5D Mark III sensor rating

Charlie wrote in post #14304541
I posted in another thread about a link to a photography site that said between 150-300 point, there was no noticeable difference, using a loupe to view. I believe that to be true, afterall, I have a wedding portrait that size from a lowly Nikon d200.

I would find you the link, but I'm on a silly tablet and too hard to navigate as is.

I have a couple of large format printers, the largest 44". I have done a bunch of tests to see the impact dpi has on the quality of the print. 150 is lousy, 200 is better and 300 is the best. Printing at 150 dpi is like using a kit lens. Obviously, if the original image has very little detail like a portrait, then it is harder to see the impact. I used detailed landscape image for my test.

Printers print at a standard dpi. The Epson printer are set to 360 dpi, the HP use 300 dpi. If you send an image less than the native dpi, the printer driver will uprez to the dpi the printer needs.

The more native pixels you have, the better your print will be. With the 5d3, it's native size is 16x20. Anything larger and you need to manufacture pixels. The d800 starts with a native print size of around 21x27. Obviously it will produce a better looking print at anything bigger than 16x20.

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14305019
Enough of the dribble.. Where's my shot glass?

I'll drink to that!

Hogloff wrote in post #14305197
I have a couple of large format printers, the largest 44". I have done a bunch of tests to see the impact dpi has on the quality of the print. 150 is lousy, 200 is better and 300 is the best. Printing at 150 dpi is like using a kit lens. Obviously, if the original image has very little detail like a portrait, then it is harder to see the impact. I used detailed landscape image for my test.

Printers print at a standard dpi. The Epson printer are set to 360 dpi, the HP use 300 dpi. If you send an image less than the native dpi, the printer driver will uprez to the dpi the printer needs.

The more native pixels you have, the better your print will be. With the 5d3, it's native size is 16x20. Anything larger and you need to manufacture pixels. The d800 starts with a native print size of around 21x27. Obviously it will produce a better looking print at anything bigger than 16x20.

Hey, you guys have turned a rather meaningless thread into a very interesting treatise on making larger prints. I wish that all of the posts relating to this subject could be put into a separate thread. Or is there one existing?

Thanks for the info anyway>

All this talk about larger prints disregards the fact that viewing distance increases with print size.

Nobody views the Mona Lisa from 6 inches away to evaluate the brush strokes, but even if they did, the individual strokes are meaningless compared to the art as a whole.

In the same way, an equivalently uprezzed print from a 5d3, though not as sharp as the d800 print will still look exactly the same from the intended viewing distance.

bobfather wrote in post #14305675
All this talk about larger prints disregards the fact that viewing distance increases with print size.

Nobody views the Mona Lisa from 6 inches away to evaluate the brush strokes, but even if they did, the individual strokes are meaningless compared to the art as a whole.

In the same way, an equivalently uprezzed print from a 5d3, though not as sharp as the d800 print will still look exactly the same from the intended viewing distance.

That's a fallacy. Go into a fine art photo gallery and observe the people for awhile. They start by looking at the photo as a whole from a distance and then come in close to see the picture within the picture, the fine details. I've seen this on many occasions.

Now if the fine detail turns to mush when viewed up close, while the photo next to it contains excellent fine details, which print will leave a lasting impression? Both as a whole deserve to be in the gallery, yet one lacks finess when viewed up close while the other shines. Which do you feel will leave that lasting impression?

bobfather wrote in post #14305675
All this talk about larger prints disregards the fact that viewing distance increases with print size.

Nobody views the Mona Lisa from 6 inches away to evaluate the brush strokes, but even if they did, the individual strokes are meaningless compared to the art as a whole.

In the same way, an equivalently uprezzed print from a 5d3, though not as sharp as the d800 print will still look exactly the same from the intended viewing distance.

As noted above and elsewhere - the viewing distance varies with the subject matter as much as print size - there is not "standard" rule here. Portraits and street/photojournalism shots tend not to be examined in detail but are mainly appreciated for their overall image composition/story/emot​ional impact etc. However, many fine art prints, especially landscapes, are minutely examined by most viewers at some time during their viewing experience no matter what the size, regardless of what the photographer "intended" the viewing distance to be. Hence those who desire more MP are precisely those who would be interested in examining such a print up close and personal. Horses for courses, old chap

You guys almost make it sound like you can print billboards with the D800 for god's sakes

Maverique wrote in post #14305787
You guys almost make it sound like you can print billboards with the D800 for god's sakes

You can print a billboard from pretty much any digital camera ever made- they're such low dpi

qbfx wrote in post #14301615
Well, I think we all agree, the D800 performs better in this respect. But as we all know, when pushing shadows in post, at a certain level noise appears very abruptly. What I'm trying to say is were these pushed half a stop less, the difference wouldn't be quite so obvious. But I do agree the D800 is a DR powerhouse.

Fortunately, Nik DFine seems to do a pretty decent job of dealing with this kind of noise:

kcbrown wrote in post #14310344
Fortunately, Nik DFine seems to do a pretty decent job of dealing with this kind of noise:

Hosted photo: posted by kcbrown in
./showthread.php?p=143​10344&i=i251956614
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Certainly it's not nearly as good as the D800's performance in this respect (the D800 is just jaw-droppingly amazing at this), but if you have to push your shadows by a couple of stops, you can at least make them look reasonable.

That's not printable in my opinion, at least I would not make a photo looking like that.

Hogloff wrote in post #14310574
That's not printable in my opinion, at least I would not make a photo looking like that.

Understood, but that's because of the sizes you print and your target audience more than anything else. That section is a 100% crop.

In any case, that end result is surely more printable than the result you'd get if you tried the same thing with the 5D2, which is your current camera.

For your uses, the D800E is absolutely, positively the right tool for the job, and I really don't understand why you haven't already jumped ship. It has absolutely everything you could want for your purposes: exquisite dynamic range, unmatched detail retention, and unmatched resolution.

Canon might come up with something that matches the resolution, but I can very nearly guarantee that they won't come up with something that matches the dynamic range. It would require a revolution in their sensor technology, and that isn't something that is released in final form within a year of a major camera release like that of the 5D3, at least when applied to anything other than a 1D series body. Such a body will likely cost you nearly $10K. Is keeping your Canon lenses really worth that extra $7K over and above the cost of the D800E?

kcbrown wrote in post #14310344
Fortunately, Nik DFine seems to do a pretty decent job of dealing with this kind of noise:

Hosted photo: posted by kcbrown in
./showthread.php?p=143​10344&i=i251956614
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Certainly it's not nearly as good as the D800's performance in this respect (the D800 is just jaw-droppingly amazing at this), but if you have to push your shadows by a couple of stops, you can at least make them look reasonable.

Have to say when you look at those shadows compared to the lit areas that is not good.

qbfx wrote in post #14301577
Ok, considering their lens resolution list, I can see why you don't look at their lens figures. But really, if their SNR data is dead on, what makes the 1D4 score so low in this respect, when obviously we all know it's better than the 5D2, and on par with the 5D3 and D800? I ask for your frank opinion on this, as it's clearly unexplainable.

See here: https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=14314194&po​stcount=29

Neilyb wrote in post #14312177
Have to say when you look at those shadows compared to the lit areas that is not good.

Agreed.

I toned down the luminance NR quite a lot in that. I could have bumped it up and gotten something different. In fact, this is what I get when I let it use its defaults:

So all of a sudden any camera Canon has ever made is now worthless because the D800 has cleaner shadows?

Get over yourselves! Seriously!