# Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head



## V8Beast (Mar 14, 2012)

Now we finally have a somewhat scientific side-by-side comparison of the raw files from both bodies, courtesy of Imaging Resource.

5DIII samples:
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

D800 samples:
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A7.HTM

To make this comparo as precise as possible, I thought it made sense to compare the Nikons NEF files with no noise reduction applied to the Canon's CR2 files. Truthfully, I had a very hard time distinguishing the the 5DIII images from the D800 images. The noise, DR, and overall IQ are just so freakin' close. Maybe the 5DIII starts to edge ahead after ISO 3200, but it is the slightest of advantages. I tried to compare them at 51,200 and 102,400 as well, but IR must have forgotten to test the D800 at those ISO speeds ;D 

DR wise, there is a noticeable advantage in the Nikon's shadow details, but again, it's only the slightest of advantages. Call me crazy, but I actually think the extra DR makes the Nikon's files look flatter. I also prefer the 5DIII's color reproduction, and the files look a tad sharper granted that might be attributable to the lenses. On a purely subjective level, to me the 5DIII's files just look better, but again, under identical shooting situations the two cameras produce nearly identical images. 

After pixel peeping for about an hour, it really put into perspective what terrific tools each of these bodies are for creating fantastic art. It also put into perspective how silly it is to argue about the pros and cons of each body when it requires an hour of pixel peeping to attempt to distinguish any differences in IQ between them.

That's just my worthless opinion. Discuss


----------



## psolberg (Mar 15, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Now we finally have a somewhat scientific side-by-side comparison of the raw files from both bodies, courtesy of Imaging Resource.
> 
> 5DIII samples:
> www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM
> ...



wow that's really stunning. up to ISO3200 the D800 detail is just mindblowing. The 5DIII doesn't stand a chance there. But I must say the D800 is very low noise considering it's sheer resolution. I guess 36MP isn't too much after all given sensor advances. 

Sampling down the 36MP images to 22 seems to greatly reduce the noise. I'll review them later with more time. thanks. From what I'd seen, it may be just me but I'd prefer the D800 images.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 15, 2012)

Shrug.

I can tell the difference when sized equivalently. The details I gotta give to the Nikon, particularly the red and green cloth. Elsewhere I can tell the difference most easily because the canon is way more contrasty (wonder if that's a default setting).


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 15, 2012)

What's also amazing is the detail in the solid color areas. Check out the white painted wall behind the bottles and yellow paintbrush... you can make out the texture in the white painted wall for crying out loud. That's really unbelievable. As well as on the surface in front of the bottles - you can make out every little scuff and scratch.

I like to be fair and objective in my evaluation of image quality, and I really must tip my hat to Nikon. I never thought I'd see this kind of quality at 36MP on a FF sensor.

All's fair in love and megapixel wars.


----------



## Orion (Mar 15, 2012)

I compared the D800NR3 (3200 iso) file to the sole 3200 iso from the Canon files. . . . (the mkIII file seems to have NR on) 

the 5DmkIII is a ISO beast compared to the D800. You can still make out the green blobs on the D800 with the NR3 . . the Canon is CLEAN!

Even when the resolution is reduced to the 5DmkIII on the D800, it does not compare well to the 5DmkIII. You get mroe detail in the dark red cloth, but in the others the mkIII beats the D800 for clarity and colour.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 15, 2012)

psolberg said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Now we finally have a somewhat scientific side-by-side comparison of the raw files from both bodies, courtesy of Imaging Resource.
> ...



Psol....You are not alone in your conclusion! And look at the d800 low iso dynamic range!!! Holy mother of god! Stunning. Just stunning. I'm guessing 1.5 to 2 stops more than 5d3 or D3s!


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 15, 2012)

Orion said:


> I compared the D800NR3 (3200 iso) file to the sole 3200 iso from the Canon files. . . . (the mkIII file seems to have NR on)
> 
> the 5DmkIII is a ISO beast compared to the D800. You can still make out the green blobs on the D800 with the NR3 . . the Canon is CLEAN!
> 
> Even when the resolution is reduced to the 5DmkIII on the D800, it does not compare well to the 5DmkIII. You get mroe detail in the dark red cloth, but in the others the mkIII beats the D800 for clarity and colour.




You will be misled if you go by the jpegs...and make the conclusions you have above. Trust me...use the raws.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 15, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> The Canon images are ~9mb. How can these be RAW files?
> 
> The Nikon images are ~20mb.
> 
> Certainly not a fair comparison.



Unfortunately it appears canon has once again under rated their iso..as dxo mark has shown previously. Canon is 1/2 to 2/3 stop lower than advertised. Errrr.


----------



## DanielW (Mar 15, 2012)

The Nikon images ~20MB are JPEGs! RAW images are 45+ MB!!!
Good time to start selling memory cards...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 15, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> And look at the d800 low iso dynamic range!!! Holy mother of god! Stunning. Just stunning. I'm guessing 2 stops!



2?

It's certainly more than 2, but my display isn't good enough to evaluate it visually.



jaduffy007 said:


> Unfortunately it appears canon has once again under rated their iso..as dxo mark has shown previously. Canon is 1/2 to 2/3 stop lower than advertised. Errrr.



The canon images look *brighter* to me than the nikon images. Shrug.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 15, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon images are ~9mb. How can these be RAW files?
> ...




I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion. :/

One thing I'll note is that you cannot judge the relative ISO sensitivity of these two cameras based on these photos. Look at the reflections of the lights in the bottles. If you look closely, you'll see that the upper-right light in the 5D III photos is much dimmer than the other lights. The shadows are different for the 5D III photos as well. There's less light in the 5D III photos, so they adjusted the exposure to compensate.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

V8, Thanks for posting the links... I was taking a look earlier and I got to hand it both to Canon and Nikon... I can definitely see the extra DR in the nikon files, but boy do they get noisy around 3200 and beyond, especially in the shadows. They also look flatter than normal due to the extra DR as well. Kinda like old film. Also saturation looked a bit muted... I would be curious if anyone with the mcbeth color chart like the one used in the photos (i haven't used one in years since the film days) can have it scanned/tested so we can get accurate numbers to what the file colors really are so we can compare what they came out with to what reality is. That could be very telling one way or the other for the cameras. Low ISO's other than DR, i think both preformed admirably and am excited to see these in the wild and see how they compare and what work pro's can accomplish with these cameras.


----------



## RedEye (Mar 15, 2012)

After working with a 2ti for the last seveal years, I can't tell you what a step up the 5dIII will be. It'll really change my capacity to shoot in almost every environment. So, with these photos, I think I'll probably end up with the 5dIII as I have pre-ordered, and then probably a higher MP camera sometime down the road.


----------



## weixing (Mar 15, 2012)

Hi,
Hmm... Is Canon images NR on or off?? My DPP 3.11.4.10 unable to open the RAW file. Nikon images had NR0 to NR3, but Canon images only had one version. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## bvukich (Mar 15, 2012)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> Hmm... Is Canon images NR on or off?? My DPP 3.11.4.10 unable to open the RAW file. Nikon images had NR0 to NR3, but Canon images only had one version.
> 
> Have a nice day.



From my recollection and understanding (which may well be faulty) Canon never applies NR to RAWs, it only applies it to the in camera JPEG conversion. Whereas Nikon cooks the NR into the RAWs (even at NR0 there is some NR being applied).


----------



## Ricku (Mar 15, 2012)

Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.

The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.


----------



## Orion (Mar 15, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > I compared the D800NR3 (3200 iso) file to the sole 3200 iso from the Canon files. . . . (the mkIII file seems to have NR on)
> ...



well I looked at RAWs too, a few days ago. Both are amazing. You will get better ISO from the mkIII, but both cameras are top notch for thier respective fields. The D800 is a MP monster, and it is unfair to compare it to the mkIII, and vice versa, I think. Both camps have positie and negative traits. . . . but those are meaningless in the field. . . even taking into account that you can downsize the D800 images and get better iso than at full res and the crop factor.

ona side note: if Nikon had Canon glass, and the D800 would at least match the mkIII in ISO, I would switch. . . or at the very least have 2 systems, and enjoy bnoth worlds. . . as far as high MP goes, but Canon will coem out with one of their own.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 15, 2012)

Ricku said:


> Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.
> 
> The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.



yeah I wouldnt worry about that, also check out the 50mm f1.4G its a great value for money lens it was my nikon favourite


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 15, 2012)

I prefer to compare high ISO images at low light levels and about 3000 kelvin. This is more realistic of the times I use high ISO (Low light). Using bright well balanced lights gives unrealistically good results at high ISO, so its hard to really know how they compare for my usage.

Of course, if you just crankup the ISO in good light, perhaps to capture a fast subject or freeze action, then bright light high ISO simulates that. Maybe they should do both to see if there is a difference.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 15, 2012)

Ricku said:


> Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.
> 
> The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.



It is, but there are a couple of usability issues with the Nikkor vs the "L." First is the focus breathing issue. At minimum focusing distance, the Nikkor has the angle of view of a 135mm lens. The difference is very noticeable. 

The "L" behaves a bit more like a unit-focusing lens in this regard. Such dramatic focus breathing in a $2,500 lens is unacceptable to me.

And the Nikkor's lens hood is very poorly designed. You cannot set your lens down on the hood, like you can with the Canon.

I was briefly considering a move, too. Between the cost (nearly all of Nikon's professional lenses are more expensive than Canon's) and the issues with this lens and the 24G, in comparison to the equivalent "L's," quickly put that thinking to an end.

Not to mention having to learn a completely different user interface, Nikon's poorer reputation for customer service, etc.


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 15, 2012)

bvukich said:


> From my recollection and understanding (which may well be faulty) Canon never applies NR to RAWs, it only applies it to the in camera JPEG conversion. Whereas Nikon cooks the NR into the RAWs (even at NR0 there is some NR being applied).



Can anyone confirm/debunk this? I'd be interested to know.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 15, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.
> ...



Canon lens prices seem to be well more expensive that their Nnikon counterparts if you just look at the newer models like the 70-200,, f/2.8 MK II, and the 24-105mm L. The 200-400mm L with its built-in TC is going to make the $7500 of the nikon 200-400mm Zoom look like peanuts.

So prices are getting pretty much the same. However, Nikons reputation for service, and now their refusing to sell parts to small local dealers is user unfriendly to a extreme.

No wonder Canon seems so confident about raising prices. I'm going to give the 5D MK III a good trial, I think it will be the right one for me, but some of the features on the Nikon bodies look very nice. If it weren't for the poor support and the unnecessary 36mp, I might be pretty convinced.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 15, 2012)

bvukich said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



I believe Nikon cooks it in only for longer exposures, I forget the cut-off, something like a number of seconds long.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 15, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon lens prices seem to be well more expensive that their Nnikon counterparts if you just look at the newer models like the 70-200,, f/2.8 MK II, and the 24-105mm L. The 200-400mm L with its built-in TC is going to make the $7500 of the nikon 200-400mm Zoom look like peanuts.



The 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is the same price or cheaper than the VR II Nikkor. (It's currently $100 cheaper.)

The 24-105 f/4L IS USM is much cheaper than the 24-120 VR II Nikkor, and the Nikkor isn't as good. (The Canon is currently $200 cheaper at B&H.)

The 24 f/1.4L II is $600 cheaper than the 24G Nikkor, and it's a better lens.




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So prices are getting pretty much the same. However, Nikons reputation for service, and now their refusing to sell parts to small local dealers is user unfriendly to a extreme.
> 
> No wonder Canon seems so confident about raising prices. I'm going to give the 5D MK III a good trial, I think it will be the right one for me, but some of the features on the Nikon bodies look very nice. If it weren't for the poor support and the unnecessary 36mp, I might be pretty convinced.



Yeah, I'm with you. Also, in this area, Canons outnumber Nikons at least 10-to-1 in professional hands. I shoot a lot of events, and I almost never see Nikons. Last fashion show I shot, I saw one entry-level Nikon and one D300. Saw about a dozen 5D Mk II's plus various other Canons. I was a little surprised to seen any Nikons at all. 

My point being, we lend each other equipment from time to time. If I wanted a piece of Nikon gear, I'd have to rent or buy it.


----------



## unkbob (Mar 15, 2012)

I have a 5D2 and a 5D3 on order, and I'm not about to switch to Nikon. But damn, those ISO 100 images from the D800 make the 5D3 look like a toy. They look more like medium format quality. The colours are just night and day, looking at them on a wide gamut monitor. Ok, I only checked out the jpegs but the 5D files are over sharpened and subtle as a brick in comparison. Even the high ISO files are decent on the D800 and more honest than the heavily NR Canon images. I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.

The 5D3 is more than good enough for my purposes - mostly weddings (stills + video). And the features / usability are great. But well done Nikon!


----------



## rlarsen (Mar 15, 2012)

After a while it starts sounding a little anal here and not very visual. We all know photographers who shoot crap with the best gear and others who are amazing at making pictures and processing files with lesser gear.
It reminds me of people who have the best stereo equipment money can buy but don't own much of a music collection.
I like my Canon gear a lot, and if my co-workers have better Nikon gear, all the better for them. 
Like someone said, for all the praise for Nikon, the sidelines are crowded with Canon shooters. 

For all the complaints about the Canon 5D MK ll, it has been hugely popular around the world for years, and the buzz surrounding the MK lll release is extraordinary.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 15, 2012)

unkbob said:


> I have a 5D2 and a 5D3 on order, and I'm not about to switch to Nikon. But damn, those ISO 100 images from the D800 make the 5D3 look like a toy. They look more like medium format quality. The colours are just night and day, looking at them on a wide gamut monitor. Ok, I only checked out the jpegs but the 5D files are over sharpened and subtle as a brick in comparison. Even the high ISO files are decent on the D800 and more honest than the heavily NR Canon images. I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.
> 
> The 5D3 is more than good enough for my purposes - mostly weddings (stills + video). And the features / usability are great. But well done Nikon!




Refreshing...an unbiased perspective. I must add...if you checked out the raw files, you would be doubly impressed. Reading this thread is a real eye opener about how we see what we want to see. Kinda frightening actually.


----------



## bvukich (Mar 15, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > weixing said:
> ...



Looks like the cut-off is at 1/4 sec, at least for the cameras tested below.
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p4.html

The article also sparked my memory... I originally came across this information while researching cameras for astrophotography. I saw numerous people suggest staying away from Nikon, but most of them had only a tenuous grasp on why. After some additional research, I came across this.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 15, 2012)

> I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.



*HUH?!* _Evidence??_


----------



## unkbob (Mar 15, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.
> 
> 
> 
> *HUH?!* _Evidence??_



Download some RAWs and see for yourself. The high ISO images are practically noise-free but very mushy. That is noise reduction, and it's not even subtle. Compare with the Nikon RAWS, where there is tons of noise but also more detail and contrast at high ISOs.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 15, 2012)

> on a side note: if Nikon had Canon glass



I could say I understood this before Nikon came out with the AF-S 24/1.4 & 35/1.4, but I just don't get it anymore.

14-24/2.8 kills Canon's wide-angle zooms.

85/1.4 beats Canon's 85/1.2 IMHO b/c it has 9 aperture blades (which means circular OOF highlights well beyond f/1.6, which is where Canon's 85/1.2 starts imparting octagonal shape to OOF highlights) & less CA on the sides & focuses faster & yields 18-point sunstars & has a more standard 77mm filter and is lighter and... etc.

Nikon 24/1.4 has like *1* stop of vignetting in the corners. Canon's has like *3*.

If you compare most MTF charts of primes, Nikon has higher MTF wide open than Canon (and usually you buy primes to shoot them wide open or thereabouts).

So please someone explain to me why Canon glass is better. I'd really like to understand this sentiment that I commonly hear thrown around... I think each brand has different glass that is better suited for one individual over another. But generally, both offer good options. For my particular needs, it'd seem Nikon's glass might suit be better. But to each his/her own.

I am heavily invested in Canon, but for one considering the switch, the only barriers/reasons not to switch I see are: (1) The investment/hassle of switching; (2) Canon's AF may be superior due to extra sensitivity at f/2.8 (does that lead to more accuracy/precision? I'd like some quantitative tests, which I will do shortly when I have both a 5DIII & a D800 in my hands) & extra cross-type sensors. I would add Canon's new flashes as a reason to stick with Canon, but at least E-TTL Pocket Wizards work with Nikon flashes, AFAIK, without frying them or incredible radio interference (something I have a little experience with).


----------



## woodymirag (Mar 15, 2012)

In analyzing this particular set of images from the Canon 5DIII and the Nikon D800, there are two conclusions that seem irrefutable:

1. At ISO100, the Nikon D800 has noticeably superior images out of the camera, due primarily to greater detail and dynamic range.
2. At ISO6400, the Canon 5DIII has noticeably superior images out of the camera, due primarily to significantly less noise.

That's what the speculation has been all along, and this one set of images bears this out. The 5DIII is the better low light tool, and the D800 is the detail/landscape/portrait king.

You can argue that noise reduction can be improved in post, whereas detail and dynamic range cannot, so maybe the D800 wins.

But it's funny, because when my jaw drops at an amazing image in the galleries on fredmiranda.com, I don't start drilling down to the pixel level to figure out why. I think, "Amazing light, great composition, outstanding quality." I don't think, "Oh, that must have been taken by Nikon or Canon" but instead, "Why is that photographer so much better than I am?"

For all the "switchers" out there (or pretend switchers), I can't fathom that you would dump your glass and familiarity with a UI to make a change from Canon to Nikon (or vice-versa), when both tools look to by quite exceptional. Also, if you are inclined, browse the forums of nikonrumors.com. It's funny to see how many of them are complaining that D800 75MB raw files are just too unwieldy for their workflow, and hoping Nikon will release a 20-24 megapixel option for them. For them, the grass is greener when there is low light. For you, the grass is greener when there is more detail.


----------



## te4o (Mar 15, 2012)

I am with Canon because when I bought my gear it used to be cheaper! Now I am paying the price!


----------



## jhop (Mar 15, 2012)

Two words why I will be staying with Canon regardless what Nikon does: Ashton Kutcher. Any company that decides to hire this guy to represent product is suspect to me! It's only a matter of time before he is caught in a conversion van molesting something other than himself!


----------



## erfon (Mar 15, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> The 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is the same price or cheaper than the VR II Nikkor. (It's currently $100 cheaper.)
> 
> The 24-105 f/4L IS USM is much cheaper than the 24-120 VR II Nikkor, and the Nikkor isn't as good. (The Canon is currently $200 cheaper at B&H.)
> 
> The 24 f/1.4L II is $600 cheaper than the 24G Nikkor, and it's a better lens.



yeah, new canon lenses might start off the same, but eventually they will drop in price. nikon lenses won't — they'll always be expensive. 

that's because nikon just implemented a "universal pricing policy" where their authorized retailers are forced to charge nikon's MSRP. if they don't, nikon stops selling to them.

this ridiculous new policy is one of the reasons that, after 8 years with nikon, my first full frame camera will be the mark iii.

canon's lenses seem extremely affordable to me, and i can tell you, in my experience, have much more beautiful bokeh.


----------



## Pyrenees (Mar 15, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> 14-24/2.8 kills Canon's wide-angle zooms.
> 
> Nikon 24/1.4 has like *1* stop of vignetting in the corners. Canon's has like *3*.
> 
> ...



Look, the Nikon 14-24mm is a great lens. The problem is, it has almost 4% barrel distortion at 14mm. For someone like me, who shoots architectural stuff almost always at f/8 or smaller, and for whom the widest fov is critical, it just doesn't cut it next to the Canon 14mm.

Canon's vignetting decreases significantly by f/8 or f/11, and in any case, it is very easily fixed in post.

When you fix 4% barrel distortion, unfortunately, you lose the fov advantage that 14mm might have because part of the image has to be thrown away.

So, it really depends on the application.

On a side note, Guys, how are you viewing these RAWS ???? I have updated Lightroom 3 and PS5 and it says the Nikon file is 'incompatible??? Can someone help??


----------



## Alker (Mar 15, 2012)

te4o said:


> I am with Canon because when I bought my gear it used to be cheaper! Now I am paying the price!



Now you are paying the price ???
What a nonsense.


----------



## TAR (Mar 15, 2012)

Pyrenees said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > 14-24/2.8 kills Canon's wide-angle zooms.
> ...



use Light room 4 or download camera raw 6.7 beta


----------



## Pyrenees (Mar 15, 2012)

TAR said:


> use Light room 4 or download camera raw 6.7 beta



Cheers for that.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 15, 2012)

woodymirag said:


> But it's funny, because when my jaw drops at an amazing image in the galleries on fredmiranda.com, I don't start drilling down to the pixel level to figure out why. I think, "Amazing light, great composition, outstanding quality." I don't think, "Oh, that must have been taken by Nikon or Canon" but instead, "Why is that photographer so much better than I am?"



Precisely. I just don't see either of these bodies giving their handlers a big enough edge over the other where the tech specs would be what separates a mediocre image from a great image.



> For all the "switchers" out there (or pretend switchers), I can't fathom that you would dump your glass and familiarity with a UI to make a change from Canon to Nikon (or vice-versa), when both tools look to by quite exceptional.



I'm guilty of this myself, as I pre-ordered a D800 when the rumor mill was swirling with some very underwhelming 5DIII specs. Then Canon shocked me by putting a near-1Dx caliber AF system and a 6 FPS burst rate in the 5DIII, addressing my two biggest gripes with the 5DII. The dual card slots, weather sealing, and improved ISO are just icing on the cake. Before the 5DIII was announced, I thought the D800 would blow it out of the weeds. However, after seeing some real sample pics between the two, the difference in IQ between them is so insignificant for my shooting needs that I'm reconsidering my plans to test both bodies out side by side, and may just cancel my D800 order outright. My 5DIII pre-order is probably going to show up on my doorstep first anyway 

For this round of the mid-range DSLR war, I'll concede that Nikon appears to have delivered the overall winner. Even so, the D800's advantages aren't that substantial for my style of shooting and Nikon hasn't distanced itself enough from Canon to put up with the hassle of switching systems,


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 15, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> woodymirag said:
> 
> 
> > But it's funny, because when my jaw drops at an amazing image in the galleries on fredmiranda.com, I don't start drilling down to the pixel level to figure out why. I think, "Amazing light, great composition, outstanding quality." I don't think, "Oh, that must have been taken by Nikon or Canon" but instead, "Why is that photographer so much better than I am?"
> ...



It would be interesting to see how the 1DX matches up against the D800 in terms of IQ. Apart from the obvious mps difference I wonder which would be better for those that want low res output ie 16 x 10 @ 720dpi


----------



## zee (Mar 15, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.
> ...



Not sure about Nikon's supposedly poorer reputation for customer service...I work at a retail store in Canada and my experience with them has been excellent.

Once I dropped my Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens off a tripod since it wasn't secured properly...the back where it mounts broke right off, was quoted $600 parts & labour for repair...Nikon ended up fixing it for free even though it was my fault.

Haven't had to take my 5DII in for service yet so I can't compare their service to Canon but in my experience, Nikon's service has been excellent.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 15, 2012)

Pyrenees said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > 14-24/2.8 kills Canon's wide-angle zooms.
> ...



To me that seems to sum up the different views of both companies, its obviously a bit of a generalisation but the impression I get is that Canon have a clear divide between the "money is no object" hardware and offering value at the lower end of the market while Nikon on the other hand seem to target somewhere inbetween those two ends a bit more often.

Nikon's business plan does I'd say tend to target the subset of people who are most represented on photo forums, that is amatures after high end quality but within a reasonable budget.


----------



## WarStreet (Mar 15, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I'm guilty of this myself, as I pre-ordered a D800 when the rumor mill was swirling with some very underwhelming 5DIII specs. Then Canon shocked me by putting a near-1Dx caliber AF system and a 6 FPS burst rate in the 5DIII, addressing my two biggest gripes with the 5DII. The dual card slots, weather sealing, and improved ISO are just icing on the cake. Before the 5DIII was announced, I thought the D800 would blow it out of the weeds. However, after seeing some real sample pics between the two, the difference in IQ between them is so insignificant for my shooting needs that I'm reconsidering my plans to test both bodies out side by side, and may just cancel my D800 order outright. My 5DIII pre-order is probably going to show up on my doorstep first anyway
> 
> For this round of the mid-range DSLR war, I'll concede that Nikon appears to have delivered the overall winner. Even so, the D800's advantages aren't that substantial for my style of shooting and Nikon hasn't distanced itself enough from Canon to put up with the hassle of switching systems,



+1 The AF and 6fps are the 2 most important aspect (for me) of this new camera. Both cameras are great and I would be happy with any of them, since each camera has their own strong points. 

I still need to replace my broken printer, otherwise I would like to try printing some samples at low and high iso's and see how they perform. From my eyes, seems they won't be far from each other, possibly with an edge for D800 at low iso's and edge for the 5DIII on high iso's. For me image quality it is not just more detail (MP), or less noise, but the combination of these two, together with DR, converted into a final print. For small size web images, both of them exceed the requirements.


----------



## yunusoglu (Mar 15, 2012)

The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...

I've taken a good look at ISO3200 images and the D800 is clearly superior at all noise reduction settings. At base ISO there's no competition of course... So, what exactly are we talking about?

This is no situation that Canon and Nikon have focused on different stuff and these are two different cameras aiming at different types of photographers. The situation is; the cheaper camera is better than the more expensive one except for the differences of 2fps bust speed and number of AF points.

If the 5D3 was priced around $2500, I could go with that. I'd say the D800 was a bit better but the 5D3 was a bit cheaper but there's nothing and absolutely nothing with the 5D3 that I can justify Canon's move.


----------



## Ivar (Mar 15, 2012)

+1



yunusoglu said:


> The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...
> 
> I've taken a good look at ISO3200 images and the D800 is clearly superior at all noise reduction settings. At base ISO there's no competition of course... So, what exactly are we talking about?
> 
> ...


----------



## Alker (Mar 15, 2012)

yunusoglu said:


> The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...
> 
> I've taken a good look at ISO3200 images and the D800 is clearly superior at all noise reduction settings. At base ISO there's no competition of course... So, what exactly are we talking about?
> 
> ...



Well what about:

All kind of TS-E lenses

What about:

Canon EF800mm F5.6

And

What if you already have:
70-200 II
24-105
70-300 L
17-40 L
etc.
etc.

What is the issue ?????
You want people to switch gear everytime when another brand DSLR seems better ?
Really makes no sense to me.


So that's why I buy the 5d Mark III.
And guess what ? ...........It is even a camera where you can take pictures with.

Yes and we all know it is 500 euro more
And if you don't like it don't buy it

I have had it with the Canon vs. Nikon SAGA


----------



## yunusoglu (Mar 15, 2012)

Alker said:


> Well what about:
> 
> All kind of TS-E lenses
> 
> ...



No, no, no... This is nothing about the Nikon vs. Canon saga and I don't have even the slightest intention of switching to Nikon. I've stated before under some other topics that I've too much invested in Canon gear to jump ship. I'm just complaining because I'm a little jealous and I was very much hoping for and upgrade but now I have to stick to my 5D Mark IIs under these circumstances.

This is all out of disappointment. That's all...


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 15, 2012)

Alker said:


> yunusoglu said:
> 
> 
> > The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...
> ...


?????.....................Canon has winder range of lenses, nobody denies that! But yunusoglu was comparing two bodies.


----------



## Alker (Mar 15, 2012)

> I'm just complaining because I'm a little jealous



Don't be jealous.
The next Canon DSLR may change everything who knows.

And why jealous ?
The 5D Mark III can do the job just as easily as the Nikon D800
I can hardly believe that the Nikon D800 can do things which the 5D Mrk III cannot do and abcourse the other way around.


----------



## Alker (Mar 15, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > yunusoglu said:
> ...



That's my point.
You can complain about the 5D and it's more price, but we all know this.
I know you are talking about the DSLR bodies, but those bodies won't work very good without lenses 

Also his question was : The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? 
Well for me the lensens.


----------



## stve (Mar 15, 2012)

The 5DIII has longer exposure times at all ISO's compared to the Nikon , whenever I use high ISO it's hand held in poor lighting & the slowest shutter speed I can get away with so in the real world under poor lighting the D800 is going is going to deliver sharper pictures.
The biggest plus point for the 5DIII seems to be smaller file sizes if you have an old computer & slightly faster frame rate.
Big plus points for the D800 resolution & dynamic range & price.

Both look to be great cameras but I'm amazed by the image quality of the D800 at base ISO which I use the most.


----------



## yunusoglu (Mar 15, 2012)

Alker said:


> > I'm just complaining because I'm a little jealous
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, when it comes down to getting the job done, the 5D Mark II is still fine, I'm making a living with it...

Given Canon's history of DSLRs; the fisrt sub-$1000 DSLR - 300D, the amazing 1Ds Mark III, probably the most popular camera - the 5D Mark II, maybe I had big expectations, I don't know...

I'm disappointed that I've lost a potential upgrade option. Now I have to wait longer or sell my car for a MF camera to achieve a serious IQ difference in my work.


----------



## Alker (Mar 15, 2012)

> I'm disappointed that I've lost a potential upgrade option.



You are saying you don't see an approvement over de 5D Mark II ??
Come on.

The DR 11.5 or 12 difference is not going to save you, nor the resolution.
Some will say they need the 36MP......

I would really like to see there portfolio and why they think that 22mp is not enough.

If you make money by photography and it is true that you need 36 MP then you would already have moved to MF.


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

unkbob said:


> I have a 5D2 and a 5D3 on order, and I'm not about to switch to Nikon. But damn, those ISO 100 images from the D800 make the 5D3 look like a toy. They look more like medium format quality. The colours are just night and day, looking at them on a wide gamut monitor. Ok, I only checked out the jpegs but the 5D files are over sharpened and subtle as a brick in comparison. Even the high ISO files are decent on the D800 and more honest than the heavily NR Canon images. I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.
> 
> The 5D3 is more than good enough for my purposes - mostly weddings (stills + video). And the features / usability are great. But well done Nikon!



Sorry, but Canon has NEVER added NR to their RAWs. The 5D III RAW files do not appear to have any NR when I open them with ACR, either. When it comes to sharpness, I doubt any sharpness was applied...the 5D III has a weaker low-pass (AA) filter than its predecessors, so its going to be sharper strait out of the camera. As for color rendition, I also have a high quality screen that is fully calibrated, and the D800 photos look rather saturated. Fundamentally, thats just tone curves (picture styles) that are applied by the camera when saving JPEG, and RAW converters when post-processing. You can change the default tone curves for both cameras and swap the "color fidelity" story there...its not something baked into either camera. When talking about the unmodified pixel data from a bayer sensor array, the final IQ and color quality have little to do with anything other than mathematics. 

Also, to be factual, its actually Nikon that bakes NR into their RAWs at higher ISO's and longer exposures (thats been rather well known for some time.)


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 15, 2012)

yunusoglu said:


> I'm disappointed that I've lost a potential upgrade option.



Or you can look at it as a 3000$ gift from Canon.


----------



## Alker (Mar 15, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> yunusoglu said:
> 
> 
> > I'm disappointed that I've lost a potential upgrade option.
> ...


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 15, 2012)

stve said:


> The 5DIII has longer exposure times at all ISO's compared to the Nikon , whenever I use high ISO it's hand held in poor lighting & the slowest shutter speed I can get away with so in the real world under poor lighting the D800 is going is going to deliver sharper pictures.
> The biggest plus point for the 5DIII seems to be smaller file sizes if you have an old computer & slightly faster frame rate.
> Big plus points for the D800 resolution & dynamic range & price.
> 
> Both look to be great cameras but I'm amazed by the image quality of the D800 at base ISO which I use the most.



The 5D III has longer exposure times because the lighting is different. Look at the reflections of the lights in the bottles; you can see that one of the lights is much dimmer in the 5D shots than it is in the D800 shots. The shadows bear this out, too. 

You cannot make any judgment about the relative ISO sensitivity of the two cameras based on these photographs.


----------



## yunusoglu (Mar 15, 2012)

Alker said:


> > I'm disappointed that I've lost a potential upgrade option.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh come on Alker...
I don't need high DR, I don't need high resolution, what do I need then?
Ability to shoot in candle light with 6 fps?
Body-wise; DR and resolution makes 90% of the IQ...
That's exactly what everybody needs!

I've been making frequent visits to my Phase One dealer here in Istanbul and the best price I got so far for the MF body, a 80mm. lens and a IQ40 digital back is €18.000+VAT! A trip to Denmark would probably save me from the VAT but how about the other lenses? After switching to Profoto, I'm unfortunately short of affording a MF system...



stve said:


> The 5D III has longer exposure times because the lighting is different. Look at the reflections of the lights in the bottles; you can see that one of the lights is much dimmer in the 5D shots than it is in the D800 shots. The shadows bear this out, too.
> 
> You cannot make any judgment about the relative ISO sensitivity of the two cameras based on these photographs.



Please help me understand this.
So what you're saying is; 5D3 would outperform the D800 big time if the lighting conditions were the same, right? Well I mean, it has to be 'big time' to justify the 22MP sensor vs. the 36MP, right?


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 15, 2012)

jrista said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 5D2 and a 5D3 on order, and I'm not about to switch to Nikon. But damn, those ISO 100 images from the D800 make the 5D3 look like a toy. They look more like medium format quality. The colours are just night and day, looking at them on a wide gamut monitor. Ok, I only checked out the jpegs but the 5D files are over sharpened and subtle as a brick in comparison. Even the high ISO files are decent on the D800 and more honest than the heavily NR Canon images. I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.
> ...


From a recent interview with Chuck W:

AH: The EOS 5D Mark II was considered the benchmark of overall image quality in the Canon lineup. Apart from improvements in noise reduction by DIGIC5+ processor, what improvements has Canon made to the CMOS image sensor itself relative to the 5D Mark II?

CW: Three main areas of image quality-related improvement on the EOS 5D Mark III image sensor compared to the EOS 5D Mark II are:

· Gapless Microlenses: This feature increases the amount of light received by each photodiode compared to the gapped microlenses used on the 5D Mark II’s image sensor.

· New Photodiode Structure: The photoelectric conversion rate of each photodiode has been improved.

*· On-Chip Noise Reduction: Canon’s proprietary technology in this area, which was first shown on the EOS D30 Digital SLR in the year 2000, has steadily improved over the years.*

http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/AH_CW_interview/


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

yunusoglu said:


> The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...
> 
> I've taken a good look at ISO3200 images and the D800 is clearly superior at all noise reduction settings. At base ISO there's no competition of course... So, what exactly are we talking about?
> 
> ...



I had a good look from 3200 and up to 25k... The nikon starts to fall apart in the shadow detail before canon... At 3200 its very close, which I will give you... the 6400 is actually more telling, but when you upsize the 5d3 or downsize the D800 to match, it may be pretty close. Beyond 6400 canon has a clear advantage and I would say, with the raws, canon appears not to have a 2 stop advantage, but maybe a 1.3 stop advantage where nikons 25k looks worse than canons 51k but better than canon's 104k, but that's in part thanks to the sensor size. 

If your looking purely on image quality, it may or may not be worth your upgrade, but as the overall camera goes, it's almost in a different class compared to the 5d2, which I'm intrigued with.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > unkbob said:
> ...



While I would generally agree and hope he's right, dont ever forget he is trying to sell the camera... He's not going to say... eh... yeah... we dropped the ball and it isn't as good as the 5d2... He's going to promote the heck out of the camera, which he is. BUT, I do agree the camera is a very impressive tool and I cant wait till they start shipping so I can get mine.


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > unkbob said:
> ...



On-chip noise reduction is a different thing, and as far as I know, all CMOS image sensors for the last 10 years or so have at least used something like correlated double samping to reduce noise at the pixel level when reading. That is NOT the same thing as normal "noise reduction" that muddies detail, which is performed after digital sampling and uses some form of wavelet deconvolution which, when its cranked high enough, DOES diminish detail. 

Hardware level noise reduction features are _exactly_ what we *WANT*. Its far cleaner, as it works at the pixel and row/column level to remove dark current noise, horizontal and vertical FPN, and variance in transistor efficiency, etc. such that when a pixel is read, the purest form of that pixel propagates along the hardware pixel processing pipeline to the ADC. Its because of those types of Noise Mitigation that Sony sensors (who has patents on several forms, where as Canon only seems to use a variant of CDS) perform better than Canon sensors in low ISO DR...its _not_ the reason either camera loses detail at high ISO/long exposure.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 15, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> If your looking purely on image quality, it may or may not be worth your upgrade, but as the overall camera goes, it's almost in a different class compared to the 5d2, which I'm intrigued with.



Very true. IQ aside, the dual card slots, weather sealing, and vastly improved AF and FPS make is a much more versatile tool, and much better suited for professional use. IMHO, the 5D line has been an experiment in progress for Canon. If you think back to 2005 when the 5DC was announced, it was a game changer. Full-frame bodies were the holy grail of DSLRs back then, and the only option up until that point were $7-$8K 1-series bodies. Full-frame bodies were big bucks, bulky and simply inaccessible for most photogs. No one dreamed the day would ever come when you could buy a small-form, full-frame body for $3,300. It was a stunning move to say the least.

That said, I think Canon has always viewed the 5D line as a consumer grade product even up until the MKII, and the build quality and feature set has reflected this sentiment. Perhaps Canon underestimated how popular the 5D line would prove to be, but I think the number of 5Ds used professionally far exceeded its expectations. As such, Canon has integrated many pro-grade features into the 5DIII that people have been demanding for a long time. 

Sure, Nikon has developed an amazing camera in the D800 for $500 less - and I'm very grateful that competition like this puts pressure on Canon to up its game - but that doesn't change the fact that the 5DIII has many improved features over it's predecessor that I'll put to great use on every single shoot.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

This goes in the face of peoples argument that Canon or nikon or sony or whatever doesn't listen to their customers... What did people complain about the 5d2? AF, build, high ISO, enough MP, dual cards, etc... what did canon do? Pro AF, better weathersealing than the 7D if you go by their word, ISO up to 104k, 22MP, 2 cards, electronic level, etc... same with the 7d... it built upon the xxd series, just like customers wanted, and stood up against the D300 series and for the most part, took control of that class. They do listen, you just need to know who to complain/talk to... 

FYI, it's not by posting on Canon Rumors


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 15, 2012)

jrista thanks for clarifying the noise reduction in RAWs confusion.

My point about the one brand's glass being better than the other was that one brand's set of lenses may suit one individual better, and vice versa.

Re: the comment about shooting the 24/1.4 II at f/8 or f/11 in order to avoid vignetting... why would you buy a $1600 prime to shoot it at f/11? 3-stops of vignetting in the corners is like the difference between ISO 800 & ISO 6400... so sure I take care of it in post... but hello banding/noise in the corners then (at least when shot with a 5D)!

The point that you can still make images work _with_ these limitations is well taken. But there's nothing wrong with attempting to optimize your system so you can spend more time thinking about the pictures, not the tech.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 15, 2012)

There seem to be a lot of people claiming that while the D800 has higher resolution & DR, the 5DIII holds up better at higher ISOs.

I have to wonder if that's some sort of desire to at least give the 5DIII _some_ advantage in terms of image quality. And honestly I would've expected better ISO performance for the 5DIII given the higher inherent SNR of each pixel, which should decrease shot noise. But maybe read noise (higher for Canon?) has that much of an effect...

Because if you look here:
http://cl.ly/F1ud/5DIII_vs_D800-ISO25600.png

And here:
http://cl.ly/F2Ui/5DIII_vs_D800-ISO25600-2.png

... I don't see any difference between the two cameras at ISO 25,600. Note both RAWs were opened in ACR 6.7, identical settings, then D800 was _*downsized*_ to 5760px horizontal (same as 5DIII) using* 'Bicubic' *(not sharper, not smoother).

Please view images at *100%*. They're *100% crops*.

If anything, the D800 looks a little cleaner to me but, really, it's a wash.

Minus the fact that D800 has better resolution & DR.

P.S. I find downsizing the D800 image to be the most relevant for ISO comparisons, b/c the 5DIII has the advantage of larger pixels, so the D800 should be given the advantage of 'software binning' of pixels to determine ISO performance vs. the 5DIII for the _same size image_.


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> jrista thanks for clarifying the noise reduction in RAWs confusion.



Welcome. 

[/quote]
Re: the comment about shooting the 24/1.4 II at f/8 or f/11 in order to avoid vignetting... why would you buy a $1600 prime to shoot it at f/11? 3-stops of vignetting in the corners is like the difference between ISO 800 & ISO 6400... so sure I take care of it in post... but hello banding/noise in the corners then (at least when shot with a 5D)!
[/quote]

So, yes, thats true...*under certain circumstances.* Remember, there are a total of 12 stops of harware-level DR capability we have to work with (assuming zero improvement over 5D II). Lets say you expose at a good level...without ETTR, such that your center lens is at around 10 stops of exposure from a DR perspective, and your corners are at about 7 stops of exposure. Dynamic range in Canon cameras is weighted towards the highlights, rather than the shadows...so even at _"only"_ 7 stops of exposure in the corners, your SNR is WAY above the level where banding would occur.

For even four stops of vignetting (which is what you get in the extreme corners of the 24/1.4 II @ f/1.4 (very minimal area of the frame) you would have to expose the center to only about 5-6 stops of DR (less than half maximum saturation) such that pulling up the corners would exhibit banding noise. Even then...it would really only exhibit in the marginal corners...the rest of the frame would be fine.

But here is the rub...if thats the BEST exposure you could take with a 24mm f/1.4 lens wide open, then your using the wrong ISO. You probably need to crank ISO up by a few stops to get your center-lens exposure "correct" for the scene (fyi, I'm kind of assuming at least a well-lit scene with artificial lighting, which is somewhat dim in the grand scheme of things, and obviously a scene lit with sunlight would be even better...but then you wouldn't actually need f/1.4.) The moment you get past ISO 400, banding noise stops being an issue since you lose DR on both ends of the scale (although more in the highlights), and your minimum black level is above the Canon noise floor to start with. At that point, you should be able to recover the corners, albeit with increased random noise, but with little to no concern that you'll be extracting FPN or banding noise from the deep shadows.

As I've mentioned before (btw, this is not directed specifically at you, sarangiman), even if the 5D III exhibits FPN and banding noise as bad as the 5D II (which I highly doubt...it looks like some vertical banding is still an issue, although Canon claims its been mitigated considerably), the chances of you actually running into problems with it are rather slim unless you are one of the unique types that purposely only shoot at ISO 100 even when its inappropriate due to some misguided idea that its the only way to get more DR. (Realistically, if you can't fully saturate at ISO100, your always better off using a higher ISO, otherwise your wasting highlight DR and therefor not actually gaining the benefit of better maximum possible DR at ISO 100.) Unless you are exposing incorrectly more often than not, it should be the far rarer case that you actually need to extract immeasurable amounts of detail from deep shadows...even if 4-stops of vignetting are in play. When the occasion strikes that you really DO have to use ISO 100 to capture maximum DR...remember that Canon tends to favor more DR in the highlights rather than shadows...and you can push exposure to the right pretty far before you actually clip (assuming other exposure setting requirements don't limit you..and if they do, a higher ISO is again the better option.) That improves your shadow recovery...sometimes considerably, and the difference between Nikon (which would certainly require less effort for the same gain) and Canon shrinks.


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> There seem to be a lot of people claiming that while the D800 has higher resolution & DR, the 5DIII holds up better at higher ISOs.
> 
> I have to wonder if that's some sort of desire to at least give the 5DIII _some_ advantage in terms of image quality. And honestly I would've expected better ISO performance for the 5DIII given the higher inherent SNR of each pixel, which should decrease shot noise. But maybe read noise (higher for Canon?) has that much of an effect...
> 
> ...



On my screen, which is calibrated, the D800 image seems to have brighter noise, and its a bit more tightly packed. The thing that stands out about the D800 vs. the 5D III image, though, is the bit of banding in the D800. Its most visible in the darkest parts of the image, such as the lower left area of the beer bottle, and the black mug. In the 5D III, the only "artificial" noise artifacts I could find were two fairly obvious diagonal lines of noise in the black mug. I am not sure if that is some kind of funky FPN noise or what...never seen anything like that before. I was inclined to say the 5D III color noise, which tends to be rather blotchy, was worse...but it seems the D800 has the same stuff, its just that it exhibits more in the blues on Nikon than in the red. Outside of that, the 5D III noise is more pleasingly random than the D800 noise at this ISO setting. 


BTW, is there any chance you could overlay those suckers with "difference" blending in Photoshop? Additionally, I'd be curious to see the same image for each camera, but one stop lower (12800), overlaid with "difference" blending on top of the correlated brands 25600 image. I'm curious to see if that demonstrates any "unnatural" noise types like fpn/banding better.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 15, 2012)

jrista: Fair points, but that's a lot of thinking to be doing when shooting people or events  For example, here's a 24/1.4 II shot of mine at f/1.8:







ISO 400, 1/6400s, on a 5DC.

Any more exposure and I may have blown some highlights (this already has a lot of highlight recovery done for the area where the sunset was brightest). What might you have done differently?

Regardless of what you may have done differently, in this sort of (faster paced) shooting scenario it's a little harder to calculate how to get the best DR and room for error is extremely appreciated. 

Granted, in this particular shot, the corners aren't too noisy, but in other shots from this set (particularly at f/1.4), noise is definitely visible after vignetting correction.

Good points about maximizing DR by ETTR with Canon. I do that often. But for example last week I was shooting moonrise behind some peaks around Mt. St. Helens at 200mm focal length, where grad ND filters are practically useless (even hard edged ones). B/c of clouds obscuring the moon a bit, I was so close to nailing the shot without HDR. But banding was too evident when raising the shadows, and I was exposed as far to the right as I could go without blowing stuff out (Highlight recovery really helped recover detail of the clouds right in front of the moon, which looked blown out upon importing).

Granted, one should just use HDR in this scenario, *but*, often that's hard w/ the moon b/c the exposure difference is so huge that when you blend with a proper shadow exposure, the falloff of light around the moon is just too much, necessitating cloning a whole bunch of sky around the moon to not have a huge halo. Yes it's possible, but man it'd be much easier with more DR.


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> jrista: Fair points, but that's a lot of thinking to be doing when shooting people or events  For example, here's a 24/1.4 II shot of mine at f/1.8:
> 
> ... image clipped ...
> 
> ...



Great shot!  Love the colors. I wouldn't have done anything different, honestly. ETTR is something you do when you can, not all the time. Also, there is certainly going to be noise...nothing you can do about that. There are LOTS of things that cause noise, but the mere presence of it was not what I was referring to. Its specifically banding and fixed pattern noise that should be rare. Even with Canon's "high" read noise, were still talking at most around 25 electrons (assuming zero improvement over the 5D II, which I believe is unlikely...we'll probably see 16 at worst and around 8 if Canon did well.) The well capacity of a 5D III photosite is in the _tens of thousands_ of electrons...so even 25 electrons of read noise would mean you have to pull EXTREME shadows to get any real problems with non-random noise forms given Canon's higher black point (2048 rather than 1024 as it was with the 5D II.) 



sarangiman said:


> Good points about maximizing DR by ETTR with Canon. I do that often. But for example last week I was shooting moonrise behind some peaks around Mt. St. Helens at 200mm focal length, where grad ND filters are practically useless (even hard edged ones). B/c of clouds obscuring the moon a bit, I was so close to nailing the shot without HDR. But banding was too evident when raising the shadows, and I was exposed as far to the right as I could go without blowing stuff out (Highlight recovery really helped recover detail of the clouds right in front of the moon, which looked blown out upon importing).
> 
> Granted, one should just use HDR in this scenario, *but*, often that's hard w/ the moon b/c the exposure difference is so huge that when you blend with a proper shadow exposure, the falloff of light around the moon is just too much, necessitating cloning a whole bunch of sky around the moon to not have a huge halo. Yes it's possible, but man it'd be much easier with more DR.



The scenario you outlined wouldn't be much different, even with two extra stops of DR. Compared to the nighttime landscape, the moon is well more than two stops brighter than maximum DR. Even if you did have 14 stops rather than 12, if you expose for the moon, the vast bulk of the landscape is going to be very near the noise floor of either Canon or Nikon cameras. I would actually prefer less noisy electronics even if I did not gain any DR for that particular scenario. At least with Nikon, you have the ability to recover something...however useless it may be...where as with Canon all you could really recover is blotches of landscape scattered around amongst undesirable noise patterns. That could very well even be the case with a Canon sensor WITH 14 stops of DR, still limiting your recoverability (Given the option, I'd take a Canon 12 stop sensor with no noisy electronics over a Canon 14 stop sensor with noisy electronics.) Either way, 14 stops of clean DR or not, you can never really get that shot with one exposure. You would likely have to do "lighter" layer blending in with a bit of masking to get both the landscape and the moon (or Exposure Fusion...and if that didn't work, maybe some more complicated manual blending...and only as an absolute LAST resort would I personally use HDR. HDR is just too much of a pain and produces its own artifacts like halos to really be of use there.)


----------



## yunusoglu (Mar 15, 2012)

If we are discussing the high-ISO performances of these two cameras, then it's already over for the 5D3...
Mr. Chuck Westfall, I'm sorry but, where exactly is the advantage of having 22MP over the 36MP if the high-ISO performances will be almost the same? Hmm?

I'm going to pay $500 more and I'm going to get less DR, less resolution (14MP!!!) and arguable same high-ISO performance, eh? And for what? A difference of 2fps and some AF points.... Yeah, right...


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 15, 2012)

> so even 25 electrons of read noise would mean you have to pull EXTREME shadows to get any real problems with non-random noise forms given Canon's higher black point (2048 rather than 1024 as it was with the 5D II.)



jrista: Yeah about that -- do you understand the black points of 1024 & 2048 vs. Nikon's 0? I just don't get it. BTW the Canon S100 has a black point of 128. Seems like it's always some power of 2. 

Also, while we're on this subject (I know we talked about this before in a different forum, but no conclusion was drawn): I find it highly suspicious that when I use the method of LetTheRightLensIn & 'bronxbombers' (on dpreview's fora), i.e.:

DR = log[base 2] (max pixel value/stdev in black frame)

I get the same numbers as DXOMark... so often it's just uncanny & suspicious. It makes me wonder: is DXOMark using the same methodology, or are they actually measuring DR by also metering the objects in the scene? I get 11.2, 11.6, 14 for the 5D2, S100, D7000, respectively, using the simple equation above & black/white frames from those respective cameras. Which is almost exactly what DXO gets. Don't you find that suspicious?



> Given the option, I'd take a Canon 12 stop sensor with no noisy electronics over a Canon 14 stop sensor with noisy electronics.



Well, wouldn't the 14 stop sensor have to have relatively lower read noise in order to achieve the higher DR, according to the above equation?

I know what you're saying about the moon -- it's a huge exposure differential. But in this case b/c I had a fighting chance (b/c of the clouds dimming the moon), I really was so close to nailing it in one shot after raising the shadows. 

Here, let me demonstrate:

Here's an acceptable shot in terms of noise:





Here's the same scene (sort of) a little later, with the moon emerging from the clouds. So I underexposed, compared to the previous shot, by 2 1/3 stops (note I went from ISO 100 to ISO 200, & I accounted for this in terms of the # of stops I underexposed this shot compared to the other shot):





Granted the 2nd shot was 11min later, but this was already more than an hour after sunset so I'm not sure the ambient light changed that much. This shot has that crosshatch pattern + blotchy noise (much more visible in the full-resolution image, of course)

So, IMHO, 2 stops extra DR would've really helped here. Do you disagree?


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

yunusoglu said:


> If we are discussing the high-ISO performances of these two cameras, then it's already over for the 5D3...
> Mr. Chuck Westfall, I'm sorry but, where exactly is the advantage of having 22MP over the 36MP if the high-ISO performances will be almost the same? Hmm?
> 
> I'm going to pay $500 more and I'm going to get less DR, less resolution (14MP!!!) and arguable same high-ISO performance, eh? And for what? A difference of 2fps and some AF points.... Yeah, right...



That would be 6fps frame rate and clean 3x sampling for video on the 5D III...both valuable. In fact, the 5D III is the fastest frame-rate full-frame body at 20mp+ resolution on the market. When you need FPS, FF, and can't afford to drop $7000, thats a VERY valuable thing. The 3x sampling should make 5D III video nice and clean...although sadly it still doesn't have the ability to do 4:2:2 sampling, which would be ideal (the D800 doesn't have that ability either, though, so level playing field there.)

Also, as far as I can tell, beyond 6400 (and maybe even as low as 6400), the D800 exhibits some FPN that the 5D III does not. The 5D III has NATIVE ISO up to 25600, where as the D800 has to digitally push exposure (same thing you might do in Lightroom with RAW) to get ISO's beyond 6400, which means its going to exhibit more non-random noise at those ISO's. @Sarangiman's samples above seem to demonstrate that, and while its subtle, non-random noise is present in the D800 image to a greater degree than the 5D III (there is a very slight and very small sample of what might be horizontal noise, and a couple cases of some odd diagonal noise...although that may just be noise and highlight edges lining up...can't really tell.) Under more extreme lighting circumstances, I would expect the effects to be more pronounced...DESPITE normalizing resolution between the two images.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 15, 2012)

Just looking at a straight up JPG comparo at 1600, I don't think the d800 comes close to the 5D3. Look at the white wall, top left corner.

d800 - pink splotchy chroma noise

5d3 - buttery smooth

Granted, these are NR'd jpegs, but if chroma noise is popping up at 1600 on the d800, how's it gonna handle at 3200 or 6400, where the 5D3 looks very usable? I don't think Canon people have much to worry about - the 5D3 is going to be a phenomenal event/concert/low-light camera body.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 15, 2012)

Funny how we can see different things from the same files, although when we're nitpicking this much, I'm not surprised. Honestly the *D800 image looks slightly cleaner to me* (*5DIII also has some magenta blotchy noise*), but it may depend on what part of the image we're looking at.

So for kicks I quantitated the bottom of the black bottle between the two files & calculated a mean & standard deviation.

Here are lines through the regions I quantitated for the 5DIII (top) & D800 (bottom):





Here are the results plotted in Excel (quantified in IRIS):





Make of it what you will... but in these two quantitated areas, the pixel variation is lower for the D800 (*19 for 5DIII*, *16 for D800*). Albeit by a very small number (3 on a 255 scale).

I quantitated another area within this same region of the bottom of the bottle & the means came out to 16 for both 5DIII & D800, but a STDEV of *18 for the 5DIII* & *15 for the D800*, again giving credence to the slightly lower noise of the D800.

Again, we're splitting hairs here. ISO performance looks virtually equivalent_ in this scenario_. 

P.S. Remember these are RAW comparisons, where the D800 has been downsized (bicubic sampling) to match the 5DIII size.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 15, 2012)

stve said:


> The 5D III has longer exposure times because the lighting is different. Look at the reflections of the lights in the bottles; you can see that one of the lights is much dimmer in the 5D shots than it is in the D800 shots. The shadows bear this out, too.
> 
> You cannot make any judgment about the relative ISO sensitivity of the two cameras based on these photographs.





yunusoglu said:


> Please help me understand this.
> So what you're saying is; 5D3 would outperform the D800 big time if the lighting conditions were the same, right? Well I mean, it has to be 'big time' to justify the 22MP sensor vs. the 36MP, right?



That is not what I said. Reread what I wrote. I only said that you cannot make that kind of judgment based on the IR pictures.


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > so even 25 electrons of read noise would mean you have to pull EXTREME shadows to get any real problems with non-random noise forms given Canon's higher black point (2048 rather than 1024 as it was with the 5D II.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, we have actual black-frame samples from the 5D III now, so I'm more trusting of the results of those tests at this point. My problem with those tests originally is it was exclusively using noise reads from the masked off border pixels of CR2 files. There was no way to know for sure what, exactly, those masked pixels might contain, especially given that the vast majority of the sample images available on the net were from pre-production 5D III samples. That made all the claims...which were stated as though they were undeniable fact...highly speculative at best. With a proper black frame from a production body, the results are certainly more realistic and verifiable, although they are still somewhat speculative (and counter Canon's claims about improved DR...regardless of how much improvement there may actually be.)

DXO does pretty much the same raw-file analysis, however they do it with images taken of a very specific and finely calibrated device that is supposed to ensure that DR, SNR, and ISO measurements are accurate. They sample light at many levels, not just between maximum saturation and standard deviation of black. I'm not sure about the DR calculation you specified though. That looks similar to DXO's SNR formula (which lacks the logarithm). DXO explicitly states their approach to determining DR as follows:



DXO]
[b]3. Dynamic Range[/b]
Dynamic range is defined as the ratio between the highest and lowest gray luminance a sensor can capture. However said:


> > Given the option, I'd take a Canon 12 stop sensor with no noisy electronics over a Canon 14 stop sensor with noisy electronics.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wouldn't the 14 stop sensor have to have relatively lower read noise in order to achieve the higher DR, according to the above equation?



I guess it depends on the characteristics of the noise. Fixed pattern noise is pretty fine in definition and usually forms boxes around less noisy areas (rather than entirely covering the whole image), and it could easily intrude into useful detail, without actually raising the lowest useful black level in every pixel. Thats kind of the problem Canon has had in the recent past...you could still extract _some_ useful detail from very deep shadows, its just that it was frequently intruded upon by sharp, very unnatural fixed pattern noise. Canon also has "rough" dark current noise that obliterates other detail in even deeper shadows, so between the two, you certainly don't have as much recovery power as with Sony sensors. However you still DO have some recovery power. Hypothetically, it should be entirely possible that dark current noise could be reduced to bare minimums...taking care of the "bitchiness", leaving fixed pattern noise behind. You could probably reach deeper into shadows at that point, but they would still be useless because you have this very unnatural crosshatch intruding into your picture.

From what I've read from Canon about the improvements to their sensor, it sounds like they worked to remove as much fixed pattern noise as they could, but don't appear to have improved dark current noise much. Even 5D III images appear fairly blotchy in deep shadows and very high ISO. However I'd take bitchiness over FPN any day, even if it interfered with the last stop out of 14 stops of DR. _Far better noise characteristics._



sarangiman said:


> I know what you're saying about the moon -- it's a huge exposure differential. But in this case b/c I had a fighting chance (b/c of the clouds dimming the moon), I really was so close to nailing it in one shot after raising the shadows.
> 
> ... images clipped ...



It does look like there was a measurable change in ambient there, the landscape contour in the first shot is much more defined, and not just because of the difference in noise. There is actually a window between "sunset"...the moment the sun passes the horizon, and the end of "astronomical twilight"...the point where no more light from the sun has any effect. During mid summer, that can be as wide a timeperiod as two hours (i.e. 8:30pm sunset, 10:30pm astrotwilight ends.) During the heart of winter, it might be as short as an hour and 15 minutes. Even under the last few minutes of astronomical twilight, the difference can be fairly significant on landscape exposures. 

Back a few years ago, when I first started photography, I was hiking around some 14ers here in Colorado. I stayed up above 13,000 feet (where your angle of view to the sun is better than if you were at a lower altitude) loong after sunset, and kept taking photos. Over an hour and a half after sunset, the upper parts of the peaks were still exposing brighter than the rest of the mountains...and a hard shadow edge separated the bright peaks from the rest (only really visible with longer exposures, if you are ever inclined to experiment.) It was kind of like aplenglow, only with the gray light of astronomical twilight rather than the brilliant red of the first/last rays of sunrise/sunset.



> So, IMHO, 2 stops extra DR would've really helped here. Do you disagree?



Certainly, more DR is always useful, however how you get that extra DR and where it comes from matters. When it comes to shadow range, its most useful when coupled with very low-noise electronics. Keep in mind, dynamic range in a digital sensor is allocated exponentially, such that it favors the highlights (more a consequence of base 2 math than anything, really.) Additionally, Canon's sensors are technically 14-bit sensors...its just that they are losing the *least significant* stops to noise. Gaining two additional *usable stops* of DR on the bottom end isn't really going to help the picture. If we break down the 14 bits of information a modern digital sensor has available, you get the following levels per stop (highlights at the top):

Stop 14: 8192
Stop 13: 4096
Stop 12: 2048
Stop 11: 1024
Stop 10: 512
Stop 09: 256
Stop 08: 128
Stop 07: 64
Stop 06: 32
Stop 05: 16
Stop 04: 8
Stop 03: 4
Stop 02: 2
Stop 01: 2

A sensor with very low read noise might consume Stop 1 and interfere with stop 2. Canon cameras probably consume the first couple stops with noise, and interfere with Stop 3 and to a small degree Stop 4. Lets say the moon exposure utilizes Stops 7-14, and the landscape exposure utilizes stops 1-4. Assuming you improve noise characteristics on a Canon such that it stops interfering with Stop 3 and 4...well, you haven't really changed anything. You aren't adding highlight room...so you can't push your exposure farther without blowing out highlights. You are making a few extra levels of shadow information useful...but there really wasn't much headroom there to start with. You may reduce non-random noise characteristics...but those shadows are still going to be noisy due to photon-shot noise. Instead of having maybe 11 levels to work with for the landscape...you now have approximately 14 levels. You can certainly bump the exposure of those levels now without much worry that you'll see unsightly noise patterns emerge...but your not gaining as much as you might think. Your simply _gaining access_ to what was already there.

Now, the story would be different if you only had 12-bits to start with, and actually increased the sensors capabilities to 14-bits. At that point, your highlight headroom increases by _12288 levels!_ You can push your exposure a *lot* farther, and as a consequence of being able to push the moon exposure to a higher range of levels, you DO gain more room in the shadows (or rather, you don't have to underexpose the shadows as much, and therefor shadow SNR improves.) That would have a far greater impact on DR than simply making the least-significant levels of already-existing bit depth "usable". The same would go for a move from 14-bit to 16-bit sensors and ADC's. You would gain an *additional 49152 levels* with those two extra bits (a full three times the grand total you had to work with before)! (Might also explain why 16-bit electronics capable of processing 6-14 high resolution photographic frames per second are currently beyond the reach of _reasonably priced_ DSLR's now. )

Obviously, this is a bit of a contrived example, but that is indeed the reality of the DR story with Canon sensors. Were not lacking highlight range...were unable to fully utilize existing shadow range. Exact distribution of levels may not be as "neat" as my example, and there are numerous levels of indirection between the signal on the sensor and the data in a CR2 file. We know that Canon's black point (at least as measured by the masked pixel border) is fairly high...however how that plays into real pixel data in non-masked areas when a CR2 file is properly processed is something I can't speak to. It does seem like Canon is only capable of achieving about 15760 levels in a fully saturated pixel (if previous numbers floating around are indeed accurate), so the exponential breakdown of levels is going to differ, and the bottom two stops are largely (or maybe entirely) inaccessible (regardless of how many levels they may support.)


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 15, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Funny how we can see different things from the same files, although when we're nitpicking this much, I'm not surprised. Honestly the *D800 image looks slightly cleaner to me* (*5DIII also has some magenta blotchy noise*), but it may depend on what part of the image we're looking at.
> 
> So for kicks I quantitated the bottom of the black bottle between the two files & calculated a mean & standard deviation.
> 
> ...



Sarangiman,

Interesting - but the point of the d800 is to have more info without reducing the size of the image. Can you run another comparo on the same area of the images, but at their native resolutions? This is a more valuable comparison - at least in my mind - as reducing a d800 file to 22MP negates the value of having a 36MP camera in the first place.


----------



## jrista (Mar 16, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Funny how we can see different things from the same files, although when we're nitpicking this much, I'm not surprised. Honestly the *D800 image looks slightly cleaner to me* (*5DIII also has some magenta blotchy noise*), but it may depend on what part of the image we're looking at.



Aye, peoples eyes notice different things. Here is an animated GIF that I hope better demonstrates the fixed pattern noise I see in the D800, and what may (??) be some slight vertical banding in the 5D III. For both samples, I adjusted levels to: Black 40, Gray 1.4, White 180. Hopefully that makes the noise characteristics a bit easier to see as there should be higher contrast:






Personally, I like the vertical banding in the 5D III better than the horizontal FPN in the D800. There is actually quite a lot of FPN in the D800 shots in the dimmer areas...namely the dark parts of the bottles, the black mug, etc. The D800 images have been downsampled, and that is likely to mitigate the impact of non-random noise. I'm curious what its like at full resolution.


----------



## stve (Mar 16, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> stve said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D III has longer exposure times because the lighting is different. Look at the reflections of the lights in the bottles; you can see that one of the lights is much dimmer in the 5D shots than it is in the D800 shots. The shadows bear this out, too.
> ...



I never said that my words were


> The 5DIII has longer exposure times at all ISO's compared to the Nikon , whenever I use high ISO it's hand held in poor lighting & the slowest shutter speed I can get away with so in the real world under poor lighting the D800 is going is going to deliver sharper pictures.


----------



## tasteofjace (Mar 16, 2012)

I am absolutely floored by how much time and energy people are putting into dissecting these examples as if they were alien bodies found at Area-51.

I hope once these cameras hit store shelves, you can all just go out and enjoy what we love....

Taking pictures. Wouldn't that be something?

I'm very excited to receive my MKIII 8)


----------

