D600 with full fat AF system!

[James J]

Hmmm, yes you can. The internals themselves really don't take up much room at all, it just comes down to the prism size and sensor size. Most stuff outside of that doesn't really matter and size just comes down to what customers want at each price point. You could put a full frame sensor in 1100D or D3200 sized bodies if you wanted as they all have full frame sized mounts, which is the main size determinant of bodies.

Have you actually seen how big the EOS-M cameras are? Canon shot itself in the foot with them already as they are massive compared to the other compacts as canon has tried to turn it into a 650D with a slightly smaller body. Hardly gonna fit in your pocket is it? Utterly pointless product imo, especially when you compare it to a nikon V1 for example.

 

[An Exception]

The ISO and DR are absolutely fine on the 5D mk iii compared to the D800. Sure neither of them are comparable to say a hasslebrads DR, yet the ISO performance on both is exceptionally similar. DxO mark also state that the DR on the 5D mk iii at higher iso levels is higher than the D800 so thats a seriously mute point anyway.

Not really. DR is only half the story. Read noise is the other half. If you had 100 stops of DR, it wouldn't be any use if the read noise isn't low enough to allow you to use it.
High read noise = Banding.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Quick reminder please... DR?

 

[Raymond Lin]

Dynamic range.

 

[James J]

Not really. DR is only half the story. Read noise is the other half. If you had 100 stops of DR, it wouldn't be any use if the read noise isn't low enough to allow you to use it.
High read noise = Banding.

Yes really, seen as the banding of shadows on the 5D mk iii is substantially better than the 5D mk ii sensor. You'd really struggle to tell the difference between 100% crops on a RAW from the cameras in a controlled lighting environment at most iso levels apart from over 3200, where the 5D mk iii starts to pull ahead (with all noise reduction on camera turned off on both bodies)

 

[D.P.]

The ISO and DR are absolutely fine on the 5D mk iii compared to the D800. Sure neither of them are comparable to say a hasslebrads DR, yet the ISO performance on both is exceptionally similar. DxO mark also state that the DR on the 5D mk iii at higher iso levels is higher than the D800 so thats a seriously mute point anyway.

As for whoever mentioned the availability of D700 and 5D mk ii cameras in the coming months, you do need to remember that people are continously upgrading to the mk iii and D800/e models from these cameras and classifieds like on TP are full of them!

Yes, the 5DMKIII has ISO performance almost as good as the D800, not much in it. But that is the point, Nikon pushed the resolution and kept a small advantage in noise performance. The 5DMKIII sensor has maintained the same resolution but failed to surpass the D800 in noise performance, it is not like a D3s/D4/1D_X sensor with lower resolution and exceptional noise performance so it has not gained anything by keeping the resolution modest.

The D800 has 3-4 stops more DR than the 5DMKII at base ISO where it counts and has clean shadows without banding. Yes at ridiculously high ISO the 5DMKIII has on par DR, but it is irrelevant by that point. You don't shoot at ISO 6400 if you care about DR, you shoot at ISO 50-400 tops, more likely in the 50-100 range (whatever the base ISO is).



And you are wrong, the D800 has a DR that far exceeds MF cameras like Phase IQ180, Hasselblad H3DII 50, Leif, leica S2, etc. That is why the D800 is such an interesting camera,.

 

[James J]

Yes, the 5DMKIII has ISO performance almost as good as the D800, not much in it. But that is the point, Nikon pushed the resolution and kept a small advantage in noise performance. The 5DMKIII sensor has maintained the same resolution but failed to surpass the D800 in noise performance, it is not like a D3s/D4/1D_X sensor with lower resolution and exceptional noise performance so it has not gained anything by keeping the resolution modest.

The D800 has 3-4 stops more DR than the 5DMKII at base ISO where it counts and has clean shadows without banding. Yes at ridiculously high ISO the 5DMKIII has on par DR, but it is irrelevant by that point. You don't shoot at ISO 6400 if you care about DR, you shoot at ISO 50-400 tops, more likely in the 50-100 range (whatever the base ISO is).

And you are wrong, the D800 has a DR that far exceeds MF cameras like Phase IQ180, Hasselblad H3DII 50, Leif, leica S2, etc. That is why the D800 is such an interesting camera,.

I'm not wrong at all, seen as the hasselblads have 16bit RAW files for a start, compared to 14bit from the D800. The DR is no where near as good on the D800 compared to the 40/50/60mp MF sensors from HB.

The D800s DR is only better than the 5D mk iii when you are taking landscape photos, as the iso is 50-100 (base basically), yet everyday shooting where the iso is raised to meet demand, the DR is better on the 5D mk iii. This is at 400 iso and above. Its not drastically better, but people on this forum love to make things out to be night and day differences, which nothing is when it comes to high end cameras.

I'll own a D800E by the start of october this year, so I'll let you know first hand how good it is in all departments and if theres anyone near me with a 5D mk iii, I'd be more than willing to do some controlled testing to settle these stupid arguments once and for all.

 

[D.P.]

Yes really, seen as the banding of shadows on the 5D mk iii is substantially better than the 5D mk ii sensor. You'd really struggle to tell the difference between 100% crops on a RAW from the cameras in a controlled lighting environment at most iso levels apart from over 3200, where the 5D mk iii starts to pull ahead (with all noise reduction on camera turned off on both bodies)

Eh, even at ISO 12800 the D800 has a bigger SNR than the 5DMKII, at 25600 they are about the same and either camera gives useful output.

At ISO 3200 the D800 has a higher DR, at ISO 6400 they are about equal, at ISO 12800 the 5DMKIII just pulls ahead an uperceivable amount , it is not until ISO 25600 is there a real difference with the 5DMKIII giving slightly better Dr, except at this ISO the images form both cameras are useless.

Across the usable ISO range the D800 has 2-12 times more DR!


Across all ISO settings the D800 has higher colour sensitivity and depth.
There is not a single setting under which the 5DMkIII can give a measurably better image quality in any quality aspect where that image would actually be usable and the D800 not. The inverse is not true. if you need to photograph a high DR scene the 5DMKIII simply cannot compete with the D800 and one would be forced to use HDR , on a dynamic scene that would render the 5DMKIII incapable of capturing that scene.

 

[James J]

Eh, even at ISO 12800 the D800 has a bigger SNR than the 5DMKII, at 25600 they are about the same and either camera gives useful output.

At ISO 3200 the D800 has a higher DR, at ISO 6400 they are about equal, at ISO 12800 the 5DMKIII just pulls ahead an uperceivable amount , it is not until ISO 25600 is there a real difference with the 5DMKIII giving slightly better Dr, except at this ISO the images form both cameras are useless.

Across the usable ISO range the D800 has 2-12 times more DR!


Across all ISO settings the D800 has higher colour sensitivity and depth.
There is not a single setting under which the 5DMkIII can give a measurably better image quality in any quality aspect where that image would actually be usable and the D800 not. The inverse is not true. if you need to photograph a high DR scene the 5DMKIII simply cannot compete with the D800 and one would be forced to use HDR , on a dynamic scene that would render the 5DMKIII incapable of capturing that scene.

Incapable? You must be joking. People have been shooting "dynamic" rich DR scenes on digital cameras for a decade! If you think the 5D mk iii can't do that, you are very much mistaken.

 

[D.P.]

I'm not wrong at all, seen as the hasselblads have 16bit RAW files for a start, compared to 14bit from the D800. The DR is no where near as good on the D800 compared to the 40/50/60mp MF sensors from HB.

The D800s DR is only better than the 5D mk iii when you are taking landscape photos, as the iso is 50-100 (base basically), yet everyday shooting where the iso is raised to meet demand, the DR is better on the 5D mk iii. This is at 400 iso and above. Its not drastically better, but people on this forum love to make things out to be night and day differences, which nothing is when it comes to high end cameras.

I'll own a D800E by the start of october this year, so I'll let you know first hand how good it is in all departments and if theres anyone near me with a 5D mk iii, I'd be more than willing to do some controlled testing to settle these stupid arguments once and for all.

This is utter nonsense and contradicts every source of information from every reliable resource. I am not sure where you are getting your information from?

 

[James J]

Sigh I can't be ***** to argue with the same old people on here about things that just don't matter. Its the same ******* discussion in every thread lately.

 

[ElDude]

Out of curiosity, and as I'm getting sick to death of this discussion, are there not links people can provide to once and for all, end this nonsense? Surely if all these "facts" people are throwing about are facts, there is evidence. If there is, post it and be done with it. These pointless arguments are, well, pointless

 

[James J]

Out of curiosity, and as I'm getting sick to death of this discussion, are there not links people can provide to once and for all, end this nonsense? Surely if all these "facts" people are throwing about are facts, there is evidence. If there is, post it and be done with it. These pointless arguments are, well, pointless

Shows the DR difference between the MF hasselblad vs the D800 nicely and why the D800 just doesn't have the same level of detail in colour (14 bit RAW vs 16 bit RAW)

 

[D.P.]

Incapable? You must be joking. People have been shooting "dynamic" rich DR scenes on digital cameras for a decade! If you think the 5D mk iii can't do that, you are very much mistaken.

It is a simple fact.

Why do you think ND-grad filters are so important, why do you think so many people have clung on to film with its high DR, why have many people used techniques such as HDR and exposure blending?? Are all these people delusional? No They know the DR of many natural scenes exceeds that of digital sensors (and films before that) and try to find ways to mitigate the sensing limitation to convey scenes with high DR.

The D800 has a true DR well over 14 stops and about 3 stops or so beyond the 5DMKIII. This has been measured by numerous sources. that difference is a very real and observable difference that affects IQ for any high DR scene.


Things like HDR and exposure blending only work well for static scenes. That is a fact. ND-Grads can be effective, especially when there is a plain sky etc to mask, but do not offer the fine tuned control necessary for some scenes with more complex patterns of light and dark. Only sensors offering high DR can mitigate such issues.

 

[An Exception]

This is utter nonsense and contradicts every source of information from every reliable resource. I am not sure where you are getting your information from?

He's probably read this article.

The reviewer was a bit silly using F16 tbh. Why bother comparing the 'E' to the H4D40, if your going to cripple/soften the results of the 35mm with F16 and 11, as MF has a diffraction advantage.

 

[James J]

He's probably read this article.

The reviewer was a bit silly using F16 tbh. Why bother comparing the 'E' to the H4D40, if your going to cripple/soften the results of the 35mm with F16 and 11, as MF has a diffraction advantage.

Have I now? I haven't even heard of the website, let alone read the article

 

[D.P.]

Out of curiosity, and as I'm getting sick to death of this discussion, are there not links people can provide to once and for all, end this nonsense? Surely if all these "facts" people are throwing about are facts, there is evidence. If there is, post it and be done with it. These pointless arguments are, well, pointless

Go to measurements, Dynamic range.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792|0/(brand2)/Nikon


or a hands on comparison:


http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-review

Nikon D800 vs Canon 5D Mark III Summary

As you can see, the Nikon D800 sensor has no competition, even from its biggest rival, the Canon 5D Mark III. Although the Canon 5D Mark III shows impressive levels of noise at lower ISO levels, it still cannot quite match what the D800 can do. Don’t forget that there is also a big resolution difference between the two – the Nikon D800 is 36.3 MP, while the Canon 5D Mark III is 22.3 MP. So at base ISO levels, the Nikon D800 is going to have a resolution advantage for landscape and fashion work.

Since I have been shooting with both the Canon 5D Mark III and the Nikon D800 side by side, I can say that the D800 clearly has the lead in dynamic range. This difference was obvious when I shot the same scene with both cameras, at very similar camera settings. The Canon 5D Mark III consistently overexposed highlights, while the D800 rarely did (the exposure was similar on both). The dynamic range difference was even more obvious when post-processing images in Lightroom – I clearly had more options for recovering data on D800 images than I did with the 5D Mark III.


....
the Canon 5D Mark III crop looks much noisier in comparison and retains less colors and details compared to the Nikon D800 crop. When pulling details from shadows, the Nikon D800 has a lot more information to work with.

The same is repeated all over the net.

 

[Ksanti]

Have you actually seen how big the EOS-M cameras are? Canon shot itself in the foot with them already as they are massive compared to the other compacts as canon has tried to turn it into a 650D with a slightly smaller body. Hardly gonna fit in your pocket is it? Utterly pointless product imo, especially when you compare it to a nikon V1 for example.

They're barely any bigger than the NEX cameras if at all. The EF-M mount is designed for APS-C sensors. You're comparing it to compacts, Cx-mount and m 4/3s mounts which are much smaller than the EF-M mount. The EOS-M is also a hell of a lot smaller than the 650d, I have no idea where you get the idea they're the same size from. The sensor and image quality from the EOS-M will walk all over the Nikon 1 system, though the Cx-mount lenses are very good, the sensor size more than negates that.

 

[D.P.]

Have I now? I haven't even heard of the website, let alone read the article

Well where did you get such contradictory ideas from?
I don't know anywhere reliable on the internet that has ever shown anything other than the ISO performance being similar with a slight edge to the D800 (at best, no difference worth worrying about), with a DR lead to the D800 of 2.5-4.0 stops , the 5DMKIII at best equaling the D800 at around ISO 3200-6400.

 

[Raymond Lin]

My 2 cents.

It depends how you look at the EOS-M.

If you look at it as a mirrorless camera that has its own set of pancake lenses and on top of that, can use EOS lenses then great.

If you look at it as a mirrorless camera that uses EOS lenses then it is pointless. One can just about to put the EOS-M with a pancake lens like that 22mm in a coat pocket. But if I were to use it with say a 17-55 then i might as well use a full size DSLR like a 650D. Since the camera isn't pocketable anymore.

There are always the people out there who just want a back up to their DSLR gear, then again, at like £800, might as well get a 650D.