Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-23-2012, 08:02 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,169
QuoteOriginally posted by noons Quote
I too have to call BS on this. This is most possibly the most misinformative post I've read for along time.
Sure if you shoot in JPEG on the 5d3 it will look pretty clean, but to say it looks as clean as 80/100 ISO on the k5 is absolute rubbish. Not to mention it would look extremely smudged.
Well, the question is whether she was pixel peeping or looking at normal sized output. ISO 6400 _is_ very good on the 5D III so if you are printing 8x10 I don't doubt they will look excellent.

05-23-2012, 08:06 AM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: WA, Australia
Posts: 164
I bet if you printed both at 6400 there wouldn't be much of a difference at 8x10 if both had the same level of NR
05-23-2012, 09:02 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by noons Quote
I bet if you printed both at 6400 there wouldn't be much of a difference at 8x10 if both had the same level of NR
But that is probably true of the K5 at iso 3200 too. It is truly surprising how little noise shows up in final prints, even if it is really obvious at a pixel level.
05-23-2012, 01:05 PM   #19
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I am sorry, but i don't really believe this. There should be roughly one stop difference between the K5 and the 5D Mk III with regard to noise. If there is that little noise at iso 6400, it is because there is some kind of "magic" algorithim cleaning up the noise.
Of course there is. I was looking at JPEG output, and I am pretty sure the camera has applied noise reduction.

Was never claiming that the 5d3 at ISO6400 was "objectively" as good as the K-5, I said "looked like."

By "looking like" I was thinking holistically - micro contrast, colour etc. - not just noise. Noise is the least of my concerns when doing high ISO - Lightroom NR is pretty good - I am more concerned about how well the overall image holds together.

05-23-2012, 01:21 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by noons Quote
I bet if you printed both at 6400 there wouldn't be much of a difference at 8x10 if both had the same level of NR
Well, I'll have to call BS on this one. If you look at my comparison shots between the D800E, 1D4 and NEX-5N in a different thread there are significant differences in how each camera/lens combo renders the same composition in high ISO, visible even at screen resolution. Image quality isn't just about noise, it's the overall look which is a combination of many factors.
05-23-2012, 06:10 PM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: WA, Australia
Posts: 164
Sorry Christine, but you haven't provided any evidence to backup your claim.
For me, NR is the least of my problems too, but when an image's details are smudged, like that of the 5d3 jpeg processing, you can't recover from that.
05-24-2012, 02:21 AM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,169
QuoteOriginally posted by noons Quote
Sorry Christine, but you haven't provided any evidence to backup your claim.
For me, NR is the least of my problems too, but when an image's details are smudged, like that of the 5d3 jpeg processing, you can't recover from that.
1) Who shoots jpeg on a 5D III?

2) Who buys a 5D III and only uses the default jpeg settings? (You can turn down the NR which is set to pretty aggressive as default)



05-24-2012, 03:29 AM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: WA, Australia
Posts: 164
Exactly!
05-24-2012, 11:06 PM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 582
Lots of photojournalists shoot jpeg. Watch these interviews of VII members. (talking about 5dmkii). Some of them shoot jpeg exlusively and even use monotone for B&W rather than post processing.

Canon DLC: Gallery: VII Photo Agency: The Canon Interviews

Shooters like this will be able to take great pictures with the 5d3. Granted the D800 is better for landscape, but I don't think the IQ out of the Canon is going to hold anyone back. Also probably most 5d3 owners shoot raw anyway.
05-27-2012, 02:14 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
From an objective point of view, I've done a lot of research on both the D800 and 5D Mk3 as I want to take the step into the full-frame arena, but neither camera is quite ticking the boxes for me and I will explain why I feel this way in this thread.

Starting with the 5D Mk3, one should state that this is the camera the 5D Mk2 should have been. As it is, the 5D Mk3 is brilliant - it has the autofocus system from the 1D series with the body of a 7D with a very similar sensor from the 5D Mk2. It's a jack of all trades - wedding photographers and wildlife photographers will appreciate the improvement in higher ISO performance and autofocus in a standard sized DSLR package. It takes the best of the 5D Mk2, the best of the 7D and throws in some delights from the 1DX. So from that perspective, it's a bit of a bargain. However, I do appreciate a lot of the Canon community's frustration regarding the lack of movement forward on the base ISO dynamic range. Here in the UK, the 5D Mk3 costs ~£3000, that's a lot of money that only buys you better autofocus and a perhaps a touch better image quality at the higher ISOs. The other obvious factor is that the Nikon D800 costs around £500 less, so for those looking to step into the full-frame arena it's a bit of a no brainer that the D800 is the most attractive camera body with the 36 MP and ~14 stops of DR at base ISO.

Or is it?

Moving onto the D800 - lets be honest, it looks damn marvellous. Sure, it loses out on higher ISO DR slightly and other things like frames per second, but if you're not into sports or wildlife then who cares. We've seen the shadow pushing examples ad nauseum (personally, I don't need to push shadows) to know what this sensor is capable of doing. However, here's my sticking point with the Nikon body; I'm going to have to use Nikon lenses. If I decide to take advantage of the better low ISO DR and cheaper body price, that means investing in a lot of full-frame glass such as:

- Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 (generic walkaround)
- Nikon 16-35 f/4 (standard landscape wide angle zoom)
- Nikon 24mm PC-E (tilt / shift prime lens for lanscapes)

I looked at some samples from the above lenses compared to their Canon counterparts and to my eyes the Canon glass is just better.

Nikon 24-70mm vs Canon 24-70mm at f/8, 35mm - Chromatic aberrations are woeful on the Nikon, not to mention the corners are not up to scratch. Shooting wide open on the Nikon also yields less than impressive quality.

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 vs Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 at 16mm, f/8 - again, crap corners on the Nikon with the Canon perfoming admirably.

Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 vs Canon 16-35mm at 16/17mm, f/2.8 - a very important 'milky way' focal length and aperture to get best results. You can see with your own eyes. The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is a much better lens than the other Nikon offerings, but given it's massive front element then a lot of my filters will not work, so that lens is out of the question for me.

Nikon 24mm PC-E vs Canon 24mm TS-E II, f/8 - aberrations in the corner seem to be Nikon's weak point. Perspective control lenses are important to me to be able to shift down but still keep perspective under control.

Nikon 24mm PC-E vs Canon 24mm TS-E II, f/8 with full shift - the Nikon falls apart again with the aberrations, particularly in the corner.

I appreciate that aberrations are mostly correctable in post processing, but you can see my concern that when sinking a load of cash into new lenses for a new body, you want to make sure that you're investing in some good glass. The Nikon equivalent lenses just aren't as good as the Canon L glass to my eyes, so it has me thinking "sure, 14 stops of DR and 36mp, but what's the point if the lenses are mush?". I think there's far too much emphasis on what DxO mark says, it's used as an e***** urination contest to say "my camera beats your camera", the majority of people are overlooking the obvious factors of the whole camera system including the lens line-up.

So that's my take - I want the D800 for it's sensor, but I want Canon glass .
05-27-2012, 03:25 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
In addition, I wanted to throw some other musings into the mix. You'll see around the camera forums a lot of examples of pushed Canon exposures with "OMG LOOK AT THE BANDING" in the title of the post. It's come to light that CameraRaw does not seem to do a very good job of processing Canon RAW files. Banding becomes an issue on Canon bodies using this software, so by processing them in Canon's DPP, you can get much better results out of 5D Mk3.

My processing is attached with a default "unpushed" crop of DPReview's studio test shot. The dynamic range advantage of the D800 (4EV push, downsampled to match the 5D Mk3 in size) is clear; there is more detail and less noise. That said, by processing in DPP the 5D Mk3 is no slouch; it's not quite 4EV of push but a good chunk of detail has been pulled without any magenta blotching or nasty vertical banding that is typical of the examples around the web.

Would you notice on an 8 x 10 print? Nope.

(top image, unpushed)
(second image, 5D Mk3)
(bottom image, D800)
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
Canon EOS 5D Mark III  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
Canon EOS 5D Mark III  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
NIKON D800  Photo 

Last edited by Big G; 05-27-2012 at 03:30 AM.
05-27-2012, 08:12 AM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,913
QuoteOriginally posted by Big G Quote
I looked at some samples from the above lenses compared to their Canon counterparts ...The Nikon equivalent lenses just aren't as good as the Canon L glass to my eyes
The digital-picture-com web site is Canon fanboy central. That result is hardly surprising.
05-27-2012, 09:25 AM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
Photozone's results reflect the same. Is Klaus a Canon fanboy too?

Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis - harsh aberrations, sub standard corners

Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis - the same

Nikkor AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis - corner performance is rubbish wide open

What about Lenstip? Are they also Canon fanboys?

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 24-70 mm f/2.8G ED review - Image resolution - Lenstip.com - same sub-standard edge of frame performance here

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 24-70 mm f/2.8G ED review - Chromatic aberration - Lenstip.com - same sub-standard aberration performance.

I want a D800, it looks superb; but the Canon lenses are better.
05-27-2012, 12:28 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Durban, South Africa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,052
Take a look at these

Nikon D800 Test Shot | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Too be quite a honest, I let my eyes do the talking not lens tests - I have seen nothing from a Canon Mk11 or 3 that matches the D800 for detail
05-27-2012, 12:45 PM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
It's got 36 megapixels, with the right glass of course it's going to have more detail. I'm not sure why you're lambasting the 5D when that's clearly an obvious advantage to the D800.

Just out of curiosity, what size of prints and what distance are you viewing those prints at? Or are you talking about 100% pixel peeping? This is something that I find bothersome across all camera forums: the extra detail on the D800 is only relevant if you're prepared to print very large. Take a look on the Nikon section of DPReview, there's a lot of D700 whiners saying that the resolution of the D800 is too high and that they'd have preferred something lower because they will never print that large.

It depends on your requirements, but something like the rumoured D600 with 24 mp at a reduced cost is much more appealing to a wide demographic, particularly the D700 owners looking to upgrade.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
5d, customization, detail, iii, image, mark, mode, options, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D800 gets DPR 82% Gold Award jogiba Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 16 05-14-2012 05:35 PM
Canon Confirms “Light Leak” Issue in the 5D Mark III jogiba Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 3 04-17-2012 05:08 AM
UPDATE: The long-awaited Canon EOS 5D Mark III is here! bwDraco Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 17 03-02-2012 06:20 AM
Canon 200-400mm and 600mm prototype lenses first sightings...and the new 5D Mark III? jogiba Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 2 01-27-2012 05:19 PM
Leica S2 versus Canon 1Ds Mark III Samsungian Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 10 02-24-2010 01:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:03 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top