5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

[Tcapp]

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Who is responsible for this great pearl of wisdom? Ken Rockwell?

Ouch. Low blow man! He didn't deserve that!

 

[Marsu42]

Who is responsible for this great pearl of wisdom? Ken Rockwell?

Ouch. Low blow man! He didn't deserve that!

Who didn't deserve that? Ken Rockwell ?

Actually, I would take that quote a step further: a digital camera has access to MORE than the raw data when it converts to JPEG, so the JPEG you are getting has the potential to be better than the best you could possibly get by developing the raw file on the computer. Just ask yourself how a digital camera can do highlight tone priority, which affects both raw and jpeg output. The camera actually changes sensitivity to a lower ISO and also compresses the full 16-bit image pipeline into the 14-bit raw output. It messes up the dark end, but that is just an example of what cameras can do when developing their own JPEGs that is absolutely impossible to do in post processing.

So you're saying that the camera has access to 16 bits, but the raw file only contains 14 bits. If that is so, my 60d does an absolutely awful job because it clips highlights in jpeg that I can recover in raw. I don't know about the inner workings of a Canon camera, but all things considered and having dynamic range in mind, what you're saying as a general statement is plain wrong.

But where did you get your theory about how htp works? Most people seem to agree that htp does not increase dynamic range but is nothing more than a tone curve applied in camera and nothing that cannot be reproduced by lowering iso and underexposing yourself, see this thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5687.0

 

[unkbob]

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Who is responsible for this great pearl of wisdom? Ken Rockwell?

Ouch. Low blow man! He didn't deserve that!

I was being serious! Sounds like Ken to me.

On a totally unrelated note I would advise all wannabe chefs to STOP BUYING INGREDIENTS. Just stop. Ever heard of ready meals? There are huge food corporations out there who have spent countless hours and invested huge sums in determining exactly what flavours are most appealing to the average consumer and which combinations of additives work best. They also have far greater purchasing power than you or I, meaning they can make a pizza, lasagne or coq au vin with more expertise and at a cheaper cost than you could ever hope to achieve. And here's the dirty little secret about cooking: it would take a top chef many hours of sweat and toil to reproduce a cheap ready-made meal, and even then it would taste like cardboard in comparison to the rich tapestry of flavours contained within a microwavable dinner.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Totally agree. The people who wear T-shirts "I shoot raw" and only shoot raw are generally pro wananbes and not pros. I have worked for clients all over who want JPEGS, and the USATF wanted only Small JPEGs for their national Olympics.

RAW files basically give someone about 6 more bits of leeway if they took the picture wrong. The final used and delivered result never has more than the output from a JPEG, anyway.

When I shoot something critical I use RAW as a back up, but I make sure that my camera settings are set right, and I absolutely NEVER have to do any post processing.

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Actually, I would take that quote a step further: a digital camera has access to MORE than the raw data when it converts to JPEG, so the JPEG you are getting has the potential to be better than the best you could possibly get by developing the raw file on the computer. Just ask yourself how a digital camera can do highlight tone priority, which affects both raw and jpeg output. The camera actually changes sensitivity to a lower ISO and also compresses the full 16-bit image pipeline into the 14-bit raw output. It messes up the dark end, but that is just an example of what cameras can do when developing their own JPEGs that is absolutely impossible to do in post processing.

lol!

You seem to forget that people do things differently while complaining about how people don't like that you do things differently

I know plenty of pro photographers who only shoot RAW. Fashion & beauty photographers - pretty much all of them. Wedding photographers - most of them. Even some pro newspaper guys.

RAW isn't about recovering files that you got wrong, it's about capturing the maximum information and using it all. And if it takes someone hours to process one file to the level of the JPEG, someone doesn't know very much

 

[RLPhoto]

Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

I always shoot RAW + basic small tiny Jpeg on all of my canon cameras. If the client needs a Jpeg right away, he has that tiny tag-along file to take with him while I process the larger RAW for him. It's a great system because no matter where your files go, you can always have a thumbnail of every shot you took and only pluck out the raw files you actually need based on the tag-along Jpeg. Plus the small Jpegs only take up about 800kb per shot.

Try this out, it's a great system.

 

[iso79]

Looks like the 5D Mark III is better than the D800 at everything except megapixels:
Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800 Part 2 with Mike Drew

 

[smithy]

Looks like the 5D Mark III is better than the D800 at everything except megapixels:
*link*

Have a look at page 11 of this thread...

 

[unkbob]

I think it's pretty clear that they're both excellent cameras which have their strengths and ideal uses, but either one would work well in pretty much any situation. Like the guy said in that video interview, there's certainly not a good reason to switch systems on the basis of what differences there are. You can shoot events on a D800 and fashion on a mk iii just fine.

 

[briansquibb]

I would suggest there is a place for jpegs out of the camera - but it is a small, niche market and should be avoided wherever possible where IQ is important.

Can you try to stay on topic? This thread is supposed to be about how much the 5DIII sucks ;D

Sorry - that is where the 5DIII is better than the D800. I will sit on the naughty chair for 10 mins ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[awinphoto]

I would suggest there is a place for jpegs out of the camera - but it is a small, niche market and should be avoided wherever possible where IQ is important.

Can you try to stay on topic? This thread is supposed to be about how much the 5DIII sucks ;D

Sorry - that is where the 5DIII is better than the D800. I will sit on the naughty chair for 10 mins ;D ;D ;D ;D

I for one am excited about the OOC Jpeg possibilities. For the most part, I shoot 100% professionally and depending on my clients needs and wants, some are strictly for web, some are for print, some both... If going in I know the shots will be used for print or if I get that inkling that they are going to portfolio quality shots/products, then I shoot raw+jpeg... If it's going to be for web only, most photos are scaled down to 1/4 size roughly to fit internet screens (ecommerce) and such, screw it, jpeg... shooting kids running around the yard, jpegs... shooting for my personal enjoyment, jpeg, unless that is I see the possibility of it being portfolio quality, then raw + jpeg... Lets not fear the power of the jpeg.

 

[briansquibb]

If it's going to be for web only, most photos are scaled down to 1/4 size roughly to fit internet screens (ecommerce) and such, screw it, jpeg... shooting kids running around the yard, jpegs... shooting for my personal enjoyment, jpeg, unless that is I see the possibility of it being portfolio quality, then raw + jpeg... Lets not fear the power of the jpeg.

If I am going to shoot jpeg I will get out the 7D or G12 and shoot on the green square mode

 

[Tcapp]

If it's going to be for web only, most photos are scaled down to 1/4 size roughly to fit internet screens (ecommerce) and such, screw it, jpeg... shooting kids running around the yard, jpegs... shooting for my personal enjoyment, jpeg, unless that is I see the possibility of it being portfolio quality, then raw + jpeg... Lets not fear the power of the jpeg.

If I am going to shoot jpeg I will get out the 7D or G12 and shoot on the green square mode

Haha. The 7d is a point and shoot now! +1

 

[awinphoto]

If it's going to be for web only, most photos are scaled down to 1/4 size roughly to fit internet screens (ecommerce) and such, screw it, jpeg... shooting kids running around the yard, jpegs... shooting for my personal enjoyment, jpeg, unless that is I see the possibility of it being portfolio quality, then raw + jpeg... Lets not fear the power of the jpeg.

If I am going to shoot jpeg I will get out the 7D or G12 and shoot on the green square mode

Coming from you, that's about the response i would expect... But in the end time is money and I do run a business so on smaller files, i do what I need to do to shave time and frankly, files for the web, when scaled down, are nearly identical either way if shoot and exposed perfectly, that it doesn't do anything but lengthen my workflow, lose money unless I charge higher which makes it even tougher in an already tight market and economy, and in times like these, isn't worth it unless you really need it... Since your a professional i'm sure you can understand that.

 

[briansquibb]

If it's going to be for web only, most photos are scaled down to 1/4 size roughly to fit internet screens (ecommerce) and such, screw it, jpeg... shooting kids running around the yard, jpegs... shooting for my personal enjoyment, jpeg, unless that is I see the possibility of it being portfolio quality, then raw + jpeg... Lets not fear the power of the jpeg.

If I am going to shoot jpeg I will get out the 7D or G12 and shoot on the green square mode

Coming from you, that's about the response i would expect... But in the end time is money and I do run a business so on smaller files, i do what I need to do to shave time and frankly, files for the web, when scaled down, are nearly identical either way if shoot and exposed perfectly, that it doesn't do anything but lengthen my workflow, lose money unless I charge higher which makes it even tougher in an already tight market and economy, and in times like these, isn't worth it unless you really need it... Since your a professional i'm sure you can understand that.

Hey - did you miss the humour there?

 

[awinphoto]

If it's going to be for web only, most photos are scaled down to 1/4 size roughly to fit internet screens (ecommerce) and such, screw it, jpeg... shooting kids running around the yard, jpegs... shooting for my personal enjoyment, jpeg, unless that is I see the possibility of it being portfolio quality, then raw + jpeg... Lets not fear the power of the jpeg.

If I am going to shoot jpeg I will get out the 7D or G12 and shoot on the green square mode

Coming from you, that's about the response i would expect... But in the end time is money and I do run a business so on smaller files, i do what I need to do to shave time and frankly, files for the web, when scaled down, are nearly identical either way if shoot and exposed perfectly, that it doesn't do anything but lengthen my workflow, lose money unless I charge higher which makes it even tougher in an already tight market and economy, and in times like these, isn't worth it unless you really need it... Since your a professional i'm sure you can understand that.

Hey - did you miss the humour there?

Gotcha spring allergies kicking in so i'm kinda on edge haha. Glad you weren't serious

 

[D_Rochat]

It's funny how this thread has evolved from 5D Mk III vs D800/E to RAW vs. JPG. I wonder where it will go next...

 

[moreorless]

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Who is responsible for this great pearl of wisdom? Ken Rockwell?

It really depends on the kind of shooting your talking about I'd say, Ken Rockwell shoots mostly landscapes were workflow really should not be THAT much of a problem and the potential benefits of using RAW are greater were as my impression was that the guy in the review was shooting mostly news and events in high volume, less time to edit raws and probabley less need to do so.

 

[briansquibb]

It's funny how this thread has evolved from 5D Mk III vs D800/E to RAW vs. JPG. I wonder where it will go next...

I think this is still on topic as it seems that the 5D3 is better at jpeg than the D800

 

[awinphoto]

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Who is responsible for this great pearl of wisdom? Ken Rockwell?

It really depends on the kind of shooting your talking about I'd say, Ken Rockwell shoots mostly landscapes were workflow really should not be THAT much of a problem and the potential benefits of using RAW are greater were as my impression was that the guy in the review was shooting mostly news and events in high volume, less time to edit raws and probabley less need to do so.

Then again i dont think even Ken Rockwell even shooted raw... From what i gathered, although i can be wrong, is he shoots primarily jpeg. I used to shoot all raw but learned that while it is great to have when you absolutely need a digital negative and you know a certain shot will be worth it to you in the end to have every last drop of detail possible... Otherwise in camera jpegs tend to be quite nice... Plus many Roes based photo labs prefer to accept files in jpeg rather than tiffs or psd... kinda says something.

 

[Tcapp]

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Who is responsible for this great pearl of wisdom? Ken Rockwell?

It really depends on the kind of shooting your talking about I'd say, Ken Rockwell shoots mostly landscapes were workflow really should not be THAT much of a problem and the potential benefits of using RAW are greater were as my impression was that the guy in the review was shooting mostly news and events in high volume, less time to edit raws and probabley less need to do so.

Then again i dont think even Ken Rockwell even shooted raw... From what i gathered, although i can be wrong, is he shoots primarily jpeg. I used to shoot all raw but learned that while it is great to have when you absolutely need a digital negative and you know a certain shot will be worth it to you in the end to have every last drop of detail possible... Otherwise in camera jpegs tend to be quite nice... <b>Plus many Roes based photo labs prefer to accept files in jpeg rather than tiffs or psd... kinda says something. </b>

That says more about the limited bandwidth and connection speed rather than file quality. It would take forever to upload a bunch of full size tiffs or psds.

But anyway, raw processed into jpeg is better than ooc jpeg.