5dMKIII.....taking the picture....Post Processing.....PRINT

[Daniel Browning]

With the MKIII zero correction printing is now possible and the colors look "natural".

I'm glad you're getting good results. There are only three possible explanations for what you see: spectral QE changes in the CFA, updated raw converter software, and/or placebo effect. According to DxO tests, the primary change that Canon made to the CFA from the 5D2->5D3 is that the blue pixels are much less blue -- now they are 25% green and 75% blue. This improves noise performance, but noticably reduces color accuracy for subjects that have blue spectra. But perhaps the blue change is more pleasing, even though it's less accurate.


I think a more likely explanation is just newer raw converter software changes. If so, it would be possible to get the exact same zero-corrections printing from the 5D2.

[HDNitehawk]

and/or placebo effect. .

Daniel

I have to know, was the Nikon D800 able to produce that effect?

[Daniel Browning]

I have to know, was the Nikon D800 able to produce that effect?

No, it creates a reality distortion field. I don't just *think* it's better. It actually *is* better. But only within 10 feet of the camera. For everyone outside of the field, it's worse.

[Jon Ruyle]

Daniel

I have to know, was the Nikon D800 able to produce that effect?

Ha ha! I laughed out loud at that.

[jks_photo]

@ DB will try using current DPP to process my olr 5dII raw to check if I can get same results.... THANKS DB your posts are always so enlingtening.....

[jks_photo]

I'm glad you're getting good results. There are only three possible explanations for what you see: spectral QE changes in the CFA, updated raw converter software, and/or placebo effect. According to DxO tests, the primary change that Canon made to the CFA from the 5D2->5D3 is that the blue pixels are much less blue -- now they are 25% green and 75% blue. This improves noise performance, but noticably reduces color accuracy for subjects that have blue spectra. But perhaps the blue change is more pleasing, even though it's less accurate.


I think a more likely explanation is just newer raw converter software changes. If so, it would be possible to get the exact same zero-corrections printing from the 5D2.

Hi DB I tried converting my old 5DII raw files using the latest DPP i used in converting my 5DIII files..... they stilll needed correcting during print so I guess results I'm getting with 5DIII files are not due to raw converters.....

[HDNitehawk]

What if the in camera magic is created in to the RAW File? If all RAW files are created equally, then your test would be more accurate, but are all RAW files created equally? Part of the 1D X hype from Canon said the new faster processors allowed for much more in camera processing and that was part of the big improvements.

I just think the fair test will be to take two identical pictures under identical situations, then process them both to see which can be made better. I am sure the 5D III would win this contest, but it would be interesting to see.

[Keith B]

Not to perpetuate this any further because 1) I am not a scientist/engineer and 2) I don't really care (I don't have to justify my purchase). But...Of the two shots above, the blacks have filled in on the 5DII's image where they have not on the mkIII's. In my opinion, regardless of how it got there (DR Fairy?) the 5DIII's has a lot more shadow detail.

Disclaimer: I am not picking on the 5DII. I still use it on a daily basis. I'm just saying contrary to most people's belief, Canon actually made the sensor in the 5DIII much better. I think if anyone is jumping ship to the D800, they should be doing it solely to have the higher MPs.

Here is the original (from mkII) without the edit. Again all that was done to the others was shadow and brightness. Exposure was left alone. This is too show what even the mkII was up against.

[Daniel Browning]

In my opinion, regardless of how it got there (DR Fairy?) the 5DIII's has a lot more shadow detail.

Again, Aperture clipped the blacks. It's not the DR Fairy, it's Aperture. The raw converter is using *very* different raw conversions for each camera.

I'm just saying contrary to most people's belief, Canon actually made the sensor in the 5DIII much better. I think if anyone is jumping ship to the D800, they should be doing it solely to have the higher MPs.

Personally, I consider the pattern noise improvement to be rather limited, but even if you consider it to be a significant improvement, you have to admit it's still 10 times worse than the D800.

[Keith B]

Wow! Sorry Dr. Cooper.

I never claimed exact science just tried to give some real world example to the folks that actually operate in the real world. You can tear it apart anyway you'd like. The 5DIII's images have shown to have more detail. I'm sorry it isn't the 20 stops of DR you are looking for.

I often wondered why this board is so slow these days.