Canon 5DIII DOES have favorable Photographic Dynamic Range? Link to analysis

I mean lets be honest.... do the little bit higher dynamic range improve the pic THAT much? Enough to switch over to Nikon??

5Dmaniac wrote in post #14057330
More than anything I was hoping for an improvement in DR - if the chart above is correct, then we are NOT getting it with the 5D3. I don't need more MPs or even better AF (I shoot landscapes mostly with my 5Ds).

i agree. looks like the 5d3 sensor, at least when DR is concerned hasn't advanced much vs the 5d2, which is a bummer. good thing im not just buying the 5d3 for DR... it has a plethora of other features that I love.

Tony Parenti wrote in post #14057910
I mean lets be honest.... do the little bit higher dynamic range improve the pic THAT much? Enough to switch over to Nikon??

Well, that's a decision everyone has to make on their own. Landscape shooters may consider a move. I can't really see sports shooters going that route though.

Keep in mind, though, that we aren't talking about a "little bit higher dynamic range"...it's going to likely be 2+EV higher at ISO100.

AngryCorgi wrote in post #14057992
Well, that's a decision everyone has to make on their own. Landscape shooters may consider a move. I can't really see sports shooters going that route though.

if they are that worried about DR, shouldn't landscapers just go with MF?

Yeah I see the same thing, which was consensus all along - Canon sensor's have 1-1.5 stops less in DR than Nikon's best (D3X, D7000, to lesser extent D4) and on par with D3, D3S, D700 etc.

So if it has roughly the same DR as 5D2 but less pattern noise in shadows, I am, generally, a happy camper

ilumo wrote in post #14058003
if they are that worried about DR, shouldn't landscapers just go with MF?

(a) MF is a different price point altogether and (b) the DR of several sony-based sensors shame the DR of many, if not all, MF bodies/backs.

ilumo wrote in post #14058003
if they are that worried about DR, shouldn't landscapers just go with MF?

Indeed, since after ISO-400 DR is a non-issue (<=9 across the board for all brands/models)

bomzai wrote in post #14058017
Indeed, since after ISO-400 DR is a non-issue (<=9 across the board for all brands/models)

Here's why:

http://www.dxomark.com …5%7C0/(brand3)/​Hasselblad

ilumo wrote in post #14058003
if they are that worried about DR, shouldn't landscapers just go with MF?

Well, I do this for a hobby - nobody pays for my photographs I also have a pretty big investment in Canon glass. I get by with the 5DII just fine but it does force me to do more HDR than I want to. I am old school and like to get my pictures right in camera as much as I can

Can anyone seriously see a 1 log2 difference (from Canon's 9 to Nikon's 10) in DR at ISO 100?

davidc502 wrote in post #14058328
Can anyone seriously see a 1 log2 difference (from Canon's 9 to Nikon's 10) in DR at ISO 100?

That depends. Will you push your shadows 7 stops up? :P

Alex_Venom wrote in post #14058483
That depends. Will you push your shadows 7 stops up? :P

Ha!

5Dmaniac wrote in post #14058301
Well, I do this for a hobby - nobody pays for my photographs I also have a pretty big investment in Canon glass. I get by with the 5DII just fine but it does force me to do more HDR than I want to. I am old school and like to get my pictures right in camera as much as I can

i hear you. i'm pretty vested in canon glass, so going to nikon is a no no for me. also, a lot of my coworkers shoot nikon, so I will be able to play with their d4/d800 when its out anyway.
as for HDRs, the 5d3 will be able to do that in camera, with +-3EV, which will be way more DR than any single shot from the d800/d7000, etc. with 6fps, as long as the subject isnt moving much, you should be all set.
i love the d800 and think it will be a great camera... but the 5d3 is more my style. I wanted canon to copy the d700 (faster FPS, more responsive, awesome AF, lower MP, high iso perf) and canon responded.

davidc502 wrote in post #14058328
Can anyone seriously see a 1 log2 difference (from Canon's 9 to Nikon's 10) in DR at ISO 100?

if I remember my math, I think it's a little less than 1/3 of a stop, talk about splitting hairs.

A read noise of about 2.5 is what I would expect. I think the MkII was about 4-5 and the 1DIV is less than 2.

That's basically where they are doing to see the ISO and DR gains of 0.5-1 stop. I was hoping they would get it down below 2 though.

EDIT: just looked at the D4 - below 1 read noise. WOW! Even if it is a bit worse at high ISO. See that's the sort of improvement that is significant and if Canon got the 1Dx read noise down to ~1, then I think they are skimping on the 5DIII a bit. Maybe there is a trade-off between low and high ISO read noise (anyone know what this is about).