login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > D800 better than 5d Mark III at ISO 12,800 RAW Search   Reply
12345last
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,214
Los Angeles, California, US


Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7237/6889736236_cb7a2de793_o.gif

The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.
Apr 01 12 11:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,376
Seattle, Washington, US


Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7237/6889736236_cb7a2de793_o.gif

is that a gif?

Apr 01 12 11:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,214
Los Angeles, California, US


Yes, but keep in mind that both the Canon and d800 data is turned into a GIF.

I know a GIF has it's limits, but it is a comparison between two GIF files.

What is most evident is the detail of the 5 sec markings on the watch and the better blacks

Still I would not call this definitive, but looks like at mid ISO range the D800 does at least hold up or better the 5D III
Apr 01 12 11:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Poata
Posts: 421
Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand


Fred do you have a D800? any sample Beauty/fashion/portrait pics at all http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/CBSA/smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-064.gif
Apr 01 12 11:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,312
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7237/6889736236_cb7a2de793_o.gif

The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.

OH no, don't say that.  The Canon fanboys will jump on you...


I am still waiting for my D800..  Damn..  From the look of it, I won't be getting it until May.. sad

Apr 01 12 11:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Poata
Posts: 421
Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
OH no, don't say that.  The Canon fanboys will jump on you...

I am still waiting for my D800..  Damn..  From the look of it, I won't be getting it until May.. sad

That sucks, I may be in the same boat http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/CBSA/smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-065.gif

Apr 01 12 12:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,214
Los Angeles, California, US


David Poata wrote:
Fred do you have a D800? any sample Beauty/fashion/portrait pics at all?

No not yet, but I have seen some nice files sent to me by a friend in Europe.
Con't put them online though.

Apr 01 12 12:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mike Haftel
Posts: 207
Detroit, Michigan, US


David Poata wrote:

That sucks, I may be in the same boat http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/CBSA/smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-065.gif

Me, too. But I'm actually waiting to see if Nikon fixes the LCD screen issue.

Apr 01 12 12:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Poata
Posts: 421
Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand


Mike Haftel wrote:
Me, too. But I'm actually waiting to see if Nikon fixes the LCD screen issue.

Just found a link http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/27/nikon … sues.aspx/

Apr 01 12 12:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Poata
Posts: 421
Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand


Mike Haftel wrote:
Me, too. But I'm actually waiting to see if Nikon fixes the LCD screen issue.

Suggestions for affected LCD's are the green cast could be fixed by adjusting the LCD monitor hue - see page 52 of the D800 manual

Apr 01 12 12:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R_Marquez
Posts: 4,608
San Francisco, California, US


No. Not enough shadow detail. We need more shadows.
Apr 01 12 12:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Quang Dang
Posts: 2,955
Montreal, Quebec, Canada


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

OH no, don't say that.  The Canon fanboys will jump on you...


I am still waiting for my D800..  Damn..  From the look of it, I won't be getting it until May.. sad

I use Canon but Im not a fanboy, it's just a tool. Buy whatever fits for your needs...

Apr 01 12 12:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Moon Pix Photography
Posts: 3,890
Syracuse, New York, US


Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.

The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.

LMAO.. and to think I thought you knew something about camera's... LOL... now I KNOW your just a http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-iw5TaUpM1OI/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAABg/oWjr6XtVW8o/s120-c/photo.jpg.

The fact that the OP is suggesting that the D800 is better at ISO 12,800 than the 5DIII reveals what little and limited knowledge he has despite his assertions.  I have not seen a single reputable review (or any review for that matter) or comparison between the two that would suggest that the D800 is better at ISO 12,800.  This should be a red flag for anyone reading the OP's "analysis" of this or any equipment in the future.

Next we will be hearing that the D800 has faster FPS... lol..

They are both excellent camera's that offer their own advantages.  Do your homework by educating yourself with reputable reviewers and take absurd claims such as this, as nothing more than an attempt to garner attention.

ISO 12,800

http://johncarnessali.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/McMahon-Ryan-Child-Advocacy-Center-Prom-Fundraiser-0418.jpg

Apr 01 12 01:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,376
Seattle, Washington, US


Moon Pix Photography wrote:
LMAO.. and to think I thought you knew something about camera's... LOL... now I KNOW your just a fanboy.

huh?

Apr 01 12 01:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Grain
Posts: 1,647
New York, New York, US


Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7237/6889736236_cb7a2de793_o.gif

The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.

Can you explain the scaling process? For whatever reason, I don't totally get it.

My real question is, doesn't scaling always make for a better image?

If you have two identical sensors, but one is a crop, won't the appropriate scaling method make the FF look better?

In that case, it's kind of hard to say which is the better sensor - no problem to sy which is the better results.

Apr 01 12 02:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ACPhotography
Posts: 8,606
Plainview, New York, US


David Poata wrote:

Just found a link http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/27/nikon … sues.aspx/

I don't think my has a greenish hue but I do swear my focus point is moving by itself or the selector is more sensitive and I'm inadvertently moving it by accident...

Apr 01 12 02:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Poata
Posts: 421
Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand


ACPhotography wrote:

I don't think my has a greenish hue but I do swear my focus point is moving by itself or the selector is more sensitive and I'm inadvertently moving it by accident...

LOL big_smile

Apr 01 12 02:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,214
Los Angeles, California, US


MC Grain wrote:
Can you explain the scaling process? For whatever reason, I don't totally get it.

My real question is, doesn't scaling always make for a better image?

If you have two identical sensors, but one is a crop, won't the appropriate scaling method make the FF look better?

In that case, it's kind of hard to say which is the better sensor - no problem to sy which is the better results.

What I did is quite simple. I took the sample of the Nikon D800 on the dpreview page and scaled it down so that the scale matched the scale of the watch in the canon sample. I then made a gif that animates between the two to shot the difference.

So far all ISO comparisons I have seen are looking at the image scaled to 100%, but the true difference should be show with both images reproducing the subject at the same size. the Nikon is 36MP and the Canon is 22MP. So to compare the two in the real world so to speak you need to scale down the Nikon.

That said they are both pretty darn good, but from what I have seen the Nikon does a better job especially in the shadows and above all skin tones in and approaching the shadows.

I'm also referring to high ISO, not ultra high ISO.
I don't need anything above 12,800.

Apr 01 12 02:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,214
Los Angeles, California, US


Here is what I did:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6120/6890562112_35a7f7446a_b.jpg

Keep in mind that 22 is only 61% of 36.
Apr 01 12 03:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R_Marquez
Posts: 4,608
San Francisco, California, US


I still don't see enough shadows. Needs more shadows.
Apr 01 12 03:49 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,673
San Francisco, California, US


Mike Haftel wrote:
Me, too. But I'm actually waiting to see if Nikon fixes the LCD screen issue.

I don't know that there is a screen issue.  The only site talking about it as an issue is Nikon Rumors.  As far as I can tell, those who are complaining have their LCD screens set wrong.

Apr 01 12 03:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12,560
Kansas City, Missouri, US


Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7237/6889736236_cb7a2de793_o.gif

The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.

You think the inset looks better? Really?

It took me a while to figure out which one was which, and I assumed you meant the mushy, low-contrast inset was the Mk III. Only after looking at the animated GIF in another browser (I keep all animations turned off in my primary browser) did I come back to see which one you said was which.

This is an April Fool's joke, right?

Apr 01 12 03:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,631
London, England, United Kingdom


Good luck with this one Fred, even though you are 100% right!

These Canon boyz are so touchy, so easily offended and end up getting you brigged over nothing - beware!
Apr 01 12 04:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,214
Los Angeles, California, US


London Fog wrote:
Good luck with this one Fred, even though you are 100% right!

These Canon boyz are so touchy, so easily offended and end up getting you brigged over nothing - beware!

I'm a bit of a Canon fan... about 8 years with digital canons. Only one repair required.
That was done nice and quickly, been just fine since. I also have a slew of Canon lenses. I was ready to snap up a 5D mark III, but I was disapointed to see no improvement in the shadows. One of the main differences image quality wise that I see in my Phase One cameras and my Canon's is the dynamic range and shadow quality. From what I am seeing the Nikon appears to be significantly better in that area. Good detail into the blacks is like the foundation of good image quality.

Apr 01 12 04:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 26,899
Dearborn, Michigan, US


London Fog wrote:
Good luck with this one Fred, even though you are 100% right!

These Canon boyz are so touchy, so easily offended and end up getting you brigged over nothing - beware!

When you get brigged it is for good reason!   big_smile

Apr 01 12 04:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,631
London, England, United Kingdom


Jerry Nemeth wrote:

When you get brigged it is for good reason!   big_smile

The last time was totally unjustified, that won't happen again!

Apr 01 12 04:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,465
San Diego, California, US


So if you take a D800 image and scale it down to match the resolution of a 5D Mark III you can claim it looks better.

Did I miss anything?
Apr 01 12 04:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pullins photography
Posts: 5,876
Troy, Michigan, US


Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7237/6889736236_cb7a2de793_o.gif

The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.

until I see some samples from someone who has both cameras, why should this be believed?

Apr 01 12 04:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Doobie the destroyer
Posts: 418
Kailua, Hawaii, US


Man, most monitors are 72ppi. You're never going to get a good representation of any camera from the internet.

Comparing a 300dpi prints is really the best and only way to compare.

You honestly don't need more than 6mp if you are just publishing to the web and 10mp if you are making 300dpi 8x10 prints.

20mp is for 2 page photo quality spreads in magazines. 36mp is for photo quality A2 prints. That's commercial advertising sizes.

I highly doubt most people, including pros, will utilize that.
Apr 01 12 05:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Poata
Posts: 421
Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand


Doobie the destroyer wrote:
36mp is for photo quality A2 prints. That's commercial advertising sizes. I highly doubt most people, including pros, will utilize that.

I will big_smile

Apr 01 12 05:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Doobie the destroyer
Posts: 418
Kailua, Hawaii, US


David Poata wrote:

I will big_smile

Than it's probably a good choice for you.

Although, why not go medium format? I imagine for prints of those sizes you want the best editing versatility you can extract, which the 16-bit files are a godsend for.

I definitely think the D800 would be better for field work, but I still don't think the D800 is an alternative for MF, more so a supplement. Like how a compact can be a supplement for a DSLR.

Apr 01 12 05:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12,560
Kansas City, Missouri, US


David Poata wrote:
I will big_smile
Doobie the destroyer wrote:
Than it's probably a good choice for you.

Although, why not go medium format? I imagine for prints of those sizes you want the best editing versatility you can extract, which the 16-bit files are a godsend for.

I definitely think the D800 would be better for field work, but I still don't think the D800 is an alternative for MF, more so a supplement. Like how a compact can be a supplement for a DSLR.

Just because the files are 16 bit doesn't mean they have more information. The D800 almost certainly has more dynamic range.

Apr 01 12 05:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Poata
Posts: 421
Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand


Doobie the destroyer wrote:

Than it's probably a good choice for you.

Although, why not go medium format? I imagine for prints of those sizes you want the best editing versatility you can extract, which the 16-bit files are a godsend for.

I definitely think the D800 would be better for field work, but I still don't think the D800 is an alternative for MF, more so a supplement. Like how a compact can be a supplement for a DSLR.

MF entreats a concise shooting technique, slower work flow and at times chained to a tethered station. Not my ideal choice but I will concede to MF depending on client requirements.

I much prefer the faster AF, higher ISO, smaller form factor/portability of the D800. So for me the extra resolution is a God send.

Apr 01 12 05:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Cuervo79
Posts: 1,058
Guatemala, Guatemala, Guatemala


Can someone correct me if I'm wrong when the 5d MKII and the D700 came out everybody did the scale down process from the 5d to the d700 and showed similar results as these? Meaning the bigger MP file had better noise performance.

I pretty much don't care about the leapfrog dilema, I work with two old rebels and the results I'm seeing from the 5d and the d800 are flawless compared to my rebels lol so What ever anybody gets (be it nikon or canon) they're pretty much golden.
Apr 01 12 05:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Grain
Posts: 1,647
New York, New York, US


Fred Greissing wrote:
Here is what I did:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6120/6890562112_35a7f7446a_b.jpg

Keep in mind that 22 is only 61% of 36.

Looking at those source images, the Nikon's noise is more bothersome to me.

You made a JPEG from posted JPEGs, right?


People used to compare two tracks on a CD, one was an analog recording and one was digital. They comments were always "This one sounds digital, this one sounds analog." What never made sense to me is once they're on a CD, shouldn't they both sound digital?


In photography terms, don't we really need to compare the RAWs side by side? And even then, do you compare them in the same RAW converter or the manufacturer's RAW converter?

And, if you're going to scale to have a results based comparison, shouldn't you be applying NR? I don't know if there's such thing as one taking NR better, but if the idea is to compare likely results shouldn't they be converted images with contrast and color adjustments too?

No one besides the photographer is ever going to see a straight RAW image.

Apr 01 12 06:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mike Haftel
Posts: 207
Detroit, Michigan, US


David Poata wrote:

Mike Haftel wrote:
Me, too. But I'm actually waiting to see if Nikon fixes the LCD screen issue.

Suggestions for affected LCD's are the green cast could be fixed by adjusting the LCD monitor hue - see page 52 of the D800 manual

ei Total Productions wrote:

I don't know that there is a screen issue.  The only site talking about it as an issue is Nikon Rumors.  As far as I can tell, those who are complaining have their LCD screens set wrong.

Nope. I've done my research. The LCD issue is very real and has nothing to do with the Live View Screen Hue adjustment, and there are people reporting about it all over the place, not just on NR. Resetting LCD Hue also resets every time you turn the camera off.

Either way, I'm waiting a month or so (by then the camera is hopefully available in stores).

Apr 01 12 06:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Doobie the destroyer
Posts: 418
Kailua, Hawaii, US


Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

Just because the files are 16 bit doesn't mean they have more information. The D800 almost certainly has more dynamic range.

The difference from a 14-bit file to 16-bit is pretty is pretty big. It's 16,384 units of information vs 65,536. Also, I don't think Nefs are true 14 bit files. You have a much bigger margin of error for shooting and a much better file to work with in post. A 3fr can recover like 2-3 stops either way with no visible quality loss.

A retoucher, designer, and graphic artist would have much better file to play with from something like a 3fr rather than a Nef.

Also, a MF cameras will still render better clarity and bokeh as well, just based on the size of the sensor and lenses.

I definitely agree with that the D800 will be faster and easier to shoot with, though. However, I also imagine shooting speed isn't so much of a factor when your doing commercial work that requires A2s, and it is more about the highest quality output at every step of the workflow.

Apr 01 12 06:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Poata
Posts: 421
Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand


Doobie the destroyer wrote:
MF cameras will still render better clarity and bokeh as well, just based on the size of the sensor and lenses.

I definitely agree with that the D800 will be faster and easier to shoot with, though. However, I also imagine shooting speed isn't so much of a factor when your doing commercial work that requires A2s, and it is more about the highest quality output at every step of the workflow.

As an ergonomic compromise the Leica S2 looks to be the best of both worlds in terms of MF quality in a 35mm form factor big_smile

Apr 01 12 06:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jim Lafferty
Posts: 1,906
Brooklyn, New York, US


This is nice and all, but what I care about is if it's close to or better (accounting for resolution) than the D3s at 6400. I think it is!
Apr 01 12 07:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,214
Los Angeles, California, US


Doobie the destroyer wrote:
The difference from a 14-bit file to 16-bit is pretty is pretty big. It's 16,384 units of information vs 65,536.

14 bit or 16 bit ... that is the "container". It does not mean that it is filled using all the 16,384 steps per channel.

From my experience with both 14 bit and 16 bit files the difference is not huge, but it is there. However a very good film scan at 16 bit better than the best 16 bit file from a camera CCD.

Apr 01 12 07:23 pm  Link  Quote 
12345last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers