# 5D Mark III vs. D800... what comparisons do you want to see?



## Chewy734 (Mar 27, 2012)

I told my buddy I wouldn't post this yet, since we'll be working on a thorough review and comparison of both bodies... but I couldn't wait. ;D







We're going to be spending at least the rest of the week with both cameras, testing them in a variety of conditions. However, we would like some input if there are any specific comparisons you would like to see. How should we test for those comparisons? We appreciate your suggestions.

We played with them for a couple hours today, but I'm not going to tell you my initial thoughts just yet, since we're working on a more formal writeup. You may be surprised (both Canon and Nikon folks). Thanks!


----------



## poias (Mar 27, 2012)

We have already jumped ship to Nikon (still awaiting shipment), but would be interesting to see RAW DR-ISO-Detail comparison of a colorful and contrasty scene. Basically, process the best you can with the RAWs and compare how they fare against each other in multiple settings combinations.

My initial hunch is that 5d3 will be killed in DR and detail, but will triumph D800 in noise performance by a long shot.


----------



## @!ex (Mar 27, 2012)

Check the focus accuracy on both bodies when close and far from subject under daylight and tungsten, to see if any micro adjustment is necessary. There have been a few reports that the 5dmk3 needs a bit of adjusting with most lenses to get really sharp shots.


----------



## facedodge (Mar 27, 2012)

When you're done pixel peeping take the cameras out in the real world and see which one is more fun to use.... Seriously.


----------



## poias (Mar 27, 2012)

facedodge said:


> When you're done pixel peeping take the cameras out in the real world and see which one is more fun to use.... Seriously.



Both camera should be "fun" for amateurs, as they are both excellent for any, especially amateur, use. However, pros will require their TOOLS to deliver and the value to be there, beside the usual fun of taking pictures.

So, DR, detail, ISO, AF, ergonomics, fps, etc are very important.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 27, 2012)

I won't lie, seeing them side by side, the 5d3 looks sexier, the d800 looks rugged. Focus accuracy, ISO tests both scaled up to the d800 resolution using the best methods possible, and tests of them down to the 5d3 resolution for arguments sake. No one is questioning dr and those who are have an agenda one way or another. Color accuracy compared to a digitalized Macbeth color checker chart so there is a base to go off of instead of assumption. Other than that handling quirks and general usability. You got a split second shoot, which is easiest and more natural to pick up and start shooting.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 27, 2012)

I'd like to see how the D800 files look when shot at ISO 25400 and underexposed by one stop and two stops, then pushed in post to the equivalent of ISO 50k and ISO 100k. Compare them to the Mk III at H1 and H2. 

Make sure to shoot the examples in real world low low light conditions.

Test to see how little light the AF will work in. I've found the Mk III will focus in just about any light that will produce a hand-holdable shutter speed, at least at ISO 25400.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 27, 2012)

You know we want the usual, resolution, DR, but yes, also *the ergonomics and the user interface.*

I've been using Canon for ages, they just feel natural and work intuitively IMO. I just got a little D5100 cuz it was easier to figure out than a D7000 for my first foray into their gear and still can provide excellent IQ.

I'd like to know how quickly you can reconfigure the D800 to optimize it for a rapidly changing scene.
E.g. Can you quickly adjust the ISO, focus mode and AF point selection, shooting mode, aperture or shutter speed and then fire off a shot in a second or 2?

I can do that with the Canons I'm used to using, despite them trying to confuse me by rearranging the button layout on nearly every new body! And I was able to do so quickly with my first Canon DLSR.

With the D5100 or worse yet, the D7000, I struggle to locate things I want to adjust quickly. Icons and names of functions are sometimes not intuitive or downright different. I know more practice with it will help but user interface has often befuddled me on Nikons. Has the D800 improved in this regard?


----------



## poias (Mar 27, 2012)

Aglet said:


> You know we want the usual, resolution, DR, but yes, also *the ergonomics and the user interface.*
> 
> I've been using Canon for ages, they just feel natural and work intuitively IMO. I just got a little D5100 cuz it was easier to figure out than a D7000 for my first foray into their gear and still can provide excellent IQ.
> 
> ...



That is our biggest concern as well... but photographers learn new interfaces and a little practice before major applications certainly help, hopefully. It is similar to OSx vs Windows... different interfaces, but people get used to switching after a while, especially if photography is what they spend their time on.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 27, 2012)

Low light studio samples from both cameras at 1600 ISO and up. Side by side shots to determine noise.


----------



## WilliamG (Mar 27, 2012)

I think the photo at the top of the page tells us everything we need to know already: the D800 is clearly better at all ISOs. The dynamic range of the grip is astonishing! Look, it's clearly red whereas the MK III has no red _whatsoever_ .


----------



## TAR (Mar 27, 2012)

and HDR , multiple exposure comparison from both cameras


----------



## NotABunny (Mar 27, 2012)

1. Shoot some side-by-side, low light, indoor portrait (or some complex subject). For both cameras, use the same exposure time (1/200...1/50), F-number (F2...F4) and amount of light. Only vary the ISO if the sensitivity is different, in order to get photos of the same relative brightness on the display.

DO NOT vary the amount of light that reaches the sensor, or the comparison is useless! The ISO doesn't vary the amount of light that reaches the sensor.

By low light I mean that in the context of these settings, the ISO should be 6400...25600 (okay, 3200 is acceptable at around 1/50 and F2...F2.8 ). If possible, use RAWs, do not use noise reduction of any kind and convert to JPEG without post-processing.

2. Check the ability of the cameras to (consistently and *properly*) expose back-lit (preferably indoors), half-body portraits, where you use the center AF point, focus on the face and then recompose (to check that it does exposure lock; it should, but...). You might also want to test with the auto-lighting-optimizer activated (for Canon).

3. Some low light shot(s) and then apply a bunch of fill light (/ shadows) to see what dark details can be recovered.


Hey, you've asked, so... thank you anyway


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 27, 2012)

Some 'standard' images in the iso range 50-200 and f/4 to f/5.6 as this is where the majority of my images are taken

Many thanks


----------



## TAR (Mar 27, 2012)

just to compare the bodys only , i would use some manual lens with Nikon adapter on both cameras , focusing manually..like samyang 14mm or some zeiss lenses


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm a landscape guy so I'd like to see both cameras using the Nikon 14-24mm lens on a wide shot of a subject landscape that has alot of fine detail in good light shot at iso 100. Perhaps a coastline bay with a foreground of wildflowers. Using the same aperature (say F8), from the same tripod and ballhead in the same position. I'd like to get both raw files so I can process them in a nominal manner and then print them on a 2x3 foot sheet using the same paper. I'd like to compare edge sharpness, corners, mids, and center. I use the Novovlex to do this on my Canon equipment so only one lens can do both cameras so we don't introduce the difference in lenses. If you have a sharper Nikon mount lens then that would be ok. I don't think you can use a Canon lens because no one makes a Canon lens to fit a Nikon camera. If you know of one, please let me know. I'm waiting for my D800e to come in but according to B&H I may have to wait for a couple of months.


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 27, 2012)

TAR said:


> just to compare the bodys only , i would use some manual lens with Nikon adapter on both cameras , focusing manually..like samyang 14mm or some zeiss lenses


Exactly what I was about to write - use comparable or the same lenses on both cameras. Not only one if you can, although comparisons made with the use of best on shelf from both and average set would give us a point - most probably you will get most of: .... 
The other thing is value/price index with body and lenses combined.


----------



## seekn (Mar 27, 2012)

poias said:


> facedodge said:
> 
> 
> > When you're done pixel peeping take the cameras out in the real world and see which one is more fun to use.... Seriously.
> ...


Yes, but seriously what is this going to tell us that we don't already know? And why are we comparing two different beasts in the first place? One obviously is built as an all arounder for wedding photographers/journalists/ etc... and the other is built for resolution and fine detail (landscapes and studios). You cant just say the D800 is better because it takes better resolution pictures - how much set up and how much missed shots were there before you got that one perfect one? Whereas the mark iii obviously has a higher chance of capturing something in low light on the fly with its higher iso and greater fps. 
Each camera has their own strengths and their own uses - so why make yourself feel better about the one you purchased? Just use the own you think is best suited to YOUR own needs. Truthfully, if you haven't figured that out by now after all these weeks of info, jpegs, raws etc.... then you probably never will. I am all for testing but I'm really getting sick of this Canon vs Nikon threads. Both cameras are great ok - just use the one that best suits you.


----------



## Chewy734 (Mar 27, 2012)

poias said:


> We have already jumped ship to Nikon (still awaiting shipment), but would be interesting to see RAW DR-ISO-Detail comparison of a colorful and contrasty scene. Basically, process the best you can with the RAWs and compare how they fare against each other in multiple settings combinations.
> 
> My initial hunch is that 5d3 will be killed in DR and detail, but will triumph D800 in noise performance by a long shot.



We'll be doing that test. The only main issue I have is how to process these RAW images? LR4, etc cannot natively read in the CR2 files. Currently, I'm using the Adobe DNG Converter to bring them into LR4. Should I process both the CR2 and NEF files the same way?



@!ex said:


> Check the focus accuracy on both bodies when close and far from subject under daylight and tungsten, to see if any micro adjustment is necessary. There have been a few reports that the 5dmk3 needs a bit of adjusting with most lenses to get really sharp shots.



I've read that too. I'm leaving the 5D Mark III as-is without any micro-adjustment in our tests. If the images prove to not be as sharp as the Mark II, then I'll look into doing the micro-adjustments later on for future testing.



facedodge said:


> When you're done pixel peeping take the cameras out in the real world and see which one is more fun to use.... Seriously.



That's the plan. Honestly, neither one of us are pixel peepers, and I don't have endless free time to stare at images at 100% crop. I feel like there are more professional sites/groups out there that have a larger budget than us to cover some of the DR, sharpness, and other pixel-peeping related questions. I plan on doing some real-world testing: how easy are the menu systems? How easy is it to shoot in the new HDR mode on the Mark III? How are the ergonomics?



poias said:


> Both camera should be "fun" for amateurs, as they are both excellent for any, especially amateur, use. However, pros will require their TOOLS to deliver and the value to be there, beside the usual fun of taking pictures.
> 
> So, DR, detail, ISO, AF, ergonomics, fps, etc are very important.



I wouldn't consider myself a professional photographer, since I don't actively make money on any of my shots. That being said, just because you make money on your photographs doesn't mean you know your stuff. For example, there was a "pro photographer" at a birthday party I went to this past weekend. He was borrowing my 5D Mark II for a few shots. At one point, he was wondering why the T3i kit lens wasn't able to fit on the Mark II. I basically smirked and quickly snatched my camera away from him. 



awinphoto said:


> I won't lie, seeing them side by side, the 5d3 looks sexier, the d800 looks rugged. Focus accuracy, ISO tests both scaled up to the d800 resolution using the best methods possible, and tests of them down to the 5d3 resolution for arguments sake. No one is questioning dr and those who are have an agenda one way or another. Color accuracy compared to a digitalized Macbeth color checker chart so there is a base to go off of instead of assumption. Other than that handling quirks and general usability. You got a split second shoot, which is easiest and more natural to pick up and start shooting.



Looks can be deceiving. Mike and I both agreed that the 5D Mark III felt noticeably better in the hands and actually more rugged. Today I'll be writing a detailed initial review with the unboxing of both camera bodies, and what our impressions were before even taking a single shot from either.

I don't feel like spending money on a color chart at the moment to compare these two, unless you can convince me otherwise. I'm sure dpreview and other sites will be covering those usual techniques of comparison. I like the last question you posed, however. And, that's something we'll definitely investigate.



Stephen Melvin said:


> I'd like to see how the D800 files look when shot at ISO 25400 and underexposed by one stop and two stops, then pushed in post to the equivalent of ISO 50k and ISO 100k. Compare them to the Mk III at H1 and H2.
> 
> Make sure to shoot the examples in real world low low light conditions.
> 
> Test to see how little light the AF will work in. I've found the Mk III will focus in just about any light that will produce a hand-holdable shutter speed, at least at ISO 25400.



That's an interesting test. We'll try to take a look at it over the next 3 weeks. We'll definitely be taking both cameras out into the wild extensively to look at real-world shooting situations. Both, in low light and plenty of light. I'm interested to see how good the AF compares under extreme conditions on both cameras.



Aglet said:


> You know we want the usual, resolution, DR, but yes, also *the ergonomics and the user interface.*
> 
> I've been using Canon for ages, they just feel natural and work intuitively IMO. I just got a little D5100 cuz it was easier to figure out than a D7000 for my first foray into their gear and still can provide excellent IQ.
> 
> ...



Commenting on the ergonomics, user-interface, and usability are high priorities for us. One quick note I'd like to make is that the 5D Mark III menu system is a lot more extensive in terms of the options available. The question is, how easy is it to navigate through those menus and find what you're looking for?

Unfortunately, I'm at a little disadvantage when it comes to menu systems for the Canon. My first dSLR was the 20D several years ago. I recently upgraded to the 5D Mark II. The menu system and ergonomics are quite different on the Mark III versus either of those other two. I haven't had a chance to play with a 7D, so I'm not sure how similar it is to the 7D in terms of the viewfinder, layout of the menus, etc. I feel like I may have to do some background research before I can give you a good opinion on those types of things.



prestonpalmer said:


> Low light studio samples from both cameras at 1600 ISO and up. Side by side shots to determine noise.



We'll look at that by shooting real-world items, as opposed to various screens, etc that sites like dpreview uses. Sadly the RAW converters for both cameras aren't ideal at the moment, so if you have any suggestions, let me know.



TAR said:


> and HDR , multiple exposure comparison from both cameras



Yeah, I'm interested in testing that new feature with built-in HDR on the Mark III. Sadly, the D800 doesn't do that in-camera. However, perhaps we can do multiple exposures using the same settings on both cameras, and process them exactly the same way in Photomatix Pro to see some differences.



NotABunny said:


> 1. Shoot some side-by-side, low light, indoor portrait (or some complex subject). For both cameras, use the same exposure time (1/200...1/50), F-number (F2...F4) and amount of light. Only vary the ISO if the sensitivity is different, in order to get photos of the same relative brightness on the display.
> 
> DO NOT vary the amount of light that reaches the sensor, or the comparison is useless! The ISO doesn't vary the amount of light that reaches the sensor.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the good suggestions! We'll have to try that out sometime over the next 3 weeks. FYI, the reason I keep saying 3 weeks is because my Nikon friend will be leaving for a month long vacation in 3 weeks. 



TAR said:


> just to compare the bodys only , i would use some manual lens with Nikon adapter on both cameras , focusing manually..like samyang 14mm or some zeiss lenses



Unfortunately, neither of us have 3rd-party lenses with appropriate adaptors. Perhaps we could rent them from our local professional camera store, but neither of us have the funds to do so. You're welcome to donate some money for the cause though and we would be happy to do that comparison. 



Bruce Photography said:


> I'm a landscape guy so I'd like to see both cameras using the Nikon 14-24mm lens on a wide shot of a subject landscape that has alot of fine detail in good light shot at iso 100. Perhaps a coastline bay with a foreground of wildflowers. Using the same aperature (say F8), from the same tripod and ballhead in the same position. I'd like to get both raw files so I can process them in a nominal manner and then print them on a 2x3 foot sheet using the same paper. I'd like to compare edge sharpness, corners, mids, and center. I use the Novovlex to do this on my Canon equipment so only one lens can do both cameras so we don't introduce the difference in lenses. If you have a sharper Nikon mount lens then that would be ok. I don't think you can use a Canon lens because no one makes a Canon lens to fit a Nikon camera. If you know of one, please let me know. I'm waiting for my D800e to come in but according to B&H I may have to wait for a couple of months.



Not a problem Bruce. I'd be happy to do that comparison for you. We can shoot by the lake one of these days. Since we've had some milder temperatures lately, some of the flowers have already started blooming. We'll be happy to provide everyone with the RAW images, so they can do their own post-processing using whatever converters and software they want to use on those images. I feel for you though. It's tough to be patient when getting new technology. We were fortunate enough to receive our camera bodies so soon after release.



seekn said:


> Yes, but seriously what is this going to tell us that we don't already know? And why are we comparing two different beasts in the first place? One obviously is built as an all arounder for wedding photographers/journalists/ etc... and the other is built for resolution and fine detail (landscapes and studios). You cant just say the D800 is better because it takes better resolution pictures - how much set up and how much missed shots were there before you got that one perfect one? Whereas the mark iii obviously has a higher chance of capturing something in low light on the fly with its higher iso and greater fps.
> Each camera has their own strengths and their own uses - so why make yourself feel better about the one you purchased? Just use the own you think is best suited to YOUR own needs. Truthfully, if you haven't figured that out by now after all these weeks of info, jpegs, raws etc.... then you probably never will. I am all for testing but I'm really getting sick of this Canon vs Nikon threads. Both cameras are great ok - just use the one that best suits you.



I agree with you. I feel like both cameras fill two distinct niches. However, given what both Canon and Nikon have so far released, it seems natural to compare these two bodies. Honestly, I feel like the Mark III is a successor to the Mark II, but the D800 is an altogether different camera than the D700. Based on their specifications alone, it seems like one is better than the other for specific types of photography, why can't we still compare them? We hope more reviews can help people make informed decisions about their purchase.


Finally, as an FYI, I've been a Canon shooter since the AE-1, and Mike's been a Nikon shooter since he started over a decade ago. I know our reviews may be biased towards the respective brands we prefer and shoot with on a regular basis, but we'll do our best to be objective. He hasn't really shot with a Canon before, and I haven't with a Nikon. So, it should be interesting to see what we have to say when we switch camera bodies.

Thanks for your input everyone, and keep them coming, I really appreciate it. I'll try to get the website and the initial review written by tomorrow, so we can expand our lively discussions. So, stay tuned!


----------



## Chewy734 (Mar 28, 2012)

Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800: Unboxing and initial impressions


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 28, 2012)

Chewy734 said:


> Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800: Unboxing and initial impressions



Thanks! Keep it rolling


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 28, 2012)

Nikon wins for better packaging.
Canon wins for better grip.

Nice. 

I do really like the way the Mk III feels in the hand. It's wonderful.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 28, 2012)

Go to a club with the 5DIII one night, and a D800 another night, and see which one gets you more women. Be sure to take lots of sample images.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Go to a club with the 5DIII one night, and a D800 another night, and see which one gets you more women. Be sure to take lots of sample images.



Are you related to wickidWombat


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Go to a club with the 5DIII one night, and a D800 another night, and see which one gets you more women. Be sure to take lots of sample images.
> ...



Why yes, I do believe my ancestors inter-bred with wombats some time ago. This would explain why the ladies think I'm so cute and cuddly. 

As for CR board member wickidwombay, I presume he might take offense to the notion that he might be related to a hack like me


----------



## Chewy734 (Mar 29, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Thanks! Keep it rolling



Thanks! We will try to post something new every day or two, comparing these cameras to a predecessor, or pitted against each other.



Stephen Melvin said:


> Nikon wins for better packaging.
> Canon wins for better grip.
> 
> Nice.
> ...



Hehe, yup! Now, the real question is which produces the better photos and under what conditions. We'll try not to forget video either. 



V8Beast said:


> Go to a club with the 5DIII one night, and a D800 another night, and see which one gets you more women. Be sure to take lots of sample images.



I like the way you think.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 29, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...


that must be why I like fast cars too! i knew there was something....


----------



## Kmtn (Apr 2, 2012)

Your results will include a lot of good info already, but here's a different perspective and some things I'm curious about.

I have never owned a digital SLR camera. For the past 22 years I've carried a Pentax 645 film camera and 4 lenses through remote mountains and gotten some pretty satisfying landscape shots. All of these trips entail carrying from 3 to 16 days of food and equipment on my back, in addition to my camera gear, tripod, etc. I'm at the point now where I'm going to go digital and I've been waiting for the new generation of Canon and Nikon cameras. The camera I buy will require me to buy lenses, etc. as well, so this is kind of a fork in the road for me. My goal is not only to gain the convenience and advances of new technology, but also to lighten my load, as I'm getting older and that is something I need to do.

Okay, so my perspective is that of all the Canon bodies currently available, the 5DM3 is the best suited to my landscape photography. Likewise, of all the Nikon bodies currently available, the D800 is the best. I'm very aware that these two bodies likely have different strengths, but they are the best their two companies have to offer for landscape photography, so I'm considering each of them.

Because of my goal to shed weight, I'm interested only in zoom lenses. Ideally, I would carry only two, a wide to mid-range zoom and a mid to telephoto zoom. Together they'd cover 24 -200 or 24-300. Therefore, I'm really only interested in how each body works with the lenses I'd use them with. So for instance, I want to see the 5DM3 using the Canon 24-70 lens for example compared against the D800 using the similar Nikon lens, because these are in fact what my purchase options would be.

Because of the type of photography I do, I always use a tripod. Therefore high ISO has less relevance for me. I've been shooting at ISO 50 or less for 30 years. I'm sure that I will be delighted with the available performance at higher ISO's, but my concern is more about what ISO produces the best IQ with each camera. Is it ISO 100, ISO 200, higher? I'm only interested in shooting at the ISO that produces optimal IQ with static, non-moving objects. Shoot each camera at its own optimal ISO for IQ.

Regarding resolution, here is my test. I know people argue about the right and wrong way to do this, but this is my way. Take identical shots on each camera system, take the D800 file and interpolate it down to the 5DM3 pixel dimensions, then compare. Now do just the reverse with the same image. Take the 5DM3 file and interpolate it up to the D800's pixel dimensions, then compare. In both cases you are creating new pixels in the interpolation step, but this is what you'd have to do in the real world to print one at the other's native pixel resolution.

I'm sorry to write such a long post, and I thank you for reading this. I thought a different perspective might be helpful. Thanks for your efforts.


----------



## AKCalixto (Apr 2, 2012)

A brief comparison

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/28/nikon-d800-resolution-compared-to-the-canon-5d-mark-iii/


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 2, 2012)

Here's a couple...somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I hope all y'all get the point.

Compare them both with the latest-and-greatest 400 f/2.8 from the respective vendor. Which setup can actually be shot handheld, and which one makes the monopod put the biggest dent down your shoulder and into your pecs as you walk around?

And also compare how each does with a wide or ultra-wide lens with movements...say, in 24mm or 17mm. What range of movements are available, and what's the image quality like?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 2, 2012)

Did you guys figure out what the Nikon "mystery part" was?


----------



## AndysRollei (Apr 2, 2012)

The mystery part for the D800 is a cord holder of some sort for the HDMI when attached to the camera, I think the D4's came with one too but don't quote me on that. 

Andy


----------



## Piotrek_K (Apr 2, 2012)

Hi Chewy734,

thank you for the effort of comapring this 2, surely great, cameras. 

If i could suggest something for testing, I'd like to see how those two cameras will face each other in test like this :

same outside photo (same shot, same lighting conditions etc.) , then underexposed by 1, 2 and 3 stops and finally overexposed by 1,2 and 3 stops. Later in post processing recovered to initial parameters. This would help to test dynamic range and both shadow and highlights recovery of Canon and Nikon bodies.

thank you in advance, P.


----------



## BobSanderson (Apr 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Go to a club with the 5DIII one night, and a D800 another night, and see which one gets you more women. Be sure to take lots of sample images.



The women you get might look like you.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 2, 2012)

I respect the camera but wow that D800 is fuggly.


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 4, 2012)

Kmtn said:


> Your results will include a lot of good info already, but here's a different perspective and some things I'm curious about.
> 
> I have never owned a digital SLR camera. For the past 22 years I've carried a Pentax 645 film camera and 4 lenses through remote mountains and gotten some pretty satisfying landscape shots. All of these trips entail carrying from 3 to 16 days of food and equipment on my back, in addition to my camera gear, tripod, etc. I'm at the point now where I'm going to go digital and I've been waiting for the new generation of Canon and Nikon cameras. The camera I buy will require me to buy lenses, etc. as well, so this is kind of a fork in the road for me. My goal is not only to gain the convenience and advances of new technology, but also to lighten my load, as I'm getting older and that is something I need to do.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your comments. I'm sure other sites such as dpreview will cover lower ISOs on static, non-moving objects, right? I personally like shooting landscapes as well, so I'll see what I can do this weekend. I also want to test out the new HDR capabilities on the Mark III, so look for that in the near future as well.



TrumpetPower! said:


> Here's a couple...somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I hope all y'all get the point.
> 
> Compare them both with the latest-and-greatest 400 f/2.8 from the respective vendor. Which setup can actually be shot handheld, and which one makes the monopod put the biggest dent down your shoulder and into your pecs as you walk around?
> 
> ...



That 400mm f/2.8 is an expensive lens and neither of us have it. So, we won't be able to test that out for you. However, the wide-angle test can be done. I'll see what I can do...



AndysRollei said:


> The mystery part for the D800 is a cord holder of some sort for the HDMI when attached to the camera, I think the D4's came with one too but don't quote me on that.
> 
> Andy



I think you are right, but I too am not 100% sure. You would think they would have that piece described somewhere, but I haven't found it.



Piotrek_K said:


> Hi Chewy734,
> 
> thank you for the effort of comapring this 2, surely great, cameras.
> 
> ...



That's a pretty cool idea. I'll try that out. Unfortunately, my buddy Mike is hogging the D800, so I've only really been able to test the Mark II vs. Mark III recently.


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 4, 2012)

I thought this is a pretty cool video I made of my watch lume, that I wanted to share with you guys...

Ball Hydrocarbon Spacemaster watch lume video @ ISO 25600 on the Canon 5D Mark III


----------



## skitron (Apr 4, 2012)

WilliamG said:


> I think the photo at the top of the page tells us everything we need to know already: the D800 is clearly better at all ISOs. The dynamic range of the grip is astonishing! Look, it's clearly red whereas the MK III has no red _whatsoever_ .



LOL, the "Canon L" red stripe on the D800 cracks me up!  It's pretty goofy looking, but at least it isn't the Sigma gold-chrome.


----------



## skitron (Apr 4, 2012)

Chewy734 said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > Check the focus accuracy on both bodies when close and far from subject under daylight and tungsten, to see if any micro adjustment is necessary. There have been a few reports that the 5dmk3 needs a bit of adjusting with most lenses to get really sharp shots.
> ...



To me, testing AF performance and accuracy is a complete waste of time without first doing AF MA on both cameras.


----------



## Orion (Apr 4, 2012)

The ONLy test you will ever need to see . . . . . EXCEPT the part @ 5:20 . . . if ytou are Canonista . . PLEASE look awayby 5:19 At the very least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AfA2mTMt0u8#!


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 5, 2012)

Orion said:


> The ONLy test you will ever need to see . . . . . EXCEPT the part @ 5:20 . . . if ytou are Canonista . . PLEASE look awayby 5:19 At the very least.



Even as a Canon shooter, I don't know why I found the part at 5:20 so funny.


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 5, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > The ONLy test you will ever need to see . . . . . EXCEPT the part @ 5:20 . . . if ytou are Canonista . . PLEASE look awayby 5:19 At the very least.
> ...



He didn't find it funny. He told us we should look away before we cringe in disgust.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 5, 2012)

Wow. There went $3,500!


----------



## Piotrek_K (Apr 6, 2012)

Chewy734 said:


> Piotrek_K said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Chewy734,
> ...




No problem with D800, I know how it is when one gets a new "toy" 
It was pure curiosity on my side - since I'm on Canon anyway. 

Thank you, Peter


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 6, 2012)

When testing the AF on the D800, you should be aware that there are severe AF issues with one batch that they're aware of. SN 8000xxx to 8001xxx. Apparently the AF unit is out of alignment, and will produce sharp images if focused on right-side AF points, and OOF images if focused on the left, when using wide angle lenses.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=41128645


----------



## Aglet (Apr 7, 2012)

Piotrek_K said:


> same outside photo (same shot, same lighting conditions etc.) , then underexposed by 1, 2 and 3 stops and finally overexposed by 1,2 and 3 stops. Later in post processing recovered to initial parameters. This would help to test dynamic range and both shadow and highlights recovery of Canon and Nikon bodies.



That's a pretty cool idea. I'll try that out. Unfortunately, my buddy Mike is hogging the D800, so I've only really been able to test the Mark II vs. Mark III recently.
[/quote]

+3 !  Take a really contrasty, HI DR shot, hold the sky (w clouds) back from clipping and then raise the ground scene to look natural in post and let's see how clean it looks, especially if you can find and include some truly dark areas in the foreground that'll still be dark even when raised in post. I'm looking for any pattern noise since I don't have any proper lens-cap on, shot-in-the-dark (SITD ?) photos to properly compare yet. At all full ISO stops too, if you can.


----------



## JR (Apr 7, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Wow. There went $3,500!



Yup! funny but stupid on their part! I guess these kids have money to waste!


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 7, 2012)

I would like to know how they handle an action shot on a cloudy day and what kind of colors they deliver under gray or drizzly skies. There are lots of people with 300mm f5.6 lenses who shoot the occasional sports scene under bad light. Generally speaking, the photos look like utter crap and I'd like to know how these two would handle them.

Settings should be around f5.6 with a shutter speed of around 1/1000 to 1/1250 and an ISO of between 1600 and 6400. 

On a 7D with a 70-300 L this is a BIG fail.


----------



## dafrank (Apr 7, 2012)

Here's what I want to know. I am deeply interested in nthe cameras dynamic range, especially the shadow detail after bringing up the shadows in post.

Here's the test I propose. First, take repeated shots with both cameras with their fastest lenses that you have available. Put the lenscaps firmly on both cameras. Now, go into a pitch black closet. Take a series of exposures, from, -6 to +6 f/stops from the indicated metered exposures to yield both Jpeg and raw shots, go down to your mothers' computers in the basement to load them on hard disk, and don't forget to take off your pajamas and dress in street clothes for the test - very important! On the raw files, please first lift the shadows 6 f/stops, then use the same software to raise the overall brightness of the files another 6 f/stops. Finally, convert the raw files to Tiff, but make them 400% larger than their native sizes while you do it. Now, take the resulting files, both Tiff and Jpeg, and burn separate DVD disks for both the Nikon and Canon files. Go upstairs, open the front or back door of your mom's house. Bring the disks outside. Repeatedly lay them in both the brightest lit areas in the yard and then the darkest shadowed area in the yard. Tell us, please, which disk look better, Nikon or Canon? I bet they'll both look about the same. Don't forget to wear sunglasses in the bright lit areas, as the glare off those disks will be nearly blinding!

Good luck. Looking forward to your results.


----------

