing banding in the 5D2 shot and a lack of it in the 5D3 shot. However, I have seen comparisons on Dpreview demonstrating approximately equal noise in the shadows of shots from both cameras taken inside a church.
I suppose a relevant question might be, do the deep levels of shadows that contain more visible banding in the 5D2 shot, have acceptable noise in other respects that would make such shadows presentable in a print, or more likely, if the shadows are so deep that banding is visible in the 5D2 shot, would it be the case that both the 5D2 and 5D3 shots would still have unacceptable levels of noise.
I never found even with the original 5D that shadow noise in general was acceptable whenever banding reared its ugly head, which is why I never showed much interest in techniques to remove the banding.
-
He has some great thoughts about both of these cameras after taking them on a trip:
In short: D800: better DR at low ISO; better rez for large prints; but miserable live view implementation
5D3: great all-rounder.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index.html
One of his 5D3 shots:
(http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/00_review%20images/_MG_8838.jpg)
And one from the D800:
(http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/00_review%20images/_DAD3084.jpg)
-
He has some great thoughts about both of these cameras after taking them on a trip:
In short: D800: better DR at low ISO; better rez for large prints; but miserable live view implementation
5D3: great all-rounder.
The photos are certainly beautiful, but that fact alone does not necessarily have any direct bearing on the technical quality of the camera.
That the D800 has higher resolution and is good for larger prints, is a given. It hardly needs mentioning, except for the benefit of the complete novice. Likewise with the faster frame rate of the 5D3. These are the most easy-to-understand specs.
However, issues of noise, DR, high-ISO performance, autofocussing speed and accuracy, tracking of moving objects such as birds in flight, and ease of manual focussing when employing Live View, are all matters that should be addressed.
DXO addresses only some of these issues. The fact that the hi-rez LCD screen on the D800 doesn't seem to produce sharp, clear images at high magnification when manually focussing, is a bit of a mystery worth investigating. I'd be surprised if this is a design flaw rather than an initial bug which will eventually be fixed with a firmware update.
If it is a design flaw that can't be fixed, I'm disappointed. I remember well having difficulty being certain I was properly focussed with my Canon 40D in Live View mode. The LCD screen was only 230,000 pixels, and at 10x enlargement the image was a bit fuzzy. This is one of the reasons I was quick to upgrade to the 50D with a 920,000 pixel LCD screen.
The level of detail on the 50D's LCD screen in Live View mode at 10x magnification, with a 400mm lens attached to the camera, is simply amazing.
-
Nobody seems to mention that frame rate can be increased on the D800 in DX format
Marc
-
If it is a design flaw that can't be fixed, I'm disappointed. I remember well having difficulty being certain I was properly focussed with my Canon 40D in Live View mode. The LCD screen was only 230,000 pixels, and at 10x enlargement the image was a bit fuzzy. This is one of the reasons I was quick to upgrade to the 50D with a 920,000 pixel LCD screen.
The level of detail on the 50D's LCD screen in Live View mode at 10x magnification, with a 400mm lens attached to the camera, is simply amazing.
Not sure what he saw, but the D800's live view enables easy focusing in my book. However one has tobe aware that normal magnification seems to be mapping one screen pixel to one sensor pixel (meaning about 10 times magnification), while the high magnification is a 23x zoom, which I find very helpful, but which can come acctoss as unsharp.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Don't get me wrong, it would be great to have 20 stops of DR at all times!
I am just making the point that I have had not one shoot which failed due to lack of DR.
(but again, I am no Ansel Adams ;-)
(http://www.ronpurdy.com/folio6/IMG_1314.jpg)
That all depends on the kind of images you shoot. If your scenes have a low DR you will never miss a larger DR, this is obvious.
In your example image, a higher DR camera would have allowed you to expose a couple stops less the RAW file, then process it to have the same exposure and final IQ (noise) in the model, but no clipped areas on the right.
Moreover, a large DR sensor is useful not only for high DR scenes but for other purposes. I wrote an article about this; most of the points are so obvious that probably users never think of them.
A HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE CAMERA IS USEFUL FOR:
- Capturing high DR scenes
- Correcting underexposure mistakes
- Getting more sharpness and DOF in low light conditions
- Improving framing, composition, focus,...
- Extreme tone mapping in the shadows
The article is in Spanish but with online translation: WHAT IS DYNAMIC RANGE USEFUL FOR? (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/dr/index.htm).
Regards
-
makes me wonder how people managed with the inferior dynamically challenged 5DII for so long. ::)
-
makes me wonder how people managed with the inferior dynamically challenged 5DII for so long. ::)
They rented MFDB for serious shooting? ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
makes me wonder how people managed with the inferior dynamically challenged 5DII for so long. ::)
Expectations of photographers and viewers seems to be following the trend of what is possible at the time.
While a 486 PC running Windows 3.11 might have seemed fast and useful in 1992, it seems like a dinosaur today. Not because it does not work as good as it did in 1992, but because we have seen how much better thing can be.
Give a gifted photographic artist an iPhone, and he may produce stunning images.
-h
-
makes me wonder how people managed with the inferior dynamically challenged 5DII for so long. ::)
By throwing out multiple-exposure shots where the exposures didn't line up due to (usually subtle) subject movement, and by throwing out compositionally-good photos which were compromised by the inability to push shadows.
Better technology doesn't necessarily let you take better photos - it just lets you get more keepers. Just like you'd often get more keepers shooting action with a 10fps body as compared with a 3fps body.
-
Not sure what he saw, but the D800's live view enables easy focusing in my book. However one has tobe aware that normal magnification seems to be mapping one screen pixel to one sensor pixel (meaning about 10 times magnification), while the high magnification is a 23x zoom, which I find very helpful, but which can come acctoss as unsharp.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard,
I did a bit of searching on the internet for Live View problems with the D800, and came across the following account from Nikon Rumors.
The next issue involves tethered shooting: "We met up today and he asked if we could check my D800 behavior in manual exposure mode with live view on and/or camera control tethered to the camera. He had found that his D4 had an issue that when in live view in manual exposure mode, the live view or computer window view would stop down as you decreased aperture or increased shutter speed.
At smallest apertures it was impossible to see what you were focusing on, kind of like a "full time depth of field preview". This problem could not be remedied unless you momentarily tapped the shutter to autofocus, but then the view would go dark again. This problem doesn't seem to be present when using live view in any automatic modes, only full manual mode.
My buddy contacted an individual at Nikon that verified the behavior on a D4 there at Nikon. Apparently the individual was a bit surprised by the development and told my buddy that he will need to check this out further and get back to him. Back to my D800; the problem is also present on my D800 firmware 1.00. This will make tethered studio shooting difficult unless corrected."
I guess one of the disadvantages of being amongst the first customers to receive a new product, is that one runs the risk of experiencing such difficulties, which hopefully can be fixed with firmware updates. The 5D3 seems to have a light leakage problem that affects exposure in certain conditions.
Glad you're not having problems with your unit.
Cheers! Ray
-
I guess one of the disadvantages of being amongst the first customers to receive a new product, is that one runs the risk of experiencing such difficulties, which hopefully can be fixed with firmware updates. The 5D3 seems to have a light leakage problem that affects exposure in certain conditions.
There are several known by-pass for this. The easiest is to switch from photo to film live view since these 2 modes can retain different shutter speed settings in M mode.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
makes me wonder how people managed with the inferior dynamically challenged 5DII for so long. ::)
Hell, people managed with horses quite nicely too, until those damn cars came along!
-
There are several known by-pass for this.
I cannot tell for sure, but this and a few other comments from Fred Miranda sound like consequences of his knowing his way around Canon SLRs well while being less familiar with best practice usage of the Nikon system. Sort of like both Macintosh and Windows users finding the other OS "harder to use and less intuitive" when they must briefly go over to the dark side to work on a friend's or a colleague's computer.
At least he did not complain about the Nikon focus rings going the wrong way!
-
+1 ;-)
Hell, people managed with horses quite nicely too, until those damn cars came along!
-
That all depends on the kind of images you shoot. If your scenes have a low DR you will never miss a larger DR, this is obvious.
In your example image, a higher DR camera would have allowed you to expose a couple stops less the RAW file, then process it to have the same exposure and final IQ (noise) in the model, but no clipped areas on the right.
Hello , my image of the model was not intended to be a high DR sample shot. It’s just a random. And all of the wallpaper (highlight) info was there in the RAW file – however I processed it at a higher contrast setting because it looks better that way (IMO). That image was shot with the original 5D. (And guess what - it got me tons more work, even with the highlights on the wallpaper :P)
Back on topic: The question is to what extent does a technically superior (higher DR) tool help in the end, when each camera is already very good. And whom does it help. It was said that the landscape photographer would have the greatest need for the D.R.
Then we see the FM shots – which in my opinion are FAR better than most of what I see on photo blogs and forums.
Look over his Nikon images (there are a bunch) and look over the Canon images.
Are the Nikon images better? Do they look better? Would anyone who did not read about these images have ANY IDEA what camera shot them? Would you know?
It gets back to what I said earlier about tons of the biggest ad campaigns in the world being shot with whatever camera the photographer uses and likes (Canons or Nikons, DB, etc.). You see Mario Testino shooting with a back, and a Canon interchangeably in the same shoot..think you can tell which images in that issue of Vogue were shot with which camera? You can not. Same with Greg Kadel – shoots the wide angles shots with Canons and the longer shots (in the same layout) with a back. Can you tell which is which in print? No.
I know people will say it’s because the print is not large enough, the paper is crap in Vogue, etc. etc. These discussion will never end…
We did just get a very skilled landscape guy’s test images here in some very difficult and high D.R. shooting conditions – and guess what – they all look good! (at least to my eye.) And that is my point.
-
... We did just get a very skilled landscape guy’s test images here in some very difficult and high D.R. shooting conditions – and guess what – they all look good! (at least to my eye.) And that is my point.
And your point is correct... and irrelevant. On the web, even Holga looks good.
The point you are missing, however, is that we are talking about landscape shooters. From the day one 5DIII appeared it was clear to almost everyone that it is good enough for event, wedding, studio, fashion, and photojournalism shooters.That is, those who would hardly ever print bigger than magazine doubles-spread.
The point you are missing is that landscape shooters, at least those who make a living selling prints in galleries, print way bigger than a Vogue double spread. You need to see it to believe, the size Michael Fatali prints from his 8x10 camera, Peter Lik from his 6x17 film cameras and lately MFDB, Andreas Gursky, etc. They are often bathtub sized, or even longer, the size of the conference table of a really big and rich corporation. These are examples where the difference in resolution and DR really matters.
-
Slobodan, I did not miss any of those points you mentioned.
Being in NY (AKA: Gallery Central) I have seem a million huge prints (Gursky, Sally Mann, Avedon, Sebastiao Salgado, Alec Soth, David Alan Harvey, etc., etc.) HUGE prints.
From where I stand, Fred Miranda is going to get a response of WOW from those images, instead of people stepping to 3 inches away from the print and talking pixels and dynamic range. I would put money on it.
P.S. Slobodan, I see you have some (very) impressive landscapes on your Flickr site shot with a 20d! Just saying ;-)
-
Hello , my image of the model was not intended to be a high DR sample shot. It’s just a random. And all of the wallpaper (highlight) info was there in the RAW file – however I processed it at a higher contrast setting because it looks better that way (IMO). That image was shot with the original 5D.
It was just an example to illustrate. I didnt' mean your RAW files were clipped or that the blown areas could not be intended. Just meant that clipped RAW files can more easily be avoided with a high DR camera by exposing less, without prejudice of shadows noise.
I also own the original 5D, and I know the fantastic studio pictures like yours it can produce, despite its very poor DR according to today's standards.
Regards
-
It was just an example to illustrate. I didnt' mean your RAW files were clipped or that the blown areas could not be intended. Just meant that clipped RAW files can more easily be avoided with a high DR camera by exposing less, without prejudice of shadows noise.
I also own the original 5D, and I know the fantastic studio pictures like yours it can produce, despite its very poor DR according to today's standards.
Regards
Indeed. Nice work on your website, by the way.
-
I can answer that. With pain. >:(
Eduardo
makes me wonder how people managed with the inferior dynamically challenged 5DII for so long. ::)
-
Not sure what he saw, but the D800's live view enables easy focusing in my book. However one has tobe aware that normal magnification seems to be mapping one screen pixel to one sensor pixel (meaning about 10 times magnification), while the high magnification is a 23x zoom, which I find very helpful, but which can come acctoss as unsharp.
Wow, I have now read the article and the whole argument against the D800 - including the fact that Mr. Miranda hardly shot any image with it - is based on "the fact" that high magnification images are pixelated... How could they not be pixelated knowing that the camera has to map 3 screen pixels to one sensor pixel?
I find this a bit surprising from a top reviewer like Mr. Miranda.
The one comment that makes sense is the fact that there is no easy way to focus in live view using the lens wide open. This is a real pain and I sure hope Nikon can fix this quickly with a firmware update. The easy by-pass is of course to focus wide open and then to stop down the lens to the desired aperture, which takes no more than 2 seconds (more like 0.5 seconds for lenses like the Zeiss that have an aperture ring) and is negligible compared to the rest of the operations needed to take one image on tripod, but I agree that this should be improved.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wow, I have now read the article and the whole argument against the D800 - including the fact that Mr. Miranda hardly shot any image with it - is based on "the fact" that high magnification images are pixelated... How could they not be pixelated knowing that the camera has to map 3 screen pixels to one sensor pixel?
I find this a bit surprising from a top reviewer like Mr. Miranda.
The one comment that makes sense is the fact that there is no easy way to focus in live view using the lens wide open. This is a real pain and I sure hope Nikon can fix this quickly with a firmware update. The easy by-pass is of course to focus wide open and then to stop down the lens to the desired aperture, which takes no more than 2 seconds (more like 0.5 seconds for lenses like the Zeiss that have an aperture ring) and is negligible compared to the rest of the operations needed to take one image on tripod, but I agree that this should be improved.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's actually not a very well-known fact - essentially, the D800's lower magnification is equal to Canon's top magnification (1 screen pixel for 1 sensor pixel), and the higher magnification is just useless.
Live view focusing wide-open should be easily fixable with a firmware update - there's no hardware-specific reason it can't be done.
-
That's actually not a very well-known fact - essentially, the D800's lower magnification is equal to Canon's top magnification (1 screen pixel for 1 sensor pixel), and the higher magnification is just useless.
Well, I agree with the fact that it may not be very well known, but you would expect a top reviewer like Mr. Miranda to check his facts before writing a whole review around a supposed critical weakness that ends up not being real.
As far as high magnification being useless, I respectfully disagree. I thought so at first, but I find it to be actually useful to fine tune focusing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, I agree with the fact that it may not be very well known, but you would expect a top reviewer like Mr. Miranda to check his facts before writing a whole review around a supposed critical weakness that ends up not being real.
As far as high magnification being useless, I respectfully disagree. I thought so at first, but I find it to be actually useful to fine tune focusing.
Cheers,
Bernard
Is his point about the CA in shifted images from the 24 shift lens valid? Or the corner sharpness in the same images?
-
Is his point about the CA in shifted images from the 24 shift lens valid? Or the corner sharpness in the same images?
Given FM's record on Live View, one has to wonder whether he was assessing CA and corner sharpness:
- at maximum magnification in Live View (and so magnifying the D800 images far more, and making imperfections more visible but possibly due to greater magnification rather than greater imperfections)
or
- at 100% on computer screen (so magnifying the D800 images moderately more).
I would be pleasantly surprised if he had gone so far as to compare images on a computer screen or print at equal size, as would be needed for fair comparisons, especially with lens comparisons.
-
While peepers are debating the virtues or perceived issues between the Canon 5D MkIII and the Nikon 800, I've been out shooting with my new 5D MkIII. It's an awesome upgrade to the 5D MkII, which I've owned for 3 years along with my 1Ds MkIII.
I shot an indoor karate tournament this weekend at ISO 16,000, no flash, using my 24-105 f4 L lens. The lighting was a horrible mix of daylight, tungsten and halogen gym lights. After tweaking the noise in LR4, the images are amazing, given the environment. You can see some of them here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/budjames1/sets/72157629872791817/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/budjames1/sets/72157629872791817/)
Let's get out and take pictures.
Cheers.
Bud
-
Amazingly mr Miranda has still not amended his review...
I have re-read the exact wording he is using... and he does in fact clearly mention that the issue with live view is due to the usage of high magnification.
But what I find very shocking is that he doesn't go on to write "but there is zero issue when using live view in normal magnification, forget about it guys, I messed up". So he does leave behind a very clear impression that live view on the D800 is unusable.
Pretty low work ethics I feel.
And yes... it is possible to worry about these topics and take images at the same time... live view focused images for that matter:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7249/6938098718_f9294210e3_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Amazingly mr Miranda has still not amended his review...
But what I find very shocking ...
Pretty low work ethics I feel.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, do you have the D800?
In any case, you should send Mr. Miranda an email describing how best to use the live view, instead of being "shocked" at his work ethic. Wouldn't that make more sense?
-
Bernard, do you have the D800?
In any case, you should send Mr. Miranda an email describing how best to use the live view, instead of being "shocked" at his work ethic. Wouldn't that make more sense?
Yes, I do own a D800.
Could you please PM me his email? A quick look on his site a few days back didn't show any link. Clicking on his name goes to a broken URL.
I also tried to create a user on his forum but my email is apparently already registered, pwd long forgotten... and I could not find a way to get the password sent again...
The basic harm was already done though... and the basic work ethics issue will still be there.
I don't know whether you ever have had the opportunity to review a product in a media with large diffusion, but I have personally felt a strong sense of responsibility. When you review a product and find issues with it, common sense dictates that you check first before reporting on an issue that can be anticipated to generate lots of visibility and noise. There is no way Mr Miranda can not have anticipated this.
Do you disagree with this view?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard - click the "lost password" button and you can PM him.
re:
"I don't know whether you ever have had the opportunity to review a product in a media with large diffusion, but I have personally felt a strong sense of responsibility. When you review a product and find issues with it, common sense dictates that you check first before reporting on an issue that can be anticipated to generate lots of visibility and noise."
Not doing so reveals poor work ethics. Does it makes sense to you?"
About your question quoted above, I think you are being overly sensitive and defensive. It's just a camera, and he is just a photographer, like us. His first impression was that it is not a great implementation, and he is not the only one who thinks so. It did not help him focus the camera, and that is the issue . I am not going to discuss this particular "work ethic" issue with you anymore. But like I said, if you find an issue with someone's review, send him the info which he needs. He will probably appreciate it, and he might even update his review. And then you can rest easy ;-)
-
Bernard - click the "lost password" button and you can PM him.
OK, thanks.
Mail sent to Fred Miranda.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
About your question quoted above, I think you are being overly sensitive and defensive. It's just a camera, and he is just a photographer, like us.
I have nothing to defend.
But Fred Miranda is not just a photographer, his hat when he writes such articles is that of a reknown camera reviewer.
Enough said.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm having to agree with Bernard here. A reviewer with an audience as large as his that is respected in the field has an obligation to exercise due diligence. The FM report on the live view was a serious negative to me. You can google "D800 live view focusing" on you tube and you will see a you tube video basically showing the same thing. To get around it, the you tube guy turns the contrast up on the display to get better edge definition. This guy is not a known reviewer of cameras with a commercially viable website. He therefore is not held to the same standard, in my mind.
This issue was the biggest negative I had about the camera, and there are none in the stores to go check out for ourselves. This leaves us searching online review sources for information. In this case, it appears to be bad information. Not saying it was intentional, but he impacts a large number of people with his gear reviews, positive or negative. This is how people lose their credibility and are accused of being a shill for certain products. Again, not saying this was intentional. It was at best sloppy reporting.
-
This is how people lose their credibility and are accused of being a shill for certain products. Again, not saying this was intentional. It was at best sloppy reporting.
Perhaps we should put it down to unintentional "confirmation bias", read his review as a useful report on the improvements in the 5D Mk III over its predecessor (on which he is better qualified to speak), and move on. Surely we have all read enough "I tried some other brand of computer/phone/potato peeler that people are raving about and I have to say it is all hype because I get better performance from the gear I am used to" commentaries.
-
" When reviewing these images on the LCD, I noticed they had a green cast…
The point is, if you don't use a manual lens or rely on live view for critical focusing, this shortcoming is not really an issue. It's more of an adjustment for those of us accustomed to using this feature. After testing Nikon's live view manual focusing in the field, I quickly came to the conclusion that Canon's implementation worked better for the applications I need. Perhaps because Nikon's depth of field preview is always "live" and there's a lag time from when you make your adjustment to when you actually see the results. For this reason, Nikon's live view at higher magnification appeared pixelated and nailing focus was not easy. However, with the Canon you get to preview depth of field by simply pressing a button. Therefore, the changes appear faster and the nuances necessary for focusing are much easier to see."
--------------------------
Nothing about the above quote from the review leads me to believe he does not understand how it works. He just seems not to like the lag, etc. There are other reviews which state the same issues and dislike of the D800's live view, from people who shoot Nikon on a regular basis.
Anyway, it seems we all need to make our own decisions about these things, no?
Thanks for your input everyone.
-
I have D800/E on order from amazon, of course have heard no word on a delivery date yet, I am looking for a smaller system that I can take on longer hikes.
Right now I shoot with a Sinar arTec and a 33mp leaf back, love the combination and my biggest prints I make is 20x30.
The one thing that bothers me about the D800 is the fact that Nikons PC-E Lens are not up to the call of the 36mp D800, maybe the 90 PC-E would work well.
I am so use to using shift on my arTec that I almost don't want to give that up. Thats where Canon has the edge I believe, there TC-E lens are superior to Nikons offering.
Even when I was shooting the D3x, the 24mm PC-E and 45mm PC-E I though performed poorly especially after adding some shift which I did all the time.
Nikons PC-E lenses all performed very well on the D3/D700 12mp cameras and I believe correct me if I am wrong were all introduced at the same time as the original D3...
I know there are Schneider PC-E lens now, but I have not heard anything good about there 50mm, and they don't offer anything wider.
Bottom line, I know the D800 is superior in every way especially when using top notch glass, i.e. Zeiss, again to go all the way with the D800 or any other high mp camera, everything has to be perfect or your wasting your money.
I know Nikon is really marketing the D800/E as a great landscape camera, yet I have yet to see any really good results from Nikon glass in terms of corner performance only the Zeiss lenses seem to be there at least on the wide angle side.
-
Why? PJ has been done with cameras that don't have the specs of the D800. There really is not such thing as a landscape camera or a PJ camera. That is just marketers speaking and I have long ago learnt to ignore those folks. The D800 will make a fine camera for photojournalism and documentary work.
Well, when you're in the field and you depend on something that you adapt to over time and the other camera doesn't have it...its a strong card in that line of work. Egonomics alone make a difference for PJ...Think of it as a weapon. Over time you can adapt, yet one might feel better in the hand over the other out the door.
I ignore most marketing hype as well, but users tend to know it and those types tend to lean to one over the other for the type of work they do, for the way they do it. Funny I had switched to Canon some time back as my Nikon (late 90's) had horrible focus and red color cast. Now with the 5D2, I curse the AF everytime when I need it to perform. It's also that we have a certain level of expectation from these tools...sometimes more than the design allows.
Anyway, if you have a MF and a Canon, no need to ruffle feathers, but if you have a Canon and no MF, maybe :-)...D800E ? :-)
The colors on the second model, Gina for the studio shoot The Nikon did better, as the orange/yellow was too strong on the 5D3...Odly, the night shot with Gina, the Nikon showed more magenta in the darks, lips while 5D3 was more nutral
All this off a YouTube video :-) It was my observation on a Samsung XL30
-
Bottom line, I know the D800 is superior in every way especially when using top notch glass, i.e. Zeiss, again to go all the way with the D800 or any other high mp camera, everything has to be perfect or your wasting your money.
That's largely true, but I don't think the D800 is in a special category in this regard. All the recent cropped-formats from Canon and Nikon, the 50D, 7D, D7000 etc. have at least equal or greater pixel density than the D800 and would therefore require the same, or even higher shooting standards than the D800, for optimal results.
Loss of lens performance at the edges and corners has always been a disadvantage of the FF format compared with the cropped format used with FF lenses. However, the fact remains that a D7000 when used, say, with a 100mm lens, requires an equally stringent technique as a D800 used with the same lens, the difference being that the D800 provides a wider FoV.
For owners of the Canon 7D, which has the pixel density of a 46mp full-frame, techniques have to be even more demanding to achieve optimal results with a FF lens, whether it be a state-of-the-art Zeiss lens or not.
The lens-review site, Photozone, has a number of examples of the same model of lens tested with different cameras of the same brand but with different pixel counts, such as cropped-format and full-frame. Even with an average zoom lens, the camera with the higher pixel count always delivers more LW/PH.
I just placed my order today for a D800E. I've been a bit undecided about the choice of the D800 or D800E, but I've always felt that any need for less sharpening has a benefit regarding noise levels. This advantage has nothing to do with moire considerations. One would expect D800E high-ISO shots to be either noticeably sharper or noticeably cleaner compared with the D800 shots.
Another advantage of the D800E is that I'm probably going to receive the camera sooner. For that I should thank Bart and Guillermo and Bernard and BJL, and all those who have been so vocal about the horrors of moire and aliasing artifacts, for helping to shift the major demand towards the D800, resulting in a shorter waiting list for the D800E. ;D
-
Want to add dynamic range to your 5d to keep up with the D800? This guy tried to achieve it by shooting thru a screen door to ' knock the highlights down '.
http://tinyurl.com/cqg5kdq
Interesting technique although it is tough to say if it worked without seeing a with and without. Still, it conjures up ideas of some sort of filters to screw on your lens that would either open up shadows or diminish highlights. Is such a thing possible? Does it exist?
-
That's largely true, but I don't think the D800 is in a special category in this regard. All the recent cropped-formats from Canon and Nikon, the 50D, 7D, D7000 etc. have at least equal or greater pixel density than the D800 and would therefore require the same, or even higher shooting standards than the D800, for optimal results.
Loss of lens performance at the edges and corners has always been a disadvantage of the FF format compared with the cropped format used with FF lenses. However, the fact remains that a D7000 when used, say, with a 100mm lens, requires an equally stringent technique as a D800 used with the same lens, the difference being that the D800 provides a wider FoV.
Agree. My Sony A55, which is the exact same sensor as the Nikon D7000, works fine at the pixel level with all my primes. I routinely look at pictures at 200% when running through Adaptive Richardson Lucy sharpening. I run it until the pixels start to degrade then hit cancel to stop the next cycle. These pixels are smaller then the D800 so claims you need top shelf glass are over-stated.
The real thing that separates a good shot from blurry tripe is a tripod. Nothing new here.
-
The real thing that separates a good shot from blurry tripe is a tripod. Nothing new here.
But that also depends on factors such as lighting conditions and subject movement. When the subject is moving, a tripod doesn't help, nor does IS or VR.
When lighting conditions allow for a fast shutter speed at the desired aperture and ISO, a tripod is not needed, except in specific circumstances when one needs a slow shutter speed whatever the lighting conditions, as when photographing a waterfall using an ND filter, and perhaps when using a real monster of a lens that's too heavy to hold.
-
But that also depends on factors such as lighting conditions and subject movement. When the subject is moving, a tripod doesn't help, nor does IS or VR.
When lighting conditions allow for a fast shutter speed at the desired aperture and ISO, a tripod is not needed, except in specific circumstances when one needs a slow shutter speed whatever the lighting conditions, as when photographing a waterfall using an ND filter, and perhaps when using a real monster of a lens that's too heavy to hold.
Couldn't agree more. In addition there are many situations where a tripod is a positive hindrance to getting the shot. IMO the D800(E0 has moved the goalposts a little in this respect. The dynamic range, level of detail and lack of noise up to 1600 at least make this a very versatile and usable camera. I shot a wedding last weekend (I was doing the "reportage" and another photographer was doing the set pieces). He was struggling around the church with his 5D and a monopod trying to get the shots with a 70-200. I was using an 85 1.4 handheld mostly at f2 and 1600 ASA. No problems at all. This camera excels on a tripod but it is also a class act hand held.
-
The photographer with the 5D was most likely needing the tripod by virtue of using either the non-IS or the f4 version of the 70-200mm Canon zoom. The 5D is perfectly capable of ISO 3200 with very usable images for wedding photography.
Having shot many thousands of images with Nikon and Canon cameras as well as doing the post editing on thousands taken by second photographers under identical lighting situations it becomes very clear what the strengths and weaknesses are of each system. The strength of the Canon cameras is with the in-camera processing to produce more film like images that are ready to print while the weakness has been with autofocus accuracy and fill flash exposure accuracy. I can take a Nikon RAW file further with post processing than I can most Canon cameras' files but I need to add my time as an additional cost.
Prior to the D3 the movement was from Nikon to Canon to get higher ISO capabilities but in the past few years it has been from Canon to Nikon and the most often cited reason was a desire for autofocus accuracy. Canon users have for years been sending cameras and lenses back to Canon for "recalibration" and noted wedding photographer Jeff Ascough would do this at the end of every season sending all his cameras and lenses in to Canon.
A real world ISO test needs to reflect subjects that cover the color spectrum and light sources that cover only a portion of the visible spectrum and so need different amounts of signal amplification for the RGB segments of the scene or subject. I like to use people, both light and dark skinned, shot under fluorescent and tungsten light sources (and not 6000K flash or sunlight) and then look at the tonal range provided. NR will compress the tonal range and the result is the plastic looking skin that is often mentioned with regard to certain cameras, like the 5D at ISO 3200.
I did a series of test shots of people under tungsten and fluorescent light sources this past weekend with my D800E. The D800 provided usable images (moderate post processing of noise a matter of choice) at ISO 3200 with all subjects and up to ISO 6400 with subjects with light skin. This was comparable to what I have seen with the D3 and is remarkable considering the smaller photosites and greater signal amplification of the D800.
Tests using flash or sunlight might as well be of a black cat in a coal mine for all the "real world" value they provide. In a studio a high ISO setting is not needed as there is enough light for ISO 200 at f11 with any set of strobes. Outdoors in the bright sun it is much the same. I want a situation where the ambient light and or the color reflected from the subject has a bias that requires extra boost of one part of the spectrum as that is what generates the most visible chroma noise. A black person with a dark red or purple dress in a room dimly lit with a combination of tungsten and fluorescent lamps is my favorite test of how high I can safely set the ISO of the camera and get an image that can be printed without NR needed or with some NR or where the NR is going to be so great that detail is going to be visibly absent in the print.
-
But that also depends on factors such as lighting conditions and subject movement. When the subject is moving, a tripod doesn't help, nor does IS or VR.
When lighting conditions allow for a fast shutter speed at the desired aperture and ISO, a tripod is not needed, except in specific circumstances when one needs a slow shutter speed whatever the lighting conditions, as when photographing a waterfall using an ND filter, and perhaps when using a real monster of a lens that's too heavy to hold.
Certainly there are types of photography where a tripod is a hindrance. That doesn't change the fact that when people are talking about mush detail with these cameras it's probably not from lenses that can't keep up to 5 micron pixels. It's probably from other factors. Who is going to buy a camera like that to put poor lenses on it? I mean besides a reviewer making a point. No, people are going to match it up with some decent glass. Those are both good cameras.
-
Certainly there are types of photography where a tripod is a hindrance. That doesn't change the fact that when people are talking about mush detail with these cameras it's probably not from lenses that can't keep up to 5 micron pixels. It's probably from other factors. Who is going to buy a camera like that to put poor lenses on it? I mean besides a reviewer making a point. No, people are going to match it up with some decent glass. Those are both good cameras.
It used be said that all lenses are equal at F8. If that's a slight exaggeration, then it's probably truer that all lenses are equal at F11. When Photodo used to carry out MTF tests purely on the lenses without camera body, which now seems to be a process which is too expensive, they were often asked why they didn't test at F11. The answer was, because all lenses are equally bad at F11.
If this is true (and I admit it's not quite true), any lens at F11 will deliver more resolution when used with a sensor with more pixels, up to a point. There's obviously a law of diminishing returns at play here.
I've confirmed for myself that a Canon 50/1.4 at F11 delivers more resolution with my 15mp 50D (38mp full-frame pixel-density equivalent), than it does with my 10mp 40D (26mp FF pixel-density equivalent).
In my experience, blurry images generally result from a shutter speed which is too slow, or sometimes due to misfocussing. For reliably sharp images with a slow shutter speed, a tripod is necessary, with MLU enabled. To escape misfocussing issues, LiveView is a great help.
A modern IS or VR lens can sometimes produce remarkably sharp results at a slow shutter speed, with a static subject, but I don't believe this method is as reliable as use of a tripod.
One can test this for oneself by taking several hand-held shots of the same target at a slow shutter speed, with an IS or VR lens. Most shots might be slightly blurry. However, one or two will likely be tack sharp. I think the tripod is more reliable in such situations.
-
"A technically perfect photograph can be the world’s most boring picture."
in "Total Photography"
"The fact that a (in the traditional sense) technically deficient photograph can have greater emotional impact than a technically flawness picture probably comes as a shock to those who are naive enough to believe that technical exellence alone is a measure of a value of a photograph."
in "The Color Photobook"
Could it be that the creator of Instagram read the same book? ;)
Besides, on the point, aren't we overlooking the possibility that some photographers may enjoy creating technically perfect photographs? I am sure nobody does create boring image on purpose - although some images sure look like there is deliberate intend related to the willingness to create a new and unique "style" - but I am sure that some photographers set high standards for themselves in terms of technical perfection, and sometimes prioritize this a bit too much, which may lead them to look down at some subjects simply because they are not confident they can capture them with the right level of technical perfection.
Oops... would stitchers be likely representatives of this category? ???
If that were the case, then higher resolution cameras may in fact act as creativity liberators?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
30 megapixels?
Before I read AAs books I read Andreas Feinigers books. Two quotes of him which guid me trough my photographic career are:
"A technically perfect photograph can be the world’s most boring picture."
in "Total Photography"
"The fact that a (in the traditional sense) technically deficient photograph can have greater emotional impact than a technically flawness picture probably comes as a shock to those who are naive enough to believe that technical exellence alone is a measure of a value of a photograph."
in "The Color Photobook"
Best,
Johannes
This is one of those adages under the guise of wisdom which is really total twaddle.
First, every photograph that has ever been taken is boring at least to someone, no matter how great the photo is considered by others to be. Interests vary enrmously amongst any population. What one person considers sublime, another may consider total crap.
Secondly, if it were possible to determine what could be the world's most boring photo, through a world-wide competition perhaps, technical perfection would definitely exclude any photo from winning the prize, because so far, technical perfection does not exist.
If someone were to produce a technically perfect photograph, its perfection would be a wonder to behold no matter how boring the subject may be in the eyes of some. The perfection itself would become the focus of interest. How is it possible, for example, to achieve such 3-dimensional realism, perfectly accurate colors and such sharply defined detail which simply increases in quantity the closer one gets to the photo?
The prize for the world's most boring photo would have to be awarded to a boring subject in conjunction with totally lousy technical quality.
Of course, I'm making certain assumptions about human rationality here. I'm assuming, for example, that whenever a person takes a photograph, it is of something that at least interested the photographer at the time, that motivated him to raise the camera and take the shot. When such shots, after processing, sometimes fail to satisfy, it must be due to technical limitations of some sort. Perhaps the dark ominous clouds are no longer ominous because the sky was blown due to incorrect exposure. The brilliant green bush in the foreground, drenched in the light of the setting sun, has lost its impact due to misfocussing and other factors such as inappropriate choice of F stop, or the color sensitivity and dynamic range of the camera was too limited, or the color gamut of the printer was not wide enough, and/or the Photoshop skills of the operator were not up to the job, etc. etc.
However, don't think that I've missed the underlying point. It's pretty obvious that an interesting composition that is technically inadequate may be more valuable than an uninteresting subject which is nevertheless technically impressive. Look at any family photo album for such examples. They are usually full of technically inadequate shots which are of immense value to the family members.
-
In photography there is no doubt a tension exists between intent and result, creativity and technical limitations.
Moreover, in each image the dynamic will change.
I totally agree that in an absolute sense a technically perfect photograph is still a pipedream.
The art and science of photography optimally employed is to give the illusion of technical expertise - hopefully with an aesthetically pleasing result.
I also agree that what constitutes a successful photograph is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. However, those images destined for public viewing are judged much in the manner of democratic elections - ultimately, successful images will be judged favourably by the majority even if this takes time, up to decades in certain situations.
Bernard makes the point that many photographers probably avoid certain types of scenes when contemplating stitching a large scene. He is absolutely correct but no more than the bird photographer who realizes that shooting at 1/25th second shutter speed with a 500 mm lens and a 1.4 teleconverter in gloomy light just won't work (belive me I have been there and have the images to prove it - good for a laugh but not much else).
Nonetheless, I believe that technical expertise in photography is important, and vital, but only as a means to an end (I am trying not to be too obvious here). I have images that, according to public opinion anyway, really have a wow factor that were technically very simple to execute. Other images that also excite a lot of interest were much much more difficult to do such as multiple shot HDR panoramas. Some of these have taken years to accomplish - mainly because previous results were not quite up to scratch. Unfortunately, not many people were at all interested in how the image was made but nonetheless really enjoyed the noiseless detail and wonderful tonal relationships.
The bottom line, of course, is that technical expertise can never substitute for lack of artistic motive and intent and that will be reflected in the result. Combat photography often is lacking technical merit yet some of those images have - rightfully - won worldwide acclaim for the memories, emotions, and messages that they evoke.
My few thoughts
Tony Jay
-
Still arguing over these things....
all these cameras are plenty good!
-
I watched these videos and thought that they were glossing over the clear win of Nikon's 33 megapixels over Canon's 23. This gave me pause on pressing the Buy Now button for the 5d Mark 3. Until I see the cameras I will not know for sure, but it seems that Canon will have to catch up if it wants to stay in the game. I wonder if a 5d Mark4 is not far off, a thirty megapixel, low noise at high ISO, super auto focus, perfectly quiet shutter, answer to the D800.
I remember years ago photographer's telling me that cramming all of those extra pixels onto a sensor did not mean sharper images and they also argued that no one made a lens with sufficient optics to capture the extra detail even it if was theoretically possible. But these objections were wrong and the 5d Mark 2's with its 22 megapixel sensor became the standard for 35mm image quality. This makes me worry that Canon has fallen behind or has made a marketing mistake.
That said, for my own photography, the Mark 3 improves over the Mark 2 for three reasons: First, the shutter is nearly silent. This makes it possible to shoot meditation and other silent activities: Second, the autofous enhances the ability to shoot candid photos of ecstatic dance: Third, high quality high ISO files allow shooting yoga in low lit rooms and especially in early morning.
So I am torn about the Mark 3.
-
Live view focusing wide-open should be easily fixable with a firmware update - there's no hardware-specific reason it can't be done.
I very much like the fact you can use liveview at the desired F-stop - Some lenses need to be focussed on the F-stop you use.- one good example is the 24mmPCE lens.
(Maybe that is why people think it is a dud...)
I have heard that you cannot use liveview in the corners with the 5DmkIII - is that true?
-
No.
-
I have heard that you cannot use liveview in the corners with the 5DmkIII - is that true?
If it is like on the 5Dmk2 you cannot move to the corners if you have autofocus enabled, but if you disable it you can move to the corners.
The reason for not being able to move into corners with autofocus enabled is probably that the contrast-detecting AF-algorithm may not work that well in lens corners wide open.
-
Thank you very much Torger,
This is more informative than just a ...NO...