Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: 5dIII vs. D800 - just one nagging question

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,042

    5dIII vs. D800 - just one nagging question

    I am betting Daniel has the answer to this - I think he knows more than he lets on...

    In all the comparisons I have seen, the d800 wins big on dynamic range in the video mode... YET, no one comments on this except Dave Dugdale did in his piece.

    So DB - does the extra shadow detail show up in the stills? Any dynamic range comparisons out there that worth any salt?

    I was thinking of titling this thread as "2nd impressions are there any?"
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles View Post
    So DB - does the extra shadow detail show up in the stills?
    Definitely. Much more so than in the video, where you are limited by the 8-bit file format.

    Quote Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles View Post
    Any dynamic range comparisons out there that worth any salt?
    I think this one is good: http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html





    See how much cleaner and more usable the shadows are on the D800? It makes a huge difference for what I shoot.

    I've done some dynamic range comparisons for myself (but only compared to the older 5D2, not the new 5D3) but haven't put them up yet.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	canon-mk3-2b.jpg 
Views:	54 
Size:	135.5 KB 
ID:	1095  

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,042
    Thanks. I found the DxO rates the d800 about 3 stops greater range than the 5d3. (they seem to have done a decent job - or at least do a lot of comparisons) That strikes me as a quite a bit. The shots you provide are truly significantly different.

    Again, thanks - any other twists and turns in the land of Nikonian that are either pleasant or unpleasant surprises now that you have had some decent view finder time?

    Mike
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,902
    Daniel; a quote from the review you linked,

    "As you can see from my samples, I mostly stuck with the Canon Mark III on this trip. Mainly because of the difficulty I faced with Nikon D800's poor LCD Live View performance in low light. For my photography needs, this was the Achilles' heel of an otherwise superb camera."

    Do you see this as an issue?

    Fred Miranda was not to positive on the Nikor lens he had either.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    Do you see this as an issue?
    Yes, there are several problems with the liveview. Canon doesn't stop the lens down until you take the actual shot (unless you hold down the DoF preview button) and only *simulates* the exposure. Whereas Nikon is always simulating the DoF, which can cause noise problems for liveview. The way I've been working around it for now is to set the aperture to f/1.4 while setting focus (nice, bright liveview) then stop down to the actual shooting aperture. Perhaps there is something in the menu for changing the behavior to mimmick Canon.

    The other problem with Nikon liveview is slow frame rates and row skipping. The frame rate slows down noticeably when you zoom in, and it's softer and more artifacted than a 100% view should be. My theory is that they the sensor readout speed is too slow in windowing mode (i.e. even when reading out just a small portion of the sensor) and they had to start skipping rows just to get it up to even the slow speed it is at. (If they read all the lines, then maybe it would slow all the way down to 5 FPS.)

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,902
    I do not know if it was the D800's manual, or another tutorial put out by Nikon, but they had a whole section at the front on how to shoot in live view. Nikon seemed to put allot of emphasis on it, I assumed it was because it was going to be superior to Canon's.

  7. #7
    Senior Member freelanceshots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    485
    I am finding these results to be a stretch. I don't see noise like this at all in my 5D2 images and they are shot in the more extreme circumstances as far as dark areas can get and noise issues. Better yet its under the dreaded tungsten lighting here which makes images go poopy quickly. Image below captured with tripod, shutter 0.8, f/11, ISO 200, RAW file converted to JPEG for web at 90%. Crops are from the areas in Red. If the circumstance in ducussion involve taking this image and bumping it up in brightness by 2 stop from its RAW file I'd say that I've never come close to needing to do that at any time during my whole professional career. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly as I'm not one of the brainy folks here. I have total trust in a 5DII and better yet a 5DIII. Most of the big companies I know have 5D2's and have no future wishes to jump over to nikon because its a non issue.







    A finished image

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7311236228_f1eab09714_o.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	121.2 KB 
ID:	1128  
    Last edited by freelanceshots; 06-01-2012 at 01:34 AM. Reason: uploading images

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by freelanceshots View Post
    I don't see noise like this at all in my 5D2 images and they are shot in the more extreme circumstances as far as dark areas can get and noise issues.
    Personally, I don't consider these to be "extreme circumstances." For example, print film can achieve over 7 stops of highlight headroom (over middle gray). If you tried to do the same thing with the 5D2, you'd run into those noise problem.s But I don't think that means film photographers are/were extreme.

    In any case, I'm glad that the capability of the 5D2 is enough for your needs.

  9. #9
    Senior Member freelanceshots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    485
    Long shutter speeds 8 seconds at ISO 250 in a dark room with a bright window with directional light and a white bedspread not difficult/extreme for a dig camera sensor? Try taking a wedding photo of the bride & groom with their white and black clothes standing infront of and off to the side of the window and without the use of strobes or a flash. Big difference between the black shadows/dark colors and the super blown out window.

    Images that I shot last night. I don't see any downfalls using the 5D2 sensor where the 5D3 would have been even better from what I've heard people describe. Top image had shutter speeds reaching the 5 minute mark at ISO 50. Interior image used 1/5, 1/13 and 0.5 second shutters at ISO 640. I say you can nick pick anything to death where the time wasted could be better used doing something else. If my camera's images exhibited the detail and quality of Fred's test image then I would have dumped my 5D2 three years ago. Its all about how you choose to use your tool. Fred does have nice landscape photos so I'm not going to discredit him. Each camera has its weaker points but this signal to noise ratio aspect in respect to pushing the range of stops is not really that apparent unless you are trying to be unrealistic. That's all I'm saying.



    pull this up from flickr to view larger: http://www.flickr.com/photos/freelan...ream/lightbox/
    Last edited by freelanceshots; 06-01-2012 at 06:04 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    1,246
    I'm sure interpolating up didn't help the 5D3 image on FM test. I think there are lots of folks upset Canon didn't go MP crazy and are trying to exploit every aspect of the sensor. Why not downsize the D800 image? When that would probably be more REAL WORLD.

    No one is talking about how phenomenal the 5D3 is in low light.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •