Michael, have I missed your 5D3 review?

[BernardLanguillier]

Judge from the RAW file with no adjustments:

Converted raw files have a curve applied to them by the raw converter.

This curves takes into account the characteristics of the sensor.

So we have here a strange circular logic where limited DR results in a default dark renditio of a gentle scene, requiring shadow lifting and giving the illusion of good DR... :-)

Jokes aside, I have done hundreds of similar scenes and those never worried me in terms of DR.

Ok, anyway, what matters is that you like the camera, you don't need to worry about what I think of it. Best of luck.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

I do indeed not use tilt and shift on the same axis. I find the usage of shift rare for landscape, already throught this way when I was shooting 4x5 in a scanning workflow.

On the other hand having the ability to tilt on one axis and shift lateraly on the other axis to flat stitch can sometimes be useful.

These is simply no way you can know this by looking at the end result. I'll just give you a couple of examples before putting and end to this exchange:

Comparing the lens program from Canon and Nikon as was done to some degree during this discussion, there is one lens in the Nikon lens program that does not have an exact equivalent and that is the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 lens. In the Canon program there are more lenses like the TS-E 17 and 24mm, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.2, 70-200 f/4L IS.

[BernardLanguillier]

Comparing the lens program from Canon and Nikon as was done to some degree during this discussion, there is one lens in the Nikon lens program that does not have an exact equivalent and that is the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 lens. In the Canon program there are more lenses like the TS-E 17 and 24mm, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.2, 70-200 f/4L IS.

OK, glad you picked the brand that suits your needs.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

Nice image but this is a fairly easy case... Heck, even my Kodak SLRn had no problem handling such scenes just before the sun went down.

I checked in Lightroom and the foreground had been lifted by 3 stops.

[dreed]

I didn't mean unit sales in that way, but more which cameras are predicted to be a success (and of course sales wise) and game changers.

Over the last 6 years or so I have seen 3 cameras that have been game changers. The original Canon 5D, Nikon D3 and 5D mkII. Maybe D800 will be a game changer, we will see, but the 5D mkIII might also be such a camera.

In which way was the D3 a game changer? That Nikon decided to enter the full frame market?

I think that you need to include one of the EVIL cameras, such as the NEX-7, in the above list.

[Hans Kruse]

Converted raw files have a curve applied to them by the raw converter.

This curves takes into account the characteristics of the sensor.

Yes, of course, and do you think it would look different from a D3X in default settings with the same exposure? No!

So we have here a strange circular logic where limited DR results in a default dark renditio of a gentle scene, requiring shadow lifting and giving the illusion of good DR... :-)

Jokes aside, I have done hundreds of similar scenes and those never worried me in terms of DR.

I'm not sure what the joke is? In fact the version I showed is one stop overexposed and only because of Lightroom 4 it could be recovered. One stop lover the small clouds were not overexposed which meant that the foreground would have to be lifted not 3 stops but 4 stops. In the exposure one stop higher that I showed first, these clouds could not be recovered in LR3 or LR4 PV2010 no matter how low the exposure slider was taken and recovery up! Canon DPP also could not recover this. LR4 could. So this just to show that it may be difficult to judge the DR needed from the final image

The default looks like this instead:



The edit of this one looks like this

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes, of course, and do you think it would look different from a D3X in default settings with the same exposure? No!

Yes, I do.

I'm not sure what the joke is? In fact the version I showed is one stop overexposed and only because of Lightroom 4 it could be recovered. One stop lover the small clouds were not overexposed which meant that the foreground would have to be lifted not 3 stops but 4 stops. In the exposure one stop higher that I showed first, these clouds could not be recovered in LR3 or LR4 PV2010 no matter how low the exposure slider was taken and recovery up! Canon DPP also could not recover this. LR4 could. So this just to show that it may be difficult to judge the DR needed from the final image

Good point, there was no joke in fact.

I am sure LR4 2012 engine helps with these images.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

Yes, I do.

That's not what I have seen from D3X under equal exposure situations. What would be different?

[BernardLanguillier]

That's not what I have seen from D3X under equal exposure situations. What would be different?

The curve is different.

Anyway, let's stop here. You are obviously happy about the 1Ds3 and I don't quite understand why you care about my appreciation of the D3x/D800's DR.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Josh-H]

It seems clear that Nikon should have released a D700x, but I disagree about the D3x being a failure.

It did sell well for many years, was a much superior camera compared to its main competitor, the 1Ds3, and simply redefined our expectations in terms of DR. While expensive it was competing performancewise with MF backs costing twice as much.

Besides, it served a purpose in clarifying to the market that Nikon is aiming, successfully, at delivering the highest level of performance in DSLRs. Want a good deal? Buy Canon or Sony. Want the best? Get a Nikon. Things get of course interesting when the D800 is both the highest performing camera and the better deal. :-)

In terms of system, the 17mm T/S, a very niche product, is probably the only lens in Canon's line up that delivers something the Nikkor really cannot do. For the rest we are talking about tiny differences with one brand topping the other in one direction or opposite. Nikon is rumored to release a 17mm T/S soon following the publication of a patent. Considering the overall domination they have in wide angle technology, there is no reason to think it will not be best in class.

Cheers ,
Bernard

Hilarious... yet more erroneous snipping at Canon.

Overall domination in wide angle technology?

Who are you kidding?

The Canon 17mm F4L TSE, 24mm TSE, 24mm F1.4L MKII are three of the sharpest tools in the 35mm wide angle shed. All three outperform their Nikon equivalents (where Nikon even has an equivalent).

The continual opportunistic snipes at Canon in your posts that are factually inaccurate and full of derogatory innuendo and sarcasm (I've called you up on them a few times) are growing seriously tiresome.  Quoting Lloyd to back your snipes does nothing to add credibility. Lloyd has long been biased toward Nikon as anyone who reads his site can clearly surmise for themselves. I can point you to many other reviewers online who sway the other way - but so what, it proves nothing. Its the image you make that counts and not the tool in your hand.

If you just went on your way raving about the D800/D3x no one would mind - its the low ball snipes that are unnecessary and drag you down.  You don't have to try and drag down another manufacturer to inflate your brand choice. Its poor form and does you a disservice.

[BernardLanguillier]

Hilarious... yet more erroneous snipping at Canon.

Not at all, I am just describing the strategy of Nikon who is positioning themselves in the higher end segment. The D800/D4 should be plenty evidence of this.

If you just went on your way raving about the D800/D3x no one would mind - its the low ball snipes that are unnecessary and drag you down.  You don't have to try and drag down another manufacturer to inflate your brand choice. Its poor form and does you a disservice.

I know you will not believe me, but I don't care about brands. I would be using a Canon camera if it were a superior tool for my applications. I did own several Canon camera in the past and have no particular issues with them.

I am sorry you perceive a comparison between the D3x and the 1ds3 as an attack on your brand of choice, but I am merely stating facts backed up by many other photographers. You seem to have a problem with the statement that the D3x is superior, but all facts point to this clear evidence. This is not about talking the 1ds3 down, it is about praising the D3x.

Just out of curiosity, do you also react negatively if someone claims that the 5DIII is superior to the 1ds3 or is that an acceptable statement to you?

I'll just react to one of your questions about the wide angle part. Talk to anyone with a bit of historical knowledge of the Canon vs Nikon strenghts, and you will get 99% of answers telling you that Nikon designs wides better and Canon teles better. That's what I mean by overall dominance. I have never written nor implied that Canon was unable to design/produce brilliant wide angle lenses. Typically the newer design is the better one except in some challenging domains like ultra wide zooms where Canon has been unable/unwilling to react to the 14-24 f2.8 for a few years.

I have clearly acknowledged the superiority of the Canon 24 mm T/S. I disagree about the 24mm f1.4 since the Nikon is factually superior (and yes, I own this lens). Regarding the 17mm T/S, there is clearly only one game in town today. If you need this super niche lens, then get a Canon body. This being said, when Nikon releases their own version, do you really believe that they would go through the trouble of designing a 17mm T/S lens and not manage to top their one and single only competitor? That is only common sense considering they proven track record in terms of wide angle design.

By the way, I had never taken the time to check out your portfolio, but you have some nice images there, congratulations. Besides, you are for sure very well traveled.  

Cheers,
Bernard

[Josh-H]

Not at all, I am just describing the strategy of Nikon who is positioning themselves in the higher end segment. The D800/D4 should be plenty evidence of this.

C'mon you have to be kidding. Firstly the 1DX is positioned above the D4 (both in terms of price, pixels and quality) and the D800 is nothing more than Nikons answer to the 5D MK2 with more pixels. Its a prosumer camera at best. Nikon took a great (brilliant) sensor and slammed it in a horrible body IMO. The body is flimsy and an abomination in terms of ergonomics compared to a D4 so please don't try and sell me that its posited in the higher end segment. A D4X would be the case - a D800 isn't. (FYI - I have had and been using a D800E for the last week. I won't be keeping it as I personally can't live with the ergonomics, lack of real weather sealing etc. It just doesn't suit my needs and work. Although I do like the files it produces.)

I admire Nikon greatly for one-upping Canon's 5D MK2; which clearly dominated the market in terms of sheer volume of sales. Nikon needed to respond with something to compete and they very clearly have. Canon went the dot release for the MK3 and made a lot of people very happy and a lot more unhappy because there was no significant increase in resolution. They were different approaches. The net result is that Nikon will capture a large portion of Canons potential customers with the D800 and that is excellent work by them.

You seem to have a problem with the statement that the D3x is superior, but all facts point to this clear evidence. This is not about talking the 1ds3 down, it is about praising the D3x.

Yes I do  - because its complete and utter BS. I have done my own extensive testing of the D3X (and I've owned a 1DS MK3 since release). There is no appreciable difference between hthe files in prints up to and including 40 x 60. Both are properly weather sealed and both are full Pro bodies - End of Story.

I disagree about the 24mm f1.4 since the Nikon is factually superior (and yes, I own this lens).

You misquote me. I was reffering to the MKII which is superior to the Nikon.

If you need this super niche lens,

There is nothing 'super niche' about a 17mm lens that provides you with movements. Its a wonderful tool for landscape and architectural. Neither are super niche.

Do you really believe that they would go through the trouble of designing a 17mm T/S lens and not manage to top their one and single only competitor?

To quote you - Perhaps Nikon is unable/unwilling to react.

Thank you - I appreciate you taking the time to review my portfolio and I have no desire to continue a debate on the merits of C v. N since its quite clear we agree to disagree on fundamentals.

[BernardLanguillier]

OK, good luck with that.

As long as we are happy about the gear we use relative to our photographic needs, little else really matters.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Chris Pollock]

This discussion is getting a little heated. It's probably safer to derogate a photographer's wife or his religion than it is to criticize his camera of choice.

[BernardLanguillier]

This discussion is getting a little heated. It's probably safer to derogate a photographer's wife or his religion than it is to criticize his camera of choice.

We just need to sit back a re-read Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance! 

That contains all the answers to the right questions.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Josh-H]

We just need to sit back a re-read Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance! 

That contains all the answers to the right questions.

Cheers,
Bernard

We agree after all. 

[Hans Kruse]

This discussion is getting a little heated. It's probably safer to derogate a photographer's wife or his religion than it is to criticize his camera of choice.

For me no. I'm quite agnostic to brands, but not to misinformation and wrong information as I see it. A little heated discussion is better than silence

[kers]

For me no. I'm quite agnostic to brands, but not to misinformation and wrong information as I see it. A little heated discussion is better than silence

dear Hans and Bernard,
thank you for the beautiful YES-NO conversation.

Lets now talk about Windows vs Apple

[Hans Kruse]

dear Hans and Bernard,
thank you for the beautiful YES-NO conversation.

Lets now talk about Windows vs Apple

Haha, when I wrote the thing about being agnostic to brands I was just about to put into a parenthesis (except maybe Apple)

Btw. I hope you didn't my part as binary, since I actually came with evidence supporting my statements....

[nsnowlin]

We have Michael's "review" of the 5d3 and as an owner of a 5D3 (and the 1Ds3 and 1D4) I would say he is correct.  My experience with the 5D3 body has been positive.  It is not much better for the kinds of landscape work I do than the 1Ds3.  Event photography has the 1Ds3 in the camera bag as a backup.  Here the 5D3 is far superior.  The number of shots from my 5D3 that are sharp are greater than the 1D4 ever delivered in low light, low contrast event work.  The 5D3 is even pretty good in fast sports action (racing motorcycles) where my percentage of in focus shots is greater than with the 1D4.  The new HDR function is nice but it writes a final JPEG file rather than a RAW file.  I get better results taking the RAW files and using PS.

What troubles me about the 5D3, and the as-of-yet unreleased 1D X, comes from a Canon rep commenting on the lack of USB-3.  The claim was made that world-wide USB-3 use and computers that had these ports were far to low to justify adding it.  Most photographers I know immediately started using USB-3 for vastly increased file handling speeds.  It is the wrong measure to say that the installed consumer base for a product should be the basis for decisions for your top of the line products.  The question they should address is how they can make their professional photographers more productive.

Stu