Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review - By Fred Miranda

Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review - By Fred Miranda

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/

He finds the Nikon not as easy to manually focus in live view, but it has
higher resolution (surprise!) and much better dynamic range (shadow detail
at low ISO).

David

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 6:59 am, Bruce wrote:
RichA wrote:
One thing I do like, he used the same Zeiss
manual lens to do critical testing with. Using the mfg's individual
lenses skews whatever comparison you are trying to make of the sensors
and using AF/AS lenses further complicates matters because you don't
really know what they will do, especially if they have infinite
adjustability. You end up shooting everything in manual mode anyway,
so you might as well use a manual lens.

That's a valid point, but it isn't clear whether it was the same lens,
or just a similar design. Even if it was the same lens, it would have
to be Nikon mount, used with an adapter on the Canon. Using an
adapter can also degrade a lens if it isn't properly made.

I was amused to see the following:

"In my opinion, removing the filter is not beneficial for certain
applications. For example, with architecture, fashion or any other
subject filled with man-made patterns, aliasing is more apparent and
may require post-processing correction which is never 100% effective."

Once again, a commentator speaks purely on a theoretical basis about
AA filters while completely ignoring the uncomfortable fact that the
vast majority of fashion shooters using medium format digital
equipment have chosen to shoot without an AA filter.

Safer to parrot others than to actually test thoroughly.

There have been several D800E images published showing moiré.

David

In article ,
"David J Taylor" wrote:

There have been several D800E images published showing moiré.

I have also found few comparison shots of the same scene, shot with D800
and D800E, in which both cameras produced moiré. The difference was a
matter of degree. The E version gives a tiny bit more clarity/sharpnes,
but also produces a bit more aliasing.

--
Julian Vrieslander

On 4/26/2012 7:25 PM, RichA wrote:
On Apr 26, 6:59 am, wrote:
wrote:
One thing I do like, he used the same Zeiss
manual lens to do critical testing with. Using the mfg's individual
lenses skews whatever comparison you are trying to make of the sensors
and using AF/AS lenses further complicates matters because you don't
really know what they will do, especially if they have infinite
adjustability. You end up shooting everything in manual mode anyway,
so you might as well use a manual lens.

That's a valid point, but it isn't clear whether it was the same lens,
or just a similar design. Even if it was the same lens, it would have
to be Nikon mount, used with an adapter on the Canon. Using an
adapter can also degrade a lens if it isn't properly made.

I was amused to see the following:

"In my opinion, removing the filter is not beneficial for certain
applications. For example, with architecture, fashion or any other
subject filled with man-made patterns, aliasing is more apparent and
may require post-processing correction which is never 100% effective."

Once again, a commentator speaks purely on a theoretical basis about
AA filters while completely ignoring the uncomfortable fact that the
vast majority of fashion shooters using medium format digital
equipment have chosen to shoot without an AA filter.

Safer to parrot others than to actually test thoroughly.


So sayeth the quoter of selected DP Review and Nikon Rumor postings.


--
Peter

On 4/27/2012 6:56 AM, Bruce wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 26, 6:59 am, wrote:
wrote:
One thing I do like, he used the same Zeiss
manual lens to do critical testing with. Using the mfg's individual
lenses skews whatever comparison you are trying to make of the sensors
and using AF/AS lenses further complicates matters because you don't
really know what they will do, especially if they have infinite
adjustability. You end up shooting everything in manual mode anyway,
so you might as well use a manual lens.

That's a valid point, but it isn't clear whether it was the same lens,
or just a similar design. Even if it was the same lens, it would have
to be Nikon mount, used with an adapter on the Canon. Using an
adapter can also degrade a lens if it isn't properly made.

I was amused to see the following:

"In my opinion, removing the filter is not beneficial for certain
applications. For example, with architecture, fashion or any other
subject filled with man-made patterns, aliasing is more apparent and
may require post-processing correction which is never 100% effective."

Once again, a commentator speaks purely on a theoretical basis about
AA filters while completely ignoring the uncomfortable fact that the
vast majority of fashion shooters using medium format digital
equipment have chosen to shoot without an AA filter.

Safer to parrot others than to actually test thoroughly.


Whenever the bandwagons pass by, there is never any shortage of
pixel-peepers and theoreticians waiting to jump on them.

Sadly, Usenet newsgroups are over-provided with such people.


Yes we know!

--
Peter

"David J Taylor" writes:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 6:59 am, Bruce wrote:
RichA wrote:
One thing I do like, he used the same Zeiss
manual lens to do critical testing with. Using the mfg's individual
lenses skews whatever comparison you are trying to make of the sensors
and using AF/AS lenses further complicates matters because you don't
really know what they will do, especially if they have infinite
adjustability. You end up shooting everything in manual mode anyway,
so you might as well use a manual lens.

That's a valid point, but it isn't clear whether it was the same lens,
or just a similar design. Even if it was the same lens, it would have
to be Nikon mount, used with an adapter on the Canon. Using an
adapter can also degrade a lens if it isn't properly made.

I was amused to see the following:

"In my opinion, removing the filter is not beneficial for certain
applications. For example, with architecture, fashion or any other
subject filled with man-made patterns, aliasing is more apparent and
may require post-processing correction which is never 100% effective."

Once again, a commentator speaks purely on a theoretical basis about
AA filters while completely ignoring the uncomfortable fact that the
vast majority of fashion shooters using medium format digital
equipment have chosen to shoot without an AA filter.

Safer to parrot others than to actually test thoroughly.

There have been several D800E images published showing moiré.

Yep, and everybody with any sense expected it would be totally possible
(people have published D7000 images with moire too, for that matter).

I've also seen posted images showing how LightRoom or Nikon NX2 tools
can remove some of them.

AND people using AA-less cameras commonly report that very minor setup
changes will remove moire; so if you're shooting fashion in the studio
and paying close attention (so you'll spot the moire right away), it's
generally easy to shoot around it.

If you're shooting in the field and don't control the pace of events,
you're less likely to spot it immediately or to be able to re-shoot, and
I hear the post-processing tools don't *always* work as well as they
*sometimes* work.

I think it's great that we're getting more AA-less cameras into people's
hands. We'll get more experience, build up expertise, have a clearer
understanding of what does and doesn't cause trouble.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:56:27 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

RichA wrote:
On Apr 26, 6:59*am, Bruce wrote:
RichA wrote:
One thing I do like, he used the same Zeiss
manual lens to do critical testing with. *Using the mfg's individual
lenses skews whatever comparison you are trying to make of the sensors
and using AF/AS lenses further complicates matters because you don't
really know what they will do, especially if they have infinite
adjustability. *You end up shooting everything in manual mode anyway,
so you might as well use a manual lens.

That's a valid point, but it isn't clear whether it was the same lens,
or just a similar design. *Even if it was the same lens, it would have
to be Nikon mount, used with an adapter on the Canon. *Using an
adapter can also degrade a lens if it isn't properly made.

I was amused to see the following:

"In my opinion, removing the filter is not beneficial for certain
applications. For example, with architecture, fashion or any other
subject filled with man-made patterns, aliasing is more apparent and
may require post-processing correction which is never 100% effective."

Once again, a commentator speaks purely on a theoretical basis about
AA filters while completely ignoring the uncomfortable fact that the
vast majority of fashion shooters using medium format digital
equipment have chosen to shoot without an AA filter.

Safer to parrot others than to actually test thoroughly.


Whenever the bandwagons pass by, there is never any shortage of
pixel-peepers and theoreticians waiting to jump on them.

I'm on board with that.


Sadly, Usenet newsgroups are over-provided with such people.