Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on April 19, 2012, 05:49:33 pm
-
Finally DxO canon 5DIII review! 81
-
Pretty much expected, really. The 5D3 was never going to compete on RAW image quality.
Canon really needs to lift its game in the sensor department, or risk losing the entire landscape and studio crowd. The current offerings are nice for journalists and event photographers, but not so nice if image quality is your paramount consideration.
A real pity, given their lens lineup, and the fact that, just a few years ago, the 1Ds3 (and subsequent 5D2) were top of the league.
-
There must be some high level manager in Canon Imaging who decided some years ago that DxOMark was not a relevant factor in their extended eco-system. Why should they have cared about a small French Start up with no track record?
The business cost of this decision may be extremely high.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Pretty much expected, really. The 5D3 was never going to compete on RAW image quality.
Indeed, and I kind of predicted the Dynamic Range performance (except for some missing data to put it into numbers) here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=63691.msg513408#msg513408). Although I must say that the DxO figures for (screen) DR are about 1/3rd of a stop worse than what I expected (when assuming a clipping level of around 16000 in 14-bit data numbers). The almost level performance from ISO 100 to ISO 800 (at unity gain) was to be expected, as was the deviating-from-the-trend response for the 3 highest ISO settings.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There must be some high level manager in Canon Imaging who decided some years ago that DxOMark was not a relevant factor in their extended eco-system. Why should they have cared about a small French Start up with no track record?
The business cost of this decision may be extremely high.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard
The manager thought the R&D cost to develop a new sensor was way too high so he had the marketing department talk a dealer into posting YouTube videos stating his camera is "as good as the competition" even better in low light conditions, then so it didn't look too biased lets compare the competitor to a Hassy and state the competitor "only has 16 skin tones not 27" cost a lot less than R&D, smart business man "eh"
Marc
ps funny how DxO compared the D800 to every camera out there yet in the 5DIII review they only compared it to it's predecessor? As a Canon lover I'm really disappointed.
-
incidentally a "news" article = http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415777-76/how-dxo-labs-tests-hot-cameras-like-canons-latest-slr/
-
Marc, you must have been checking for those results daily to notice them so quickly. ;D
Just in case anyone is confused about the noise differences betwee the 5D2 and 5D3, as shown on the DXOMark graphs, I'll try and summarize them.
(1)ISO sensitivities are about the same for both cameras at lower ISOs, the 5D3 being very slightly more sensitive to an insignificant degree. However, such differences seem to increase as ISO increases, so by ISO 25,600 the 5D3 is about 1/4 of a stop more sensitive.
What this means in practice is that when using the same shutter speed at ISO 25,600 with both cameras, the 5D2 sensor will receive 1/4 of a stop less exposure (in terms of its full-well capacity) and will therefore have 1/4 of a stop more noise, and 0.25EV less DR, irrespective of any other differences
However, there are other differences. At the manufacturer's nominated ISO of 25,600, the 5D3 has very close to 1 stop lower noise at 18% grey (the midtones), and very close to 1 stop better DR. Add the 1/4th of a stop difference in ISO sentivities and we get slightly more than 1 stop better DR and slightly more than 1 stop lower midtone noise for the 5D3, at the same shutter speed, with the same lens used at the same aperture.
However, if different lenses are used, then all bets are off. Using different lenses with both cameras, even at the same F/stop and same focal length, using the two cameras at ISO 25,600 and at the same shutter speed, the sensors could either have close to the same performance, or the gap could be widened to as much as a 2 stop difference, depending on the T-stop values of the two lenses.
(2) At the more commonly used ISOs, from base up to ISO 1600, there's an insignificant difference between the two cameras with respect to SNR, DR, Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity. At extreme pixel-peeping levels, one might be able to discern very slightly less midtone noise in the 5D3 image, but I doubt it.
Up to ISO 1600, DR for both cameras is virtually identical, with a very slight edge going to the 5D2, which is surprising. However, such difference are probably within the fluctuation range due to QC differences between different units of the same camera model, and any imprecision in the testing procedures. Nothing's perfect.
(3) Bottom line: any improvement in the 5D3 sensor performance (regarding noise and DR compared with the 5D2), seems to be confined to very high ISOs above ISO 1600. The 12mp D3s still has the edge at high ISO, having on average about 1/2 a stop better DR at the same print size, at high ISO.
Hope this is all crystal clear. ;D
-
Its weird that the 5DmkIII gets only 2293 score in low light iso tests vx. the D800's 2853, if one looks at the individual pr. pixel measurements the 5DmkIII has the edge in both DR, signal to noise as well as tonal range, except for a slight disadvantage in color sensitivity. Odd that these measurements should lead to such a score difference for the low light iso?
Interesting to see that the D800 outclasses the 5DmkIII in dynamic range up to about iso800, but after iso1200 the 5DmkIII gains a slight and increasing edge on the D800 up to maximum iso. (Using the DXOmark "screen" setting for measurements.)
Maybe DXOmark puts a lot more emphasis on the print section of the measurements, but would this not be slightly misleading, as the application would only be relevant at certain large print sizes?
-
The measurements reported are as expected, rather disappointing. They are also in aggreement with my 'real world' observations.
I have spent several days shooting my 1DS3 and my new 5D3 side by side. They are essentially even stevens to about ISO 1600. At 3200 there is a small gain to the 5D3. However my problem is I would shoot the majority of my image between ISO 100 - 1600 and I sure most photographers would be the same.
What has Canon been doing for they last 3.5 years ? Perhaps spending all their resourses on their new FF video cameras ?
Credit where credit is due though, the AF works brilliantly.
-
Maybe Canon knows about some upcoming, sub-$10k medium-format bodies with good UWA lenses to go with them, thus rendering DSLRs irrelevant to the studio and landscape crowds - hence, they're concentrating on event/wedding/sports photographers.
-
Maybe Canon knows about some upcoming, sub-$10k medium-format bodies with good UWA lenses to go with them, thus rendering DSLRs irrelevant to the studio and landscape crowds - hence, they're concentrating on event/wedding/sports photographers.
Partial understanding of market expectations, lukewarm investment in core technologies and focus on video seem more likely explanations to me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Partial understanding of market expectations, lukewarm investment in core technologies and focus on video seem more likely explanations to me.
1. Most photography review people, and most customers thinks that smaller pixels means worse image quality. Many of those will buy/recommend the 5Dmk3 over the D800 based on this theory alone, disregarding the actual image quality.
2. Many photographers and reviewers desire "better high ISO image quality". They may not know or care about DR at ISO100.
3. Most buyers of the 5Dmk3 (or pretty much any model) will be wealthy hobbyists, not technically inclined photographes, and certainly not image scientists.
4. Video, in-camera JPEG/HDR, etc is there for a reason: only some percentage of customers have the inclination to exploit the sensor to its fullest for still-images, and those may be the only ones who prioritize sensor performance over everything else.
Being invested in the Canon "ecosystem", I think this is kind of sad. Hopefully, Canon will return with a killer sensor within the 2-3 years that I expect to upgrade.
-h
-
why don't they test the 5dIII at 160/320/640 iso where it has more dynamic range and less noise.
i do find this whole dxo thing a bit odd, a measurebators resource for the weak minded. do people really wait for the score or what some bloke on a blog says about a camera? actually don't answer that ::)
-
Actually, the 5D3 seems to have just one disadvantage beyond the obvious one of lower resolution: as exposire index is increased (lower ISO, to those who insist on confusing exposure index with sensitivity by using that highly ambiguous name for both of them), Canon loses some of the shadoe performance that the sensor is clearly capable of, apparenly because with wells close tp full, it has to use an amplification so low that noose floor of subsequent signal path is several stops higher than the noise floor of the signal from the sensor itself. As soon as the light level is low enough (higher shutter speed), the performance at equalized resolution("print") looks very similar. Actually, this makes me wonder if in the measurements at higher EI, we are seeing close to the optimal behavior set by photon noise.
Anyway, Canon might have judged that only a small proportion of potential customers have a real need for more than about a 2000:1 SNR (11 stops of engineering DR), since anything beyond that is going to be visible only with substantial manupulations of tonal compression (exteme low contrast printing and/or heavy dodging and burning, in the old language). And for that extreme, Canon has perhaps judged that, for now, in-camera HDR is an adequate partial solution, and the extra cost of developing and deploying a substantially new sensor technology like column-parallel ADC is not cost-effective.
By the way, column parallel ADC is not a Sony exclusive: it has been used by other companies such as Samsung in video sensors. I wonder if the new Samsung 20MP "APC-C" format sensor in the new NX bodies uses column-parallel ADC? Which by tue way makes me think it is only a matter of when Canon deploys a next generation sensor technology like "CPADC", not any possibility that Canon is out of the game.
-
why don't they test the 5dIII at 160/320/640 iso where it has more dynamic range and less noise.
Because it (a) doesn't have more DR at these ISO's, and (b) doesn't have less noise at these ISO's. But then, you might be fooled into thinking so if you didn't know something about how Canons work, by (surprise!) measuring their properties.
These ISO's are achieved by digital compression of the signal from a different analog gain; the noise is less in digital numbers but no better when denominated in photon equivalents. The DR range is the same as it is for the analog ISO gain that these oddball ISO's are derived from by digital scaling.
-
why don't they test the 5dIII at 160/320/640 iso where it has more dynamic range and less noise.
i do find this whole dxo thing a bit odd, a measurebators resource for the weak minded. do people really wait for the score or what some bloke on a blog says about a camera?
While tests don't always measure such things as pattern noise and thermal noise, they do give a very good idea of performance in key areas. Since I'm always looking to push low light photography, measurements have been a useful guide. More than that even, the knowledge of people who do study these sensors, some of whom are writing in this thread, has been enormously useful. Certainly the rest comes in practice.
-
I respect the tests of DxOMark, it seems clear that Nikon made a really solid update, with Canon only making mild upgrades from Mark II.
How ever, this does not mean that Nikon users will be the only photographers producing good landscape work in the coming years.
I bought the 5D Mark III yesterday, now my trusted Mark II is my backup body. Before I used D700, in 2010 I moved to 5D Mark II for resolution and video. Right now the argument could be made for me to go to Nikon for the same reason.
In the end I don't think any of this matters much... DR is never a problem with portraits when I use strobes. When I need DR, I can work around it and take multiple images to make a panorama or HDR. D800 makes this easier, that much is clear.
The more I focus on gear, the more I drift away from the subject. It is in my nature to dive into the details, but I feel that my performance suffered in the past. I think it is important to know your equipment, but essential to let go of the technical details and focus on the intended results when it comes to the making of the image.
It all comes down to the optics in the future, I feel that Nikon has a edge in the wide and Canon in the longer end. As a photographer, I use the longer optics more and it makes sense for me to stay with Canon.
Canon had been ahead for a while but with Nikon catching up fast in recent years. Right now it looks like Nikon has the edge, I am curious to see the development in the future. I celebrate the battle and enjoy the benefits.
-
the reason i thought the MkIII had less noise at 160/320/640 was previous experience with the II where the files are cleaner at these iso's and i only ever move between these iso's so going from 160-400 would be worse than going 160-640.
and from this graph http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14 (http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14)
maybe i am interpreting the graph wrongly (i'm a humble photographer not an academic) but the results of using the 5dII daily for the last few years have shown better results at these iso's. i believe the moving image MkII users have formed similar conclusions
-
Pretty much expected, really. The 5D3 was never going to compete on RAW image quality.
Simply not true. What might be true is to say that the 5D MK III was never going to compete in DxO's game.
But the fact remains - and fact is the word - that the results people are getting from the Canon are fantastic, regardless of what that bloody website might have to say about it...
-
Simply not true. What might be true is to say that the 5D MK III was never going to compete in DxO's game.
But the fact remains - and fact is the word - that the results people are getting from the Canon are fantastic, regardless of what that bloody website might have to say about it...
Seen this? http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html (http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html)
The DxOMark scores are reflected in reality. Compared to the D800, the 5D3, particularly in the shadows, is a noisy piece of crap.
-
Simply not true. What might be true is to say that the 5D MK III was never going to compete in DxO's game.
But the fact remains - and fact is the word - that the results people are getting from the Canon are fantastic, regardless of what that bloody website might have to say about it...
Thanks for the good chuckle this Saturday morning! The best illustration for sour grapes I've seen lately.
-
Compared to the D800, the 5D3, particularly in the shadows, is a noisy piece of crap.
so is a MFD back at 800asa, so is a D800 at 3200asa and especially if you open them up by 2 stops.
i guess if you like to shoot lots of shadows and lift the exposure 2 stops in processing the 5DIII isn't for you and you may need to source another manufacturers camera to suit your needs and desires.
if anyone wants to offload their obviously flawed and limited MkIII then get in touch ::)
-
Seen this? http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html (http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html)
The DxOMark scores are reflected in reality. Compared to the D800, the 5D3, particularly in the shadows, is a noisy piece of crap.
Sad but true. The difference is quite stunning.
I hope the 1D X is slightly better, but somehow I doubt that it will be.
-
the reason i thought the MkIII had less noise at 160/320/640 was previous experience with the II where the files are cleaner at these iso's and i only ever move between these iso's so going from 160-400 would be worse than going 160-640.
and from this graph http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14 (http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14)
maybe i am interpreting the graph wrongly (i'm a humble photographer not an academic) but the results of using the 5dII daily for the last few years have shown better results at these iso's. i believe the moving image MkII users have formed similar conclusions
Your reasoning is correct if you expose for the scene but if you ETTR then you are better off with 100, 200 etc, The graphs are misleading
Marc
-
from this graph http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14 (http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14)
maybe i am interpreting the graph wrongly (i'm a humble photographer not an academic) but the results of using the 5dII daily for the last few years have shown better results at these iso's. i believe the moving image MkII users have formed similar conclusions
My graph does not distinguish between gain that is entirely analog and gain that is partially or entirely digital.
As Emil points points out, certain Canon cameras do digital scaling to achieve intermediate ISO values.
This type of graph helps identify this situation.
Since the values have not been converted to electrons (something I'm working on) you cannot see in this chart that the intermediate ISO values have the same read noise in electrons as the full ISO values.
In other words, ISO 160, ISO 200, and ISO 250 are the same value in electrons they are just reported differently in ADUs.
Regards,
Bill
P.S. - I now have a preliminary release of the appropriate chart:
Read Noise in Electrons (with 5D3 preselected) (http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_e.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14)
-
regardless of what that bloody website might have to say about it...
Why bloody? it's because you don't like what they have to say about your favourite brand?
-
i guess if you like to shoot lots of shadows and lift the exposure 2 stops in processing the 5DIII isn't for you and you may need to source another manufacturers camera to suit your needs and desires
Yes I do raise my shadows 2 stops a lot to bring out details and yes I will spend $3000 to do this instead of $3500 not to do this!
Marc
-
What Canon did, was to recycle the 5D2 with a pro-grade AF and charge you $1,300 usd for it.
Canon photo equipment is not made at a factory anymore. That's the problem. It is made at a farm. :D
Eduardo
Why bloody? it's because you don't like what they have to say about your favourite brand?
-
It all comes down to the optics in the future, I feel that Nikon has a edge in the wide and Canon in the longer end. As a photographer, I use the longer optics more and it makes sense for me to stay with Canon.
I totally agree that switching brand makes little sense, but for what it is worth the current Nikon line up of long primes is really outstanding. Canon may be even better, but both are probably very close.
I have been using a one gen old 300 f2.8 VR and it may be the sharpest lens I own... and it pretty much delivers that level of performance at f2.8-4. Add to that very fast AF, excellent VR silky smooth bokeh and I have a very hard time understanding how any lens could be significantly better.
There are few factual tests available out there for those super lenses. The only one I could find is the 200f2:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/499-nikkorafs200f2vrff?start=2
It pretty much speaks for itself.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Your reasoning is correct if you expose for the scene
years of shooting transparency and a modified zone system/spot meter use means i'm used to 'exposing for the scene' ;D
-
As a photographer who has used only Canon equipment in the digital age until recently, when I started buying Nikon equipment, I can sympathise with those who might have the dilemma of whether or not to switch brands.
Lenses are just as important as camera bodies. You need both to take a photo. If one has accummulated a few good Canon lenses over the years, it doesn't make much sense to start all over for the sake of an improved sensor in a couple of camera bodies.
However, if Nikon has a particular lens or two with more desirable characteristics than any Canon lens the photographer currently owns, and the photographer knows that such lenses are of a focal length that he will use a lot, then it might make sense to either switch brands or use both brands.
This was basically my situation. I wanted a good wide-angle zoom, and the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 seemed to be the best available. I bought my Nikon/Canon adapter first, then the lens which I used on my 5D for a while. Unfortunately, the adapter was not fully functional. There were too many annoying quirks, one of which was the refusal of the Canon 5D body to fully respond to the 'off' button when the lens was attached. Consequently, if either the lens or the battery was not removed after using the camera, the battery would go flat in a couple of days.
As a result of a certain degree of frustration with such quirks, I bought the D700 which I considered a worthwhile improvement in its own right, compared with my 5D. I had two reasons to switch to Nikon, but I continued to use my Canon 50D whenever I needed longer focal lengths than 24mm. I still use the 50D with my 100-400mm IS zoom, although I now also have a D7000 and another Nikkor lens. The extra weight of the 50D body seems fairly trivial compared with the weight of the 100-400, and the Nikon equivalent to the Canon 100-400 does not appear to be better, and perhaps even not as good.
I'm stuck with two systems, but don't think that I'm complaining. ;D
-
I totally agree that switching brand makes little sense, but for what it is worth the current Nikon line up of long primes is really outstanding. Canon may be even better, but both are probably very close.
I have been using a one gen old 300 f2.8 VR and it may be the sharpest lens I own... and it pretty much delivers that level of performance at f2.8-4. Add to that very fast AF, excellent VR silky smooth bokeh and I have a very hard time understanding how any lens could be significantly better.
There are few factual tests available out there for those super lenses. The only one I could find is the 200f2:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/499-nikkorafs200f2vrff?start=2
It pretty much speaks for itself.
Cheers,
Bernard
The results on the samples and MTF are very impressive indeed! I guess in some instances Nikon's longer lenses are top level. The same could be argued with Canon's recent 24mm and 17mm tilt and shifts, that they are catching up in the wide end. I guess this comes down to the workflow and different needs of each photographer.
But judging from the review from Fred Miranda, it seems clear that the D800 has a big advantage in recovering shadow details. I can see that I need to make multiple exposures with my 5DIII to compete with the DR in D800.
-
Seen this? http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html (http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html)
The DxOMark scores are reflected in reality. Compared to the D800, the 5D3, particularly in the shadows, is a noisy piece of crap.
I am a bit surprised by this comment in the text. I'd have thougth that the trade-offs involved in choice of exposure was well known and debated?
"I know this is disappointing for Canon shooters but on the bright side, I figured out a workaround if you shoot RAW. Start by overexposing by about 1 stop above the correct exposure before taking your shot and then underexpose by the same amount later in software, basically normalizing the image. For example, in Lightroom, you would move the exposure slider to -1. This gives you the correct exposure but the shadow detail is much cleaner just in case you need to push it a stop or two. In other words, using this technique banding and noise subsides considerably."
-
I am a bit surprised by this comment in the text. I'd have thougth that the trade-offs involved in choice of exposure was well known and debated?
"I know this is disappointing for Canon shooters but on the bright side, I figured out a workaround if you shoot RAW. Start by overexposing by about 1 stop above the correct exposure before taking your shot and then underexpose by the same amount later in software ...
Yes, it seems almost defensive to suggest this as a solution. Apart from being useful only when the subject brightness range from metered midtones to brightest highlights is low enough, and the fact that this only shifts the usage of the available DR rather than increasing it, this is also what is done far more easily with the 5D3's extended low ISO speed setting of 50, so there is probably no need for that fiddle.
[EDIT:] I take part of that back. With Canon's noise behavior at low to moderate EI levels, this partial implementation of ETTR could be also useful at higher shutter speeds than the "ISO 50" setting allows. For example, instead of using an ISO speed setting of 400 with normal exposure settings androcessing, one could use the same shutter speed and aperture but ISO speed setting of 800, and then lowering the levels in post. This gathers the same light, but applies twice the analog gain, helping to lift the shadows further relative to the noise that enters after that gain is applied. So long as no highlights get amplified up to the point of clipping, one does not in any practical sense lose an dynamic range. What one is doing is in effect producing a "high key" raw file. [END EDIT]
-
I am a bit surprised by this comment in the text. I'd have thougth that the trade-offs involved in choice of exposure was well known and debated?
"I know this is disappointing for Canon shooters but on the bright side, I figured out a workaround if you shoot RAW. Start by overexposing by about 1 stop above the correct exposure before taking your shot and then underexpose by the same amount later in software, basically normalizing the image. For example, in Lightroom, you would move the exposure slider to -1. This gives you the correct exposure but the shadow detail is much cleaner just in case you need to push it a stop or two. In other words, using this technique banding and noise subsides considerably."
This is a well-known method (exposing to the right) but actually *decreases* your useable dynamic range - you can't do it when the highlights are already close to maximum, while areas of deep shadow still remain.
-
the reason i thought the MkIII had less noise at 160/320/640 was previous experience with the II where the files are cleaner at these iso's and i only ever move between these iso's so going from 160-400 would be worse than going 160-640.
and from this graph http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14 (http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14)
maybe i am interpreting the graph wrongly (i'm a humble photographer not an academic) but the results of using the 5dII daily for the last few years have shown better results at these iso's. i believe the moving image MkII users have formed similar conclusions
The proper interpretation of the graph comes with the additional knowledge that ISO 160/320/640 etc are obtained by pulling the data 1/3 stop from 200/400/800 etc, after digitization, and 125/250/500 etc by pushing it 1/3 stop from 100/200/400 etc. Clearly you don't change the signal-to-noise ratio when you multiply both by the same factor, which is what you do when you pull/push an exposure, and so 160/320/640 etc do not have better noise characteristics (more precisely, better S/N) than 200/400/800 etc if you shoot both at a fixed exposure (shutter speed and aperture). By looking only at read noise, one is only looking at half the equation; noise gains relevance in the context of a signal (exposure to light), and one needs to know how changing the ISO will affect the noise relative to the signal.
What is different is the metering. 160 meters for 1/3 stop more exposure than 200, so if you are exposing according to the meter's suggestion, then at 160 you are getting the exact same file as if you had shot at 200 and dialed in 1/3 stop more exposure than the meter tells you. And so if you are using the camera's meter to set your exposure, then you are getting a better file at 160 than at 200, because the metering gives you 1/3 stop more signal (exposure) for the same noise, and therefore better S/N. What the meter is not telling you however, is that you are losing 1/3 stop of highlight headroom in the process, as with any ETTR. Personally, with my Canons, I set the custom function that restricts ISO's to only integer stop increments, and dial in EC when the situation calls for it, so that I am quite conscious of where my exposure is relative to clipping.
-
... ISO 160/320/640 etc are obtained by pulling the data 1/3 stop from 200/400/800 etc, after digitization ...
What is different is the metering. 160 meters for 1/3 stop more exposure than 200, so if you are exposing according to the meter's suggestion, then at 160 you are getting the exact same file as if you had shot at 200 and dialed in 1/3 stop more exposure than the meter tells you. ... you are losing 1/3 stop of highlight headroom in the process, as with any ETTR.
So these are doing what Fred Miranda proposes in the quote above, except with just a 1/3 stop pull instead of a full stop, and with the shift back down after ADC done automatically in the camera. I appreciate your preference for total control and understanding of the process, but I can also see why some people would prefer the convenience of both this and the "ISO 50" pull processing setting over having to manually correct later.
-
So these are doing what Fred Miranda proposes in the quote above, except with just a 1/3 stop pull instead of a full stop, and with the shift back down after ADC done automatically in the camera. I appreciate your preference for total control and understanding of the process, but I can also see why some people would prefer the convenience of both this and the "ISO 50" pull processing setting over having to manually correct later.
The entire business of digital pushmi-pulyu gain could be handled as metadata tags -- regardless of how one prefers to meter -- and should be. There's no reason to go throwing data away before it ever gets written to the raw file.
-
This is a well-known method (exposing to the right) but actually *decreases* your useable dynamic range - you can't do it when the highlights are already close to maximum, while areas of deep shadow still remain.
Correct ETTR should never decrease your usable DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The entire business of digital pushmi-pulyu gain could be handled as metadata tags -- regardless of how one prefers to meter -- and should be. There's no reason to go throwing data away before it ever gets written to the raw file.
Agreed. This is what the DNG BaselineExposure tag is for. A vendor can decide how "hot" or "dark" to record the raw data, and write the desired digital compensation into this tag.
-
The manager thought the R&D cost to develop a new sensor was way too high so he had the marketing department talk a dealer into posting YouTube videos stating his camera is "as good as the competition" even better in low light conditions, then so it didn't look too biased lets compare the competitor to a Hassy and state the competitor "only has 16 skin tones not 27" cost a lot less than R&D, smart business man "eh"
The funny thing is that they did develop a new sensor, but for some reason it's not much better than the one that it replaces. It's a bit like what AMD did with their "Bulldozer" architecture. I can think of two possible explanations:
- For some reason the new design failed to live up to expectations, and there wasn't time to fix the problems before their planned release date.
- The new design wasn't intended to deliver superior image quality, but to be cheaper to manufacture.
Since I don't know the first thing about sensor manufacturing, I have no idea if either of these explanations is correct.
-
The funny thing is that they did develop a new sensor, but for some reason it's not much better than the one that it replaces. ... I can think of two possible explanations:
- For some reason the new design failed to live up to expectations, and there wasn't time to fix the problems before their planned release date.
- The new design wasn't intended to deliver superior image quality, but to be cheaper to manufacture.
I have a third conjecture:
- the sensor is somewhat better, though mainly for video, which Canon sees as one important selling point, so the sensor upgrade has some commercial value.
- Right now Canon cannot do much better with the sensor in things like reducing noise and increasing DR at low ISO speeds, because it has not yet made the next big technological step to column parallel ADC that team Sony-Nikon has.
- Without that technological step, increasing the pixel count would be
(a) a bit embarassing in DR and SNR comparisons to Nikon-Sony sensors,
(b) a disadvantage for video performance, because the 5D3 had a pixel count that is very convenient for producing 1920x1080 video, and
(c) a disadvantage for frame rate, where column parallel processing also gives Sony-Nikon a substantial advantage when pixel counts are high.
-
To be fair to Canon, they have improved performance at very high ISOs to a significant degree. At ISO 3200 and above the 5D3 is the equal of the D800 in terms of SNR and DR. At ISO 25,600 both SNR and DR in the 5D3 is a whole stop better than the 5D2. That's a degree which would be clearly noticeable. At ISO 25,600 the 5D3 even has slightly higher DR than the D800, but only by 1/4th of a stop which would hardly be noticeable. However, these results are at equal print size. At the pixel level the DR differences between the 5D3 and the D800 increases to a good half a stop at ISO 25,600, although I'm not sure how relevant that is in practice, but it might be useful to know. If one were to crop a D800 image to 22mp, keeping the aspect ratio the same, perhaps as a result of using a prime lens which didn't allow one to fill the frame with the desired composition, then one might like to know that the DR would be 1/2 a stop worse than the 5D3 shot of the same scene using a zoom lens to fill the frame, if one were using ISO 25,600.
Nevertheless, the 2.5 stop DR advantage of the D800 at base ISO is clearly huge, and of much greater significance than the 1 stop DR improvement of the 5D3 compared with the 5D2 at ISO 25,600.
-
I think the bottom line is that all of us Canon shooters are disappointed at the lack of new sensor technology in the most recent Canon releases. They hit a home run with the 5D, the 5DII would have been a home run if it had the lower noise and AF of the 5DIII and if the 5DIII had the equivalent of the Sony sensor it to would have been a home run. With 3 year product cycles instead of the 12 month cycles in other hi tech markets I think Canon will loose a lot of market share.
Marc
-
Canon seem to be at least one iteration behind.
With their current iteration they are doing the high ISO low noise thing. Nikon did that in their last iteration. Nikon are now onto wide DR with low noise and high res to boot!
I honestly cant tell a great deal of different between my 1DS3 and my new 5D3 up until about 1600ISO.
-
I think the bottom line is that all of us Canon shooters are disappointed at the lack of new sensor technology in the most recent Canon releases. They hit a home run with the 5D, the 5DII would have been a home run if it had the lower noise and AF of the 5DIII and if the 5DIII had the equivalent of the Sony sensor it to would have been a home run. With 3 year product cycles instead of the 12 month cycles in other hi tech markets I think Canon will loose a lot of market share.
Marc
I agree. I didn't go for the 5D2 because I could see that there wasn't that much improvement over the original 5D regarding noise. Didn't I sell my Nikon/Canon adapter to you, Marc? If that adapter had offered full functionality, I probably would have ordered a 5D2 and I would now be facing the same dilemma as many Canon owners who are looking enviously at the D800.
However, I'm keeping my options open. I haven't sold any of my Canon lenses yet. The value of lenses in total is greater than the cost of any DSLR body and I'd be surprised if Canon doesn't eventually catch up regarding pixel count and DR at low ISOs. They might even overtake Nikon, just as Nikon overtook them some time ago. ;D
-
However, I'm keeping my options open. I haven't sold any of my Canon lenses yet. The value of lenses in total is greater than the cost of any DSLR body and I'd be surprised if Canon doesn't eventually catch up regarding pixel count and DR at low ISOs. They might even overtake Nikon, just as Nikon overtook them some time ago. ;D
Actually I think Canon and Nikon sensors were pretty much neck and neck until the D800 came out. The D700 had superior low light performance to the 5D Mark II, but significantly lower resolution. The Canon was better for some types of photography, the Nikon for others.
-
Actually I think Canon and Nikon sensors were pretty much neck and neck until the D800 came out. The D700 had superior low light performance to the 5D Mark II, but significantly lower resolution. The Canon was better for some types of photography, the Nikon for others.
If you leave the D3x aside, yes.
The DR of the D800 is a but better still, but the DR breakthrough happened more than 3 years ago.
Only did the high price of the D3x prevent some photographers from giving the attention it deserved.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Actually I think Canon and Nikon sensors were pretty much neck and neck until the D800 came out. The D700 had superior low light performance to the 5D Mark II, but significantly lower resolution. The Canon was better for some types of photography, the Nikon for others.
Not really - the D3x came out not long after the 5D2, and killed it in terms of low-ISO dynamic range and (lack of) pattern noise. With poor high-ISO capability and high cost, though, it was a fairly specialised tool.
But, looking at their crop sensors, Nikon has been killing Canon sensor-wise since the start of 2009. The D5100, D90 and D7000 all beat the 7D sensor (which has been used in multiple cameras) as well as the 50D sensor (which, for still photography, is better in many ways than the 7D sensor). The D3s also beats the 1D4 without losing much in the resolution stakes, although, to be fair, we're comparing a full-frame sensor against a 1.3x crop sensor.
Pre-Exmor, Canon was on top. But, ever since Sony developed the Exmor, Canon has had no answer - and it's been a few years now.
-
Not really - the D3x came out not long after the 5D2, and killed it in terms of low-ISO dynamic range and (lack of) pattern noise. With poor high-ISO capability and high cost, though, it was a fairly specialised tool.
Considering the difference in price, I don't think it's fair to compare the D3x and the 5D Mark II. On the other hand, Canon had no match for the D3x at any price.
Let's hope that Canon lift their game soon. If they don't, the value of used Canon lenses will drop, and switching to Nikon will become even more costly.:(