Leaderboard

Under certain circumstances, there are obvious disparities like banding as for instance ; ) Skin tones e.g. is another case where distinct colour information makes a whole of a difference to separate waters and it is possible to see right there : ) Other than that, 8-bit can obviously perform the job :- )

The real question is whether you'd rather be cool in summer (living in Italy) or a new camera? It can get pretty bad there. Also, if you don't make more money with a new camera, this air conditioner is likely to save you quite a bit- paying for a new camera, of course.

This is my primary question! 5DIII in RAW (esp with ML dual ISO to boost dynamic range by many stops) is something magical, to be sure. However, the 5DIII JPEGS are also magnificent in their own way -- I keep one lying around just for the JPEGS. Somehow this camera has a miraculous ability to hold onto highlights, even in JPEG mode. Nikon D200 CCD in RAW. It uses a Sony CCD so it's better in some ways (highlight retention and rolloff) versus the Kodak ones, but worse in others (less interesting colors). Still magical, though. I keep one lying around: One that is often overlooked is the Ricoh GXR M-mount module. While it may share the same sensor as the X100 and Nikon D90, but it is geared a little differently.... more muted colors (except for reds), and somehow crazy good for B&W photography. Seriously, using any RAW converter (LR, rawtherapee, darktable, filmulator, all of which I've used), you convert any RAW GXR images to B&W and it's... incredible! Lastly, of course... the Leica M9, my primary camera for these last few years and to this day. Lately, I find that Darktable's recently introduced "Sigmoid" process is very tender with the M9's harsh highlight clipping issues, the sensor's greatest downfall. P.S. I think Andrew mentioned this, but the 5DII is SUPER magical, more so than the 5DIII, and right up there with the M9! I have a 5DII laying around too, but don't have any photos available. Once again, using ML's dualiso module to boost the dynamic range and this thing is just produces cinematic photos like nothing else I've ever seen! Focusing on the 5DII is and always will be an unreliable pain, though (even if just using the central point). P.P.S Nikon D700 in RAW! What an incredible sensor! Delicate highlight rolloff (and lots of information there); great organic colors and lowlight performance.

The 3.5K image with Magic Lantern RAW video on the 5D Mark III is a truly beautiful image. Might be interesting to compare it today to Sigma Fp-L Cinema DNG, the EOS R5 Canon RAW 8K and Nikon N-RAW.

The mirror on DSLRs is for the optical viewfinder. It flips up to expose the sensor for exposure so no has no impact on actual image quality. That said you are not crazy and older cameras including 5DIII have a certain mojo. To me its a factor of things, but mainly the pairing of older lenses such as EF with older sensors. Color science has also evolved with each generation towards more neutral look. Also all the lens corrections in newer mirrorless give a more clinical image. I miss my 5DIII and will pick one up again not just for stills but for ML Raw. None of the RAW options now seem to capture such rich colors/image.

10 Bit is always going to be better than 8 Bit when correcting Log. That said it is dependent on codec and bit rate too. Ive always felt a Lumix 8 Bit file, regardless whether it's H.264 or H.265 is so much thicker and easier to work with than any Sony A7 whatever rubbish. Another factor is your software of choice. Premiere Pro is not a colour grading software, Lumetri sucks. Davinci on the other hand is so much kinder to weak codecs, much less banding and colour artefacts when you try to stretch things like correcting white balance and tint. Clearly better algorithms that are much more forgiving.

Feel free to post examples to back up what you say.