Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Digital Cameras 
Thread started 19 Apr 2012 (Thursday) 08:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

5D Mark III sensor rating

 
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 416
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Apr 21, 2012 19:01 |  #346
bannedPermanent ban

Charlie wrote in post #14304541 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ W
Canon Fanosapien
Avatar
12,749 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
     
Apr 21, 2012 19:03 |  #347

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

I'll drink to that! :)


Tom
5D IV, M5, RP, & various lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,067 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 266
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Apr 21, 2012 19:27 |  #348

Hogloff wrote in post #14305197 (external link)
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>


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobfather
Member
57 posts
Joined Apr 2009
     
Apr 21, 2012 21:00 |  #349

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 416
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Apr 21, 2012 21:07 |  #350
bannedPermanent ban

bobfather wrote in post #14305675 (external link)
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?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Apr 21, 2012 21:12 |  #351

bobfather wrote in post #14305675 (external link)
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 :D


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Maverique
Senior Member
Avatar
880 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Portugal
     
Apr 21, 2012 21:30 |  #352

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


My website (external link) | My facebook (external link) | My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Apr 21, 2012 21:33 |  #353

Maverique wrote in post #14305787 (external link)
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 :D


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Apr 22, 2012 19:57 |  #354

qbfx wrote in post #14301615 (external link)
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:

IMAGE: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/hostedphotos_lq/2012/04/4/LQ_592274.jpg
Image hosted by forum (592274) © kcbrown [SHARE LINK]
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.


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.

"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 416
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Apr 22, 2012 20:49 |  #355
bannedPermanent ban

kcbrown wrote in post #14310344 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Apr 23, 2012 01:40 |  #356

Hogloff wrote in post #14310574 (external link)
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?


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Neilyb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,200 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Munich
     
Apr 23, 2012 07:10 |  #357

kcbrown wrote in post #14310344 (external link)
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.


http://natureimmortal.​blogspot.com (external link)

http://www.natureimmor​tal.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AngryCorgi
-Bouncing Boy- a POTN peion
Avatar
11,547 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Surrounded by bunnies, squirrels and a couple of crazy corgis in NoVA...
     
Apr 23, 2012 14:38 |  #358

qbfx wrote in post #14301577 (external link)
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


AngryCorgi (external link) (aka Tom) ...Tools...

...Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, Wisdom is knowing not to include it in a fruit salad...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Apr 23, 2012 16:57 |  #359

Neilyb wrote in post #14312177 (external link)
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:

IMAGE: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/hostedphotos_lq/2012/04/4/LQ_592390.jpg
Image hosted by forum (592390) © kcbrown [SHARE LINK]
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.


And if I'm a bit selective in what I use it on:

IMAGE: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/hostedphotos_lq/2012/04/4/LQ_592391.jpg
Image hosted by forum (592391) © kcbrown [SHARE LINK]
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.



There's no way you're going to get the shadows to look like those that come out of the D800. That's what happens when you sit on your hands while the competition substantially improves their sensor tech.

"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Apr 23, 2012 17:09 |  #360

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

Get over yourselves! Seriously!


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

57,596 views & 0 likes for this thread, 98 members have posted to it.
5D Mark III sensor rating
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.55forum software
version 2.55 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is marthabrand134
419 guests, 138 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.