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



## Radiating (Mar 14, 2012)

It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800. Here's what I know so far:

5D3 vs D800/E by catagory:

Dynamic Range: Inferior
Color Fidelity: Inferior
Noise: Equal
FPS: Equal (with a grip)
Video: Inferior
Autofocus: Equal (both are pro level)/Inferior (no f/8.0)/Superior (better with fast lenses due to special f/2.8 sensors)
White Balance: Inferior
Auto Exposure: Inferior
In Camera Lens Correction: Inferior
Pop up Flash: Inferior
Price: Inferior
Resolution: Inferior
AA filter: Inferior


I realize that the 5D3 has a better menu system, so that's one thing it can possibly do better.

Also please don't smite me. I'm not trying to bash the 5D3, as I'm actually a Canon fan and will be getting the 5D3, but can anyone think of one major feature that the 5D3 does better than the D800? If so feel free to post, I'm just trying to get informed here.

Thanks.


----------



## poker_jake85 (Mar 14, 2012)

That's why I switched my preorder to the d800 and saved $500


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 14, 2012)

Radiating said:


> It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800. Here's what I know so far:
> 
> 5D3 vs D800/E by catagory:
> 
> Dynamic Range: Inferior



looks like it, by a lot



> Color Fidelity: Inferior



this is not known yet, it's possible the 5D3 might be better, we will see



> Noise: Equal



probably very close and thus effectively equal, but it's not 100% for sure yet



> FPS: Equal (with a grip)



mixed

if you want fps for wildlife that is not really, really close in, then the D800 wins

if you can get close enough to frame as desired, then the 5D3 wins since it can do it at 22MP vs 16MP DX, so more detail and less noise

at much higher ISOs reach advantage of D800 goes away so the D800 has no advantages and then you have either similar noise and detail or less noise and more detail from 5D3 scenarios, plus without grip, so 5D3 wins



> Video: Inferior



mixed, but probably much more of a 5D3 win

D800 has 1080p crop mode so it wins for distant wildlife

D800 has full signal out over HDMI so it wins for that (although many people will not be able to handle that, so it's a win only for the really serious)

but the 5D3 appears to have less aliasing and color moire and should have slightly better SNR and maybe less rolling shutter, pretty huge things, providing there is not lesser sharpness from the 5D3, the 5D3 wins and since this covers a lot of shooting, I think it more likely that it will turn out that the 5D3 gets the win for video and perhaps not by a little



> Autofocus: Equal (both are pro level)/Inferior (no f/8.0)/Superior (better with fast lenses due to special f/2.8 sensors)



unknown at this point



> White Balance: Inferior



possibly



> Auto Exposure: Inferior



very probably so



> In Camera Lens Correction: Inferior



no idea, maybe



> Pop up Flash: Inferior



yes



> Price: Inferior



unless you need 6fps



> Resolution: Inferior



yes, noticeably



> AA filter: Inferior



not fair to say, each has the filter it needs



> I realize that the 5D3 has a better menu system, so that's one thing it can possibly do better.



yes, personally, I do not like the nikon UI


you can also add that the Nikons I think do flash metering better
and the D800 has intervalometer built-in


----------



## Martin (Mar 14, 2012)

Sad but true. Unfortunately u may also update your list with:
-Flash system
-x-sync (real)
-price 
-producers software (does matter so much imho)
-customization options
-shutter durabilty.

I just regret that I own any gear right now. It would be easier to choose having empty backpack...
I am just asking myself a question-There will be many canon users who will keep their gear and add 5d3 to their sets, as they already have some gear, but some of them will switch. A lot of people who make purchase decision right now will choose Nikon because of "the list" and some due to of higher mpix sensor as it's great marketing argument for those who have no detailed information about IQ, studio shooters will probably stay with their already owned 5d2, as there is nothing worth upgrading (no better DR, no need for higher ISOs, no need for better AF, almost same resolution ok- less banding) .So the question is how Canon is going to attract new customers? Price is not a argument for sure. Doesn't it mean they will lost a huge share of the market. Maybe it is not a photo related topic but it's interesting.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Mar 14, 2012)

The D800 does NOT offer frame rates comparable to the Mark III, with or without a battery grip, without taking a significant ding to framing and resolution (and, by extension, the DX crop mode will make your wide lenses frame less wide, and your long lenses appear longer, by a funky 1.2X crop). And yes, on top of that, you need a battery grip even to do it. Say what you will about Canon, but I haven't read about them requiring a different power source for faster continuous shooting on any digital camera models - only Nikon wants us to believe in a digital film winder.

The autofocus module looks set to be a significant win for Canon, for the first time in my knowledge.

Dynamic range is an interesting one, but it ought to be remembered that high ISOs sacrifice dynamic range as a matter of course so some more in-depth third-party samples will be very helpful in judging how well Canon actually does or doesn't do in providing useful high ISO settings.

Many of the other points are debatable, but we won't get anywhere without more samples and hopefully a review.

On the whole, I'm pleased Nikon is offering what looks like stiff competition, and I find it interesting that I'm feeling like my Canon partisanship is being summoned at some hackery against "our" camera - when the Nikon camera is looking like it puts into play the "higher MP images offer more pixels for cutting noise interference with detail" argument I've used before. However, since I did a lot of that writing, I found the 7D...I am finding that for practical purposes the higher autofocus rate is more useful than gobs of unused detail in every frame.

What has me on edge is the apparent fact that the Nikon does not seem to offer (I hope I'm wrong) mRAW or sRAW-alike options, just crop modes which will reduce the number of total pixels being used at the beginning, which is the method you'd use if your CPU was old and outdated. Canon's CPUs and sensor readouts are fast and parallel enough that they can effectively blend multiple pixels.


----------



## tt (Mar 14, 2012)

OP - you forgot one thing:

5D Mark III: superior at using Canon EF lenses 

For those with Canon kit, that kinda swings it. Unless people swap out all their lenses an accessories, the 5DM3 is one of the 2 new offerings. That's it until Canon offers more - it's a captive market.


----------



## vuilang (Mar 14, 2012)

Do You have any proof showing one is better than the other?..
It's kinda stupid by reading the specs.

and... 36mpx with SRAW is great.. without it, It's a major pain in the A$$ for event shooter.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

If i'm not mistaken, the 5d3 has more AF points, more cross sensors, maybe even more double cross sensors... Does the D800 offer expansion zones such as the 5d3/1dx/7d AF system? The only thing it does better in AF is the 100,000 pixel sensor/meter thing... Other than pure numbers, everything appears to be too close to call until production samples come out in the wild. We can debate minor things here and there but it's pointless until both finally release the freaking cameras.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

Oh yeah, and if you want to play the pre-spec number games.... High ISO canon kicks nikons butt... 6400 all the way through 104k... price you pay with the 36MP sensor.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Mar 14, 2012)

I believe the Mark III offers diagonal cross sensors; the Nikons don't.


----------



## capertillar (Mar 14, 2012)

i am pretty much in agreement... im really only pushing for the 5d3 since i DONT want to deal with 36mp raws... that file size will just be plain stupid for me, as im not a pro photographer... in fact, ill probably shoot sraws with the 5d3 in most situations... 

and all the other aspects, well... since we wont be comparing images side by side with shots taken by the d800, i doubt any of it really matters... however, thats no excuse for $500 over the d800! >< (will continue to be disgruntled about the price until it drops to 3k or lower)

hopefully the real world results will balance things out... and canon will realize their error... once again hoping... that buyers taper off after the pre-order period with the early adopters


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 14, 2012)

Martin said:


> So the question is how Canon is going to attract new customers?



By offering a dizzying number of Rebel/60D/7D type bodies packed full of megapixels. Canon has been using this strategy to great effect. Most will never upgrade their gear beyond a kit lens, but the ones that do will probably stick with Canon indefinitely. Very few people are going to buy a $3,000-plus body as their first DSLR, so attracting new customers is all about winning people over at the entry-level price point.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 14, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Martin said:
> 
> 
> > So the question is how Canon is going to attract new customers?
> ...



They will out megapixel sony to win this battle much to the dismay of some and the joy of others
at that base level its all about the megapixels i am afraid. I still think the new APS-C sensor will be 27MP
but thats a total guess


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 14, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> at that base level its all about the megapixels i am afraid.



Wait a second, I thought it was all about megapixels at the 5DIII/D800 level


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 14, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > at that base level its all about the megapixels i am afraid.
> ...


Doh missed that one, you meant there is a thread about that?


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 14, 2012)

Radiating said:


> It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800. Here's what I know so far:
> 
> 5D3 vs D800/E by catagory:
> 
> ...



Color Fidelity? All modern dSLR's have excellent color fidelity; way better than film ever was. It's really irrelevant unless you're in the art reproduction market. 



Radiating said:


> Noise: Equal
> FPS: Equal (with a grip)



The "with a grip" nonsense is idiotic, IMO. Nikon's stuck in the 1970's with this notion.



Radiating said:


> Video: Inferior



We don't know that. Early tests seem to indicate Nikon's video is pretty mediocre. Early tests also show the 5D Mk III outputting 1080i video from the HDMI port, so that D800 advantage may be nothing. 




Radiating said:


> Autofocus: Equal (both are pro level)/Inferior (no f/8.0)/Superior (better with fast lenses due to special f/2.8 sensors)
> White Balance: Inferior
> Auto Exposure: Inferior



We don't know that, yet. 



Radiating said:


> In Camera Lens Correction: Inferior



You shoot a lot of jpegs? I didn't think so.



Radiating said:


> Pop up Flash: Inferior
> Price: Inferior
> Resolution: Inferior
> AA filter: Inferior



Oh, you got that one backward. The AA filter is necessary, unless you like your images to be full of stair stepping, false color and moiré. Removing the AA filter is a very quick way to ruin photographs to the point of uselessness. 



Radiating said:


> I realize that the 5D3 has a better menu system, so that's one thing it can possibly do better.



Don't forget its wider ISO range, access to the largest system of professional lenses in the world, and a service department that's second to none. Did you read about Nikon putting the smackdown on independent camera repair shops? This is not a very consumer-friendly company we're talking about here. 

Don't forget the total cost of ownership. I recently did the math to replace my "L's" with equivalent Nikkors. It would have cost me about $1,200 more than it cost to buy my Canons; and I used Nikon's "refurbished lenses" site to get their prices.



Radiating said:


> Also please don't smite me. I'm not trying to bash the 5D3, as I'm actually a Canon fan and will be getting the 5D3, but can anyone think of one major feature that the 5D3 does better than the D800? If so feel free to post, I'm just trying to get informed here.
> 
> Thanks.



My sole complaint about the 5D Mk III is Canon's inability to get a handle on low ISO read noise and improve the dynamic range. I'm pleased with the new high ISO capability, and I love most of the other upgrades. It's what the Mk II should have been.


----------



## poias (Mar 14, 2012)

We did not have to think long and hard before deciding to pre-order D800 instead of 5Diii. Almost everything about D800 is better, including amazing DR and detail that can't be beat. Combined that with pro AF and ISO performance, Nikon just seems to get it these days.


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 14, 2012)

Some Facts:

Shutter lag time
*D800:42ms*
5D3: 59ms

SD UHS format:
*D800: Yes*
5D3: No

Mirror box material:
*D800: Alloy*
5D3: Plastic
(1DX: Alloy)

AF point-linked spot metering:
*D800: Yes*
5D3: No

Metering Range:
*D800: 0-20EV*
5D3: 1-20EV

AF Working Range:
*D800: -2 to +19 EV*
5D3: -2 to + 18 EV

Eyepoint:
D800: 17mm
*5D3: 21mm*

LCD Resolution:
D800: 921K
*5D3: 1040K*

5D3 achieved higher ISO and faster continuous shooting than D800 because it has less MP


----------



## arioch82 (Mar 14, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> Some Facts:
> 
> AF point-linked spot metering:
> *D800: Yes*
> 5D3: No



i didn't know that, it's crazy! is it something fixable with a firmware update?
I'm looking forward to buy a 5d3 later in the summer... canon for life for me, i just can't like the nikon "usability"


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 14, 2012)

arioch82 said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > Some Facts:
> ...


I don't think it can be fixed by firmware, Canon only offer this in 1D, Nikon offer this through their entire range


----------



## arioch82 (Mar 14, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> arioch82 said:
> 
> 
> > simonxu11 said:
> ...



yeah i knew that, that's why i was finally expecting canon to follow nikon at least with the 5d line... damn canon


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 14, 2012)

arioch82 said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > arioch82 said:
> ...


Sigh~~it seems they always have to cripple something in 5D


----------



## ThuiQuaDayNe (Mar 14, 2012)

We Canon fans are like Apple fans, pay more for less ;D


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 14, 2012)

ThuiQuaDayNe said:


> We Canon fans are like Apple fans, pay more for less ;D



LOL nice analogy 
and keep coming back for more punishment


----------



## TAR (Mar 14, 2012)

D800 can shoot at 25MP with 1.2 crop.. which is great if you don't want to handle 36 MP.


----------



## Flake (Mar 14, 2012)

FPS or how to spot a biased/incompetent review site!

This has happened a lot. Biased site or those who should know better have quoted the maximum frame rate on certain Nikon cameras as the fastest possible, they often fail to mention that to acheive this the camera has to be switched into a crop mode, or into 12 bit instead of 14. They then compare this figure directly with the competition making no mention that it isn't a like for like comparison, and most times failing to even state what that figure actually is.

At the time of the D700 it became almost impossible to find the true full resolution frame rate to compare with the 5D MkII


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 14, 2012)

Several of these points are very questionable / complete guesses. It's as if you want the 5d3 to be "worse" by guessing it is? 

So for me: I much prefer the WB that comes from my 5dii compared with my friends d3s. I much prefer the files too - they have a look that Nikon doesn't. The jog wheel on the back means I can get to a file in 1/10th of the time that he does. I also think the 5d3 is the best overall balanced camera on the market - I certainly don't WANT a 36mp camera and the vast vast majority of people don't need it either - they just want something with a bigger number than their friends. Nikon users didn't want it either according to the poll on nikonrumours.

The key point for me though is that Canon is a SYSTEM and not a BODY. People crush on bodies too much these days.

The Canon primes are just out of this world and getting better. Canon have the best 24-70 now and arguably the best 70-200. Now we have a wireless flash system too. The 24 TSE is renowned (although the nikon 12-24 is also) for landscapes and architecture. I don't know about the long lenses - not my area.

These things can make much more of a difference to the work of a photographer than a body.

When I'm at a wedding I get asked all the time how my camera produces these effects (notably DOF effects) and people are surprised when I answer "it's the lens".

Remember: Canon is a SYSTEM not a BODY.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm sick of reading inaccurate fanb0i propaganda (BTW, nice cover for a Noink troll, just claim you're a "current" Canon user ) like "6FPS with grip" since 2007. No, like the D700 & D300 before it, you not only need the battery grip, you also need a *new battery* to achieve that slight increase in FPS. The stock EN-EL3 that comes in the box won't give you added FPS even if you use the battery grip, you have to buy the D3/D4 battery (EN-EL4). Add those two overpriced items up and that is already ~$500, so now even the price delta between the 5D3 & D800 disappears.


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 14, 2012)

To me, the price of the body is only a part of the total equation.
If you're serious enough to be wanting a good FF camera, you also want lenses, flashes and all sorts of other accessories to get those shots and a camera that makes it easy to get them.

To me, while Nikon make some very good cameras, their lenses are just too expensive for me and they don't seem to offer much more than Canon do for the focal lengths I use.

I made the decision to go with Canon after dallying with Nikon, some time ago and I find this berating of the 5D3 against the D800 rather childish.
I bet that in a year or 2, when you are salivating over these gorgeous landscapes taken by top photographers, and the fantastic studio shots in magazines etc., that the majority of them will be taken using Canon cameras, and not Nikon, just as they are now.

Most true pros don't pixel peep like many of us amateurs. They're too busy taking GOOD photos to worry about it.
It's a bit like boasting that your car can do 0-60mph 1/10th of a second quicker than another car, and so your car MUST be a better car. But you never mention how dreadfull it is going around corners or the poor build quality and poor re-sale value.
It's really just a childish attitude.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Mar 14, 2012)

This comparison is too simple to be meaninfull.

* Price difference might change as cameras hit the market and pre-orders are done.

* A grip to get the same frame rate costs extra (so does the AA filter-less version), decreasing the price difference.

* IMHO, pop up flash is a very small advantage on this class of camera. Spend < U.S.$300 and get a much better 370ex II.

* As for Dynamic Range, Color Fidelity, and Noise, I'll wait for the reviews to see how inferior the 5Dmk3 is.

* I'm not dismissing those who need f/8.0, but personally I'd rather have superior AF when using fast lenses. Point being, this depends on the photographer's needs.

* I'm not dismissing those who need more megapixels, I need it so rarely, I'd rather stick with 21-22MP and save on resources.

[Yeah, yeah, yeah, disk space is cheap, memory is cheap, etc. For me, the extra pixels aren't worth even that.]

* Couldn't care less for in camera lens correction. There's DPP free with the 5Dmk3, and personally I have DxO for those purposes. Is capture NX available for free with the D800? If so, is it as good as DPP?

[I'm asking because I've heard Capture NX isn't available with all Nikon cameras, not because I have an opinion that capture NX is inferior to DPP / Photoshop / DxO / whatever.]


----------



## altenae (Mar 14, 2012)

5D mark III plastic !!!
No way. 

I am so sick and tired of this Nikon/Canon topics. 

No one thinks about Lenses
No one thinks about taking pictures instead of all kind of numbers and specs. 

For me no more forums till this hype is over. 
I know replies will follow. 

Edward van Altena
www.wildlife-photos.net


----------



## moreorless (Mar 14, 2012)

Bennymiata said:


> To me, the price of the body is only a part of the total equation.
> If you're serious enough to be wanting a good FF camera, you also want lenses, flashes and all sorts of other accessories to get those shots and a camera that makes it easy to get them.
> 
> To me, while Nikon make some very good cameras, their lenses are just too expensive for me and they don't seem to offer much more than Canon do for the focal lengths I use.
> ...



There does seem to have been a large influx of "fanboyish" behaviour on both sides since the annoucements.

Personally my opinion is that Canon seems to target the market rather differently from Nikon with a clearer spilt between cheaper and more expensive gear. I thinking that may explain there putting more focus on FPS/ISO/AF since FF SLR's represent the highest level of performance in those areas where as they are always going to play second fiddle to MF in pure resolution, hence more people buying 1DX's and 10K super tele's than spending similar amounts on high megapixel bodies likes the D3x and 1Ds3 and landscape/studio lenses.

Even ignoring the fanboy element I don't think you can really trust the net to give you a proper representation of the market. Photo forums are naturally inhabited by amatures focused on resolution(espeically landscape shooters IMHO), I say that as one myself as that kind of shooting a bit more "tech heavy" and those who do it more intersted in that side of things, the gear won't take great pics for you but its needed more to get certain results. The D800E is basically the ideal camera for this market(seriously weighing up switching myself since I'm mostly tied to EF-S lenses anyway) but I'm guessing the 5D mk3 may target a larger silent market.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 14, 2012)

I noticed some saying that the 5D MkIII noise performance was "equal" to that of the D800. How was that comparison done? At the pixel level, or by downsampling the D800 megapixels? Also, is that just for low ISO, or mid range, or high? I was under the impression that the D800 has better noise performance around ISO 100-200 but that the Canon was better at high ISO's.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 14, 2012)

Ardea said:


> I am sure that a donw sammopled d800 would way way way beat a 5 d mk III... its simple physiscs...


Well, as the downsampling isn't a simple ratio like 2:1, detail will be lost. It's not an easy comparison.


----------



## Ivar (Mar 14, 2012)

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

* I would think that the 5D might have a _slight_ high ISO advantage
* more speed (EDIT: actually Nikon is faster by processing MPs - 4*36=144 vs 6*22=132)
* in camera video (intra/inter frame)?

That's about it, the number of MP is not exactly the question of being better but what is needed, so both might have their uses. 

In general the D800 looks more mature/better product as I could count more benefits:
* AF is the same as the D4 and it is also up to F8
* solid weather sealing
* magnesium alloy body
* very good DR
* no banding
* choice of AA filter/filterless model
* better flash system
* better f-sync
* uncompressed HDMI output 
* better price
* better functionality for constrainting sync speed auto iso

Also, Canon's new flash sytem is complete miss IMO - there are much better *and* cheaper 3rd party stuff around (distance, configuration flexibility etc)


----------



## Ivar (Mar 14, 2012)

By the way, the 5D3 is not a bad product, but the price falls apart. For a premium product I could understand premium price.

P.S. I have had a Canon D60, a 5D Mk1, I do have a 5D Mk2 (otherwise some might think I'm trolling in Canon forums).


----------



## caMARYnon (Mar 14, 2012)

Ivar said:


> - 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
> 
> 
> In general the D800 looks more mature/better product as I could count more benefits:
> ...


5D3 is really made from plastic ?


----------



## Alker (Mar 14, 2012)

caMARYnon said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > - 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
> ...



No !!
Also magnesium alloy. 
http://sohoa.vnexpress.net/Files/Subject/3B/9B/5A/87/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III_body_back-286x300.jpg


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 14, 2012)

Alker said:


> caMARYnon said:
> 
> 
> > Ivar said:
> ...


Indeed:
"The EOS 5D Mark III’s body construction is a combination of durable materials – a steel base plate to which the magnesium alloy body shell is attached. The camera also features a robust dust-proof and drip-proof construction, where body panels interlock rather than adjoin, and all seams, buttons and dials are provided with secure rubber sealing. The protection provided by the design and sealing is equivalent to that of the EOS-1N film camera; the weather-sealing standard by which other professional cameras were judged."


----------



## Xtobolic (Mar 14, 2012)

Canon =

1. 70-200 f4 options that Nikon doesn't offer (yet)
2. best TS-E's
3. Biggest lens selection
4. Biggest second hand market by far (at least in europe)
5. Best 70-200/2.8
6. Unique lenses like the 8-15 Fish Eye, the new primes with IS, 200-400 and MP-E65
7. The possibility to use thousands and thousands of ALT lenses, even Nikons.

Just some things that people might forget when talking about BODIES all the time (and yes I know this topic is about the comparison of 2 recently announced bodies, but IMO this whole thing about switching and buying purely based on a body is crazy). Like some1 already stated in this thread, It's not just the body your buying, it is the whole system.

And yes, I do get tempted every time Nikon shells out an incredible body. But it's much more then bodies. And IMO the lens possibilities for the Canon system are unsurpassed and offer more possibilities.

OT:

I've got an 5D2 and for me the 5D3 isnt tempting enough.
If Canon launched a cam like the D800 I might have been.
I dont need AF cause I use Zeiss (21, 35/2, 50/1.4, 100/2) So why should I upgrade to the 5D3 now that doesnt support interchangeble focussingscreens.

Ill wait a couple of months/years. Till the price lowers to about 2500 Euro's or something.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 14, 2012)

Xtobolic said:


> And IMO the lens possibilities for the Canon system are unsurpassed and offer more possibilities.



Yes - I think this is the key point for me. The only (pro) lens that Nikon has which is clearly better than the Canon equivalent is the 14-24 (that I know of). The "holy primes" (35, 85, 135) are unmatched. The 100 macro is amazing for studio. The new 24-70 MTF graphs show it to be the best by some way (although it's not cheap! And it's only MTF graphs so far). The 70-200 2.8 II is *just* better than the Nikon. The f4 zooms are a fantastic option - in fact Nikon stole the idea with their recent 24-120. 

And why would you want to have more resolution with the Nikon 105mm macro (compared to the Canon)? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=645&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Lenses will make a much bigger difference to my photography than 1/3rd more resolution. Trying to get people to actually *understand *that is really really hard.

Let's face it, many peoples work never even sees an A3 printer, never mind anything larger. I know mine rarely does and I make money from photography. I've even seen amazing large prints from 8mp cameras.

People keep saying they want more resolution .... but few people are actually saying what they need it for?

I wouldn't even consider switching brands unless Nikon picked their lens game up quite considerably. The 5d3 might be £500 too expensive, but I wouldn't choose to make my photographs worse just to save £500.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

Is it that Canon shooters are the most open minded shooters out there or have we gone crazy? You go onto nikonrumors, say one bad thing about nikon, and you get openly flogged... you go onto canonrumors, say bad things about canon and people agree... right or wrong, if you love what the 5d3 has to offer, great, buy it if you are in a position to... If not, dont buy it, buy a 5d2, buy a 1d series, jump to nokin if you have to, but lets bring civility onto this board at least until the cameras are released, test, and found wanting.


----------



## melbournite (Mar 14, 2012)

I already ordered my 5DIII and this thread has taken a bit of the shine off my excitement. But when I think about what I personally wanted and needed in a 5DII replacement, I got most of it (I would have loved an evolution in DR). If the 5DIII feels and operates like the 7D or better with picture quality of the 5DII or better, I might even buy another one.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

melbournite said:


> I already ordered my 5DIII and this thread has taken a bit of the shine off my excitement. But when I think about what I personally wanted and needed in a 5DII replacement, I got most of it (I would have loved an evolution in DR). If the 5DIII feels and operates like the 7D or better with picture quality of the 5DII or better, I might even buy another one.



Dont let other people bring you down to their level. If you look at what most people wanted improved upon with the 5d3... AF, ISO, Handling, etc... Canon did just that, they listened to their consumer base, and they still get dragged in the mud... some people will never be happy. Enjoy your new camera an post pics when you can!


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 14, 2012)

The funny thing about f8 AF is that Canon has the teles and converters to get some use of f8 while Nikon is way behind Canon in teles and converters. Still its Nikon who has the f8.


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 14, 2012)

Points well taken. If I was now starting from scratch (like I did in 2010 after going digital) I'd have a very close look at the D800e - just like I did then with the D700 and the Sony alternatives.

But it's also easy to go crazy with all this. I chose the 5DII and haven't looked back. My main reason was the lens choices I get within the Canon system and what I was used to (coming from the FD system). So maybe I'd still make the same choice even now (which would be the 5DIII).

Let's be grateful that this back and forth between the two main competitors continues. Canon just delivered two top notch bodies (or so it seems). And added the kind of flash system that everyone has been calling for for years now. I'm sure a high resolution body will follow in the not too far future as an answer to the D800(e). I don't think it's a fair comparison that you're making. Those cameras are for different purposes it seems and will likely work very well for their respective applications.


----------



## meli (Mar 14, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Dont let other people bring you down to their level. If you look at what most people wanted improved upon with the 5d3... AF, ISO, Handling, etc... Canon did just that, they listened to their consumer base, and they still get dragged in the mud... some people will never be happy. Enjoy your new camera an post pics when you can!



And what would be "their" level? 
No doubt there're people who would never be happy but most of the fuzz around here is well based. Aside confronting it with the competition (and rightly so) many people do have expectations after a theoretical 4years of R&D; slapping a hacked up AF/meter from 2 other cams to replace a decade old one and a sensor that its novelty is more geared towards videographers is bound to leave many people unhappy.
And for me its this people and this fuzz that pushes companies into fixing things rather than people "up your level" who are happy with whatever Canon throws at them.


----------



## dadgummit (Mar 14, 2012)

I have a question.

Are all of the conclusions in the original post made from comparing JPEG samples from pre-production bodies?

To me most of the points are moot since they are adjusted in post anyway. 

I have no doubt both are going to be excellent cameras but here is my opinion on how the two are going to be viewed once the actual in-production copy reviews are in:

I do expect the 5D 3 to have a few stops better noise in high ISO shots (simple physics). 

The D800's many pixels you will have more effective reach since you can crop the heck out of the shot and have plenty of detail left.

Just comparing the bodies (all lenses aside) I would think the decision would be do you want the best hi ISO or the ability to crop more. If you shoot concerts at night the 5d3 wins, If you need more reach than your lens can provide the extra pixels of the d800 will help.


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 14, 2012)

What are the conclusions such as dynamic range and color accuracy based on? I would really like to the the DXOlabs reports on both cameras, but they have not been done yet.


----------



## iso79 (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm upgrading from the 5D Mark II to the III. I'm sticking with Canon mainly due to the lens choices (I own all L lenses). I also like how rich and sharp my photos come out. Maybe it's just me but photos taken from Nikons always look soft and the color always seems off. The samples I have seen from the D800 haven't changed my mind.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 14, 2012)

This fourm is like a bunch of 10 year old boys arguing over if Batman can kick Superman's ass.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> This fourm is like a bunch of 10 year old boys arguing over if Batman can kick Superman's ass.



Haha +1 totally agree


----------



## Xtobolic (Mar 14, 2012)

iso79 said:


> I'm upgrading from the 5D Mark II to the III. I'm sticking with Canon mainly due to the lens choices (I own all L lenses). I also like how rich and sharp my photos come out. Maybe it's just me but photos taken from Nikons always look soft and the color always seems off. The samples I have seen from the D800 haven't changed my mind.



You own all the L-lenses?


----------



## poias (Mar 14, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Is it that Canon shooters are the most open minded shooters out there or have we gone crazy? You go onto nikonrumors, say one bad thing about nikon, and you get openly flogged... you go onto canonrumors, say bad things about canon and people agree... right or wrong, if you love what the 5d3 has to offer, great, buy it if you are in a position to... If not, dont buy it, buy a 5d2, buy a 1d series, jump to nokin if you have to, but lets bring civility onto this board at least until the cameras are released, test, and found wanting.



That is because Canon users are getting hosed and they know it. I have been a loyal Canon buyer for almost my entire pro life and I feel like Nikon has better technology and value. Why settle for less?


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 14, 2012)

Xtobolic said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm upgrading from the 5D Mark II to the III. I'm sticking with Canon mainly due to the lens choices (I own all L lenses). I also like how rich and sharp my photos come out. Maybe it's just me but photos taken from Nikons always look soft and the color always seems off. The samples I have seen from the D800 haven't changed my mind.
> ...


How about 50mm 1.0L, 200mm 1.8L and 800mm 5.6L : :


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

meli said:


> And what would be "their" level?



Can has answered 99% of all complaints, suggestions, and issues with the 5d2 and added extra software and really upgraded the AF over and beyond nikons and people still aren't happy... People are comparing features, griping about this and that before the freaking camera has even been released and put through the wringer... People are declaring it inept without actually shooting it... Every camera release canon has had, except for the 5d classic has always been met with harsh criticisms and i'm frankly tired of hearing people groan... crap or get off the pot. 



meli said:


> Aside confronting it with the competition (and rightly so) many people do have expectations after a theoretical 4years of R&D; slapping a hacked up AF/meter from 2 other cams to replace a decade old one and a sensor that its novelty is more geared towards videographers is bound to leave many people unhappy.



If Canon pumped out the camera before nikon ever introduced a D800, no one would be griping about DR, no one would be griping about ISO, AF, etc... it would have been praised as the camera all others would be measured to because of lack of something to compare to.. How is the 1dx AF system in the 5d3 hacked up? Seriously? It's the same damn system, just no IFCL meter, which is just for advanced tracking and metering... Even with that, it has the 7D meter... i haven't heard anyone on any blog ever complain about the 7D meter... It's not the newest or shinest, but it's a better combo than the 1d4... seriously, when they're tested i'm sure the 5d3 will stand up well against the D800's AF if not surpass it, much in the same way the 7D's AF rated higher than the D300's. the sensor size is a nice fit, a nice compromise, and when I was asked, and the general consensus of other pro photographers, very few were asking for more MP... I said, and many others on this forum, that our dream camera was the 5d2 sensor in a 7D body and AF... Canon delivered, and went way beyond... 



meli said:


> And for me its this people and this fuzz that pushes companies into fixing things rather than people "up your level" who are happy with whatever Canon throws at them.



Get off your high horse... I'm more than happy to use/want/evolve my photography, my business, my career to meeting my clients needs as they change through the years... Any photographer who doesn't is being left behind... But in the end, I am grateful Canon did listen.. I'm grateful for no 30+ MP... I'm grateful for class leasing AF system, even when compared against nikons D700/D800... I'm grateful for video when my clients just so happen wants a short video for their website, the more they use me than look for someone else to do it, the longer I keep the client... I'm grateful for more usable ISO's for when the rare times I will need it. You're unhappy, i get it, but dont drag others down who are.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

poias said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Is it that Canon shooters are the most open minded shooters out there or have we gone crazy? You go onto nikonrumors, say one bad thing about nikon, and you get openly flogged... you go onto canonrumors, say bad things about canon and people agree... right or wrong, if you love what the 5d3 has to offer, great, buy it if you are in a position to... If not, dont buy it, buy a 5d2, buy a 1d series, jump to nokin if you have to, but lets bring civility onto this board at least until the cameras are released, test, and found wanting.
> ...



Nikon had their chance wooing me when the digital revolution came about... they failed to do so... In no way did I get hosed... I got the camera I needed and wanted minus the flash commander signed, sealed and delivered... If Canon isn't meeting your needs, there are a handful of other camera companies that would love your money...


----------



## Alker (Mar 14, 2012)

> That is because Canon users are getting hosed and they know it. I have been a loyal Canon buyer for almost my entire pro life and I feel like Nikon has better technology and value. Why settle for less?



Indeed 10 year old boys.
Batman vs Superman.

Hosed ??? Sure !!


----------



## poias (Mar 14, 2012)

Alker said:


> > That is because Canon users are getting hosed and they know it. I have been a loyal Canon buyer for almost my entire pro life and I feel like Nikon has better technology and value. Why settle for less?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you have to pay hundreds of dollars more for a clearly inferior tool, then, yes, you are getting hosed. And if you feel you have some "loyalty" to a brand whose manufacturer clearly sees its customers as suckers willing to shell out dough because they are "locked in", then more power to you, Mr. More Than 10 Year Old Big Boy!


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

poias said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > > That is because Canon users are getting hosed and they know it. I have been a loyal Canon buyer for almost my entire pro life and I feel like Nikon has better technology and value. Why settle for less?
> ...



Yep... It *CLEARLY* inferior... prove it with real world apples for apples tests... Oh yeah, you cant.


----------



## meli (Mar 14, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> If Canon pumped out the camera before nikon ever introduced a D800, no one would be griping about DR, no one would be griping about ISO, AF, etc... it would have been praised as the camera all others would be measured to because of lack of something to compare to..



Quite an assumption, so you sincerely believe that if there wasn't a D800 people wouldn't complain about DR lagging behind a 1000$ camera? or about banding? Seriously?
D800 just adds salt to it cause of the -500$
it adds also abit more cause they used the full shutter /mirrorbox +Af/meter from their premium model at said price whereas Canon's cheapskates cutback there too, which leads me to :


awinphoto said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > Aside confronting it with the competition (and rightly so) many people do have expectations after a theoretical 4years of R&D; slapping a hacked up AF/meter from 2 other cams to replace a decade old one and a sensor that its novelty is more geared towards videographers is bound to leave many people unhappy.
> ...



Nice, so im saying that the AF/meter is a hacked up solution between 2 cams and then you proceed on actually saying that the AF/meter is a hacked up solution of 1dx+7d systems and then u ask me how do i dare to say its like this? :

plus this:


awinphoto said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > And for me its this people and this fuzz that pushes companies into fixing things rather than people "up your level" who are happy with whatever Canon throws at them.
> ...


So, you just quote me there and then you're going off talking about clients and business and how maybe a client will ask you a video... huh? 

We don't care if you preordered the camera mate, our beef is with Canon. If you feel that these discussions are bringing you down maybe you should work on your selfesteem


----------



## Alker (Mar 14, 2012)

> Mr. More Than 10 Year Old Big Boy!



Haha....funny you. 

Well I guess since you guys already know everything about the performance of the 5D Mark III we don't have to wait for some real tests anymore. :'( ;D


----------



## iso79 (Mar 14, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> Xtobolic said:
> 
> 
> > iso79 said:
> ...



Haha, I meant most of them.


----------



## nehemiah (Mar 14, 2012)

Wow, the Nikon boys are out in full force today. Not many days until we actually have real world testing. It would seem quite reasonable to wait until we see actual real world comparisons. 

B and H apparently had over 10,000 preorders well before I placed mine. Man I hope alll of us fools (including one of my favorite photographers Jeff Ascough) are not too disappointed by this "hacked up" job.


----------



## kenraw (Mar 14, 2012)

Lets be frank.
Neither camera will make you a better photographer.
Sure you will get better high iso performance, maybe slighty sharper images and a camera ( in the 5dmk3 case ) that has a better button layout and new useful features.
However your actual photography isn't suddenly going to be up there with the top pro's just because you have the latest camera.
What do you think they have been using all this time..........crummy 5dmk2's and old hat D700,s 

Perfect example.. are the best wedding photographers now going to offer a 6ft x 4ft wedding album that weighs as much as a small car just because they have 36mp...no I don't think so. most of the MP will be wasted. 

Here's my advice if you make a living from photography and cant decide which way to go just buy both.
A d800 with the 14-24 for landscapes or 85 1.4 for portraits and a 5dmk3 with 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2 for everything else

simples 

personally I pre ordered a 5dm3 instantly and know that I'm going to be happy because I'll be taking the same pictures but just better at high iso and will have a camera with more features that will make the " using " of the camera nicer.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

meli said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon pumped out the camera before nikon ever introduced a D800, no one would be griping about DR, no one would be griping about ISO, AF, etc... it would have been praised as the camera all others would be measured to because of lack of something to compare to..
> ...



Seriously mate, i've never, ever, ever had any client gripe about DR... That's a photographer's thing... But anyways it's not lacking, and ALL SAMPLES TO DATE HAVE BEEN PREPRODUCTION... wait a week or two... let the tests be done, then flame to your hearts desire... I dont care what you think or anyone else thinks about this and that... If the cameras IQ is as good as the 5d2 with AF better than a 1d4, the camera pays for itself right there

Your saying the AF is hacked up like it's a bad thing... Your getting the 7D meter, which reads the light from the AF spot(s) to feed to the AF and meter system, and the 1dx AF module? Ok... so this is the second best AF system has to offer currently... *Yep.. bad thing...* seriously? The 5d2 had the 5th best AF or maybe worse and the 5d3 is almost as good as the flagship... that's improvement any way you look at it... 

I'm not settling for what Canon or any other company gives me, but unlike you, i dont gripe on forums about it... I call Canon, Email them, I get periodic surveys about their gear/customer service/etc... answer them... check your spam folders for them... Register with Canon, Join CPS, those methods, while they may seem pointless, has more chances of being seen by canon's marketing and research than Canon rumors postings...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

kenraw said:


> Lets be frank.
> Neither camera will make you a better photographer.
> Sure you will get better high iso performance, maybe slighty sharper images and a camera ( in the 5dmk3 case ) that has a better button layout and new useful features.
> However your actual photography isn't suddenly going to be up there with the top pro's just because you have the latest camera.
> ...



+1000


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 14, 2012)

> Even with that, it has the 7D meter... i haven't heard anyone on any blog ever complain about the 7D meter...


It works well right! This is a classical answer when people question about why canon don't offer the latest stuff in 5D.

It's true the meter is from 7d, and it's from T3 as well.

It's nothing to do whether it works well or not! It's all about our hard earn money, when a cheaper model put the latest technology from their top model, Canon just put something essential from their cheapest model for next three years.

By doing this, they can cripple another feature which is AF point-linked spot metering. That's why they didn't put this "zero compain" metering system in 1d4.

I am not complaining anything and I will buy 5d3, just want to say some facts.


----------



## DanielW (Mar 14, 2012)

I am very wrong or are we all comparing two very different cameras with different purposes? As I see from what I've been reading, the D800 is more a studio/landscape camera, and the 5Dm3 more an all-around camera, maybe what wedding photographers want. People seem to want a 30+ MP with a ton of DR and 10 FPS... No can do. Very different cameras, very different uses, or am I wrong? 
I don't understand the US$ 500 difference, though.
It really seems that a high MP studio work/landscape camera missing in Canon's lineup, but it looks like it's on its way (or not?).
In the beginning I didn't like this "mark x" thing, but now I like it and see advantages. What if:
- 1Dm_ for insanely high FPS and ISO (sports)
- 3Dm_ (or some new series) for high MP studio/landscape
- 5Dm_ for all-around FF (weddings)
- 7Dm_ for best crop sensor
- xxD for little better than entry-level
- xxxD for entry-level
Makes it easier for everyone. If I'm a sports shooter, then I know Canon's got 1Dm_ line that suits my needs; if I'm into landscape, the 3D series is my stuff, and so on.
Anyway, I think 5Dm3 and D800 are not comparable, and the 5Dm3 will be a very good camera for what it's intended to (although a tad expensive).


----------



## moreorless (Mar 14, 2012)

DanielW said:


> I am very wrong or are we all comparing two very different cameras with different purposes? As I see from what I've been reading, the D800 is more a studio/landscape camera, and the 5Dm3 more an all-around camera, maybe what *wedding photographers want*. People seem to want a 30+ MP with a ton of DR and 10 FPS... No can do. Very different cameras, very different uses, or am I wrong?
> *I don't understand the US$ 500 difference*, though.



I'd guess that explains it, the targeted users likely have more to spend than amature landscapers, its what Canon and Nikon did in the past with the 1Ds mk3 and D3x.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 14, 2012)

Sorry but I don't think the menu system is better either.  And even without the grip, D800 gives 25MP at 5fps (1.2crop).

Your analysis is 100% spot on in my opinion, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should sell all of your Canon gear and go Nikon. D800 is a better camera for geeks and pixel peepers... especially the D800E for landscape photogs. Yet there will be very few real life situations where that difference will be substantial or even noticeable (!). This Nikon vs Canon stuff is mostly about bragging rights, we need to get over it. Then again, it's becoming clear that Canon is falling behind Sony in sensor tech...in the long term that is concerning.





Radiating said:


> It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800. Here's what I know so far:
> 
> 5D3 vs D800/E by catagory:
> 
> ...


----------



## bluegreenturtle (Mar 14, 2012)

I don't understand this idea that people will stay with Canon (or Nikon) just because of the lenses they already own. One of the things that's touted so often about buying good (or even bad, really) lenses is that they keep their value. I'm looking at all the lenses in my kit and I think I could sell them all for what I paid for them, or in a couple of cases, more than I paid. The only thing that would be a waste would be a couple of cheap adapters I picked up so I could use m42 lenses. But I could easily pick up those same adapters for nikon, too. If all your lenses really keep value the way most people on this forum keep saying they do, then it should be no trouble to liquidate your lenses, and get whatever you actually want, regardless of body brand. 

I personally don't like the operation of the controls of Nikons. But that's probably not an issue for many people.


----------



## meli (Mar 14, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Seriously mate, i've never, ever, ever had any client gripe about DR... That's a photographer's thing... But anyways it's not lacking, and ALL SAMPLES TO DATE HAVE BEEN PREPRODUCTION... wait a week or two... let the tests be done, then flame to your hearts desire... I dont care what you think or anyone else thinks about this and that... If the cameras IQ is as good as the 5d2 with AF better than a 1d4, the camera pays for itself right there
> 
> Your saying the AF is hacked up like it's a bad thing... Your getting the 7D meter, which reads the light from the AF spot(s) to feed to the AF and meter system, and the 1dx AF module? Ok... so this is the second best AF system has to offer currently... *Yep.. bad thing...* seriously? The 5d2 had the 5th best AF or maybe worse and the 5d3 is almost as good as the flagship... that's improvement any way you look at it...
> 
> I'm not settling for what Canon or any other company gives me, but unlike you, i dont gripe on forums about it... I call Canon, Email them, I get periodic surveys about their gear/customer service/etc... answer them... check your spam folders for them... Register with Canon, Join CPS, those methods, while they may seem pointless, has more chances of being seen by canon's marketing and research than Canon rumors postings...



Nope, i'm not saying that the hacked up job for the Af/meter wont be good. For all i care it can be the next big thing after sliced bread. Its a matter of principle, its the way Canon deliberately nerfs down the 5d series. (remember when they couldn't put a better Af on the mark2 cause "there wasn't any space you guys!"?)

Besides, we're in a product forum, we're here to talk about the tool, whats the point of it if we cant disagree or vent about'em here? How we run our business has little to do with a Canon forum, in here, in my opinion, we expect a technical discussion either from a lab rat or a field reporter, be it before a release or after, don't you agree?


----------



## poias (Mar 14, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Alker said:
> ...



Real world samples are already out for everyone to see. D800 is clearly superior in detail and DR. 5Diii might have edge on the noise department, but the images just look flat, most likely due to excessive NR. Regardless, D800 is superior in that it provides much better detail and DR and comparable ISO performance.

If you want absolute empirical evidence, then we have to wait for lab tests. The samples, however, clearly indicate D800 being the superior in terms of value and delivery.

The only logical argument for keeping 5Diii is that you like intangibles such as Canon service levels, ergonomics, brand name, history, etc.


----------



## StORM48 (Mar 14, 2012)

Radiating said:


> It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800. Here's what I know so far:
> 
> 5D3 vs D800/E by catagory:
> 
> ...


Really?
I'm first to criticize Canon regarding recent changes but, some of your comparisons aren't true at all. For example:

*"Color Fidelity: Inferior"?* - Who measured that and how?

*"White Balance: Inferior"?* - I don't get it? You have problems with WB, WB settings or auto wb? What "better" means?

*Auto Exposure: Inferior?* - Same as previous question...

*In Camera Lens Correction: Inferior?* - I noticed that many of members stated this as Nikon advantage over Canon. So I got to ask - does anybody read the manual of Canon DSLRs... for about... last 4 years? Every last Canon DSLR body, made from 2008 until now, INCLUDES "In Camera Lens Correction". Only CA correction wasn't included earlier, but 5D Mark III finally got it! So, please be kind and enlighten me. I don't like to be uninformed. 

Best regards


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

poias said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



Oh i must be mistaken, i didn't realize there were production samples out for both with final firmwares and such... I must have been mistaken


----------



## DanielW (Mar 14, 2012)

@ bluegreenturtle
But what if in 2015 Canon comes up with a 5Dm4 that's better than the new Nikon D900 (or whatever number)? Would you switch back again then? I think it's too much hassle to keep on switching brands just for having the very best (unless it helps you make more money, and I don't think it's the case). Sometimes Nikon will win, sometimes Canon will win, sometimes Sony will win... Fine by me; I can stand having second best...


----------



## ZEROrhythm (Mar 14, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Xtobolic said:
> 
> 
> > And IMO the lens possibilities for the Canon system are unsurpassed and offer more possibilities.
> ...



Your point is every valid, but too bias. You forget that photography consist of many things, not just the way you take pictures and your ways of doing things. Most people don't care for printing in my opinion with High Mega pixel, but what they care about is the real estate that they have from that high mega pixel. I myself Have a 5d2, it's a great camera, but I do wish sometimes I had more mega pixel because the lens i have can't reach so far and i need to crop to frame my scene better. You can sample a lot of images better also if you have a large mega pixel file. I do a lot of photo compositions and manipulations, and having extra pixel does make my image look a lot cleaner when it comes to editing.

Lens is always an important part of photography, that's a given from the start of time, but giving more mega pixels will truly change the way we take pictures, because as the mega pixel count goes up with out sacrificing IQ too much, the more people will worry less about composition, because it would be an after thought.

I know that might not be a good thing for photography, since that is a main key point for taking a good photo, but things change, things will always change. If you live in the past and afraid to explore new areas and discover new things, you are no artist and have no creative mind.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

meli said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously mate, i've never, ever, ever had any client gripe about DR... That's a photographer's thing... But anyways it's not lacking, and ALL SAMPLES TO DATE HAVE BEEN PREPRODUCTION... wait a week or two... let the tests be done, then flame to your hearts desire... I dont care what you think or anyone else thinks about this and that... If the cameras IQ is as good as the 5d2 with AF better than a 1d4, the camera pays for itself right there
> ...



Please dont get me wrong, I'd love a 1dx packaged in a 5d at a $3000 price tag, but that's not in the cards... I fully agree with canon's blunder and the 5d2 AF... that choice to keep the classic AF was a disgrace to that camera and what really kept it from shining... but, i feel canon got it right with this AF... If it delivers what is promised, it will be plenty of camera for me to grow with. Could it be better, yes, could my house be bigger yes, could my car be better, yes, but i'm choosing not to dwell on what I dont have and focus on what I do have and be a better photographer for it. 

When I started as a pro, i had no financial backing... i had to buy my 10D by maxing out my credit card at the time in 2004. I bought the crappy 28-90 lens to get me by even though i would have loved a 24-70 or the like. I bought the 50 2.5 macro instead of the 100 macro and the 70-300 instead of the 70-200... I didn't let them deter me... I knew I wasn't getting what I could get with better gear, but i didn't have the budget and had to make do with what I have... now i've got the lens collection i've got... yes I could have all 2.8 glass and 1dx and this and that, but i make do with what I have, i grow with everything I have, and i dont dwell on things I dont or out of reach. I just get better, do more jobs, and save up for when I can get that new shiny gear... That is my perspective, my POV... yes things can always be better, but to me, for my needs, and how I see things, the 5d3 is more than I could have asked for.


----------



## Alker (Mar 14, 2012)

> Real world samples are already out for everyone to see. D800 is clearly superior in detail and DR. 5Diii might have edge on the noise department, but the images just look flat, most likely due to excessive NR. Regardless, D800 is superior in that it provides much better detail and DR and comparable ISO performance.



One other thing all D800 examples have gone thru Nikon NX while most canon examples are straight out the camera.

There are some raws from the Canon 5D Mark III
When process these with CS5 it looks much better, see here (did a fast conversion):

www.planepix.nl/5dmkiii.jpg


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

Alker said:


> > Real world samples are already out for everyone to see. D800 is clearly superior in detail and DR. 5Diii might have edge on the noise department, but the images just look flat, most likely due to excessive NR. Regardless, D800 is superior in that it provides much better detail and DR and comparable ISO performance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## TAR (Mar 14, 2012)

Alker said:


> > Real world samples are already out for everyone to see. D800 is clearly superior in detail and DR. 5Diii might have edge on the noise department, but the images just look flat, most likely due to excessive NR. Regardless, D800 is superior in that it provides much better detail and DR and comparable ISO performance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



there are plenty of D800 and D800E raw samples are available..even 25600 sample contains lots of details ..i processed with LR4 looks pretty good IMO


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 14, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> I much prefer the files too - they have a look that Nikon doesn't.



IMHO, this is the most subjective issue when judging IQ, but also the most important! When you present your images to a client or just a casual observer, they gauge its visual impact based on the overall "look" it conveys, a certain X-factor if you will, not some highly technical method used to calculate DR or noise. 

I was reading some review of a crop Nikon body the other day (D7000?) about how its DR put Canon's full-frame bodies to shame in lab tests. This intrigued me, so I checked out some sample images. They weren't bad, but they looked flat and lifeless compared to what I'm accustomed to out of my antiquated 5DC. Sorry, but I'm not buying a camera based on what some lab tests say. I don't know if any tech specs exist that can gauge this sort of thing, but IMHO the film-like color, contrast, sharpness, and overall IQ of bodies like the 5DC, 5DII, and 1DsIII are why LOTS of working pros shoot Canon. 

This isn't strictly a Canon vs. Nikon issue either. If lab tests are all that mattered, why would any Canon shooter opt for anything other than a 7D? Doesn't it match the 5DII and 1DsIII in DR for a fraction of the cost? My hunch is that some people just prefer the look of the files produced by the costlier bodies. 



> The key point for me though is that Canon is a SYSTEM and not a BODY. People crush on bodies too much these days.



Werd. Let's say the D800 is as great as people are making it out to be, and the 5DIII is as bad as people suggest. Many people will just give credit where credit is due, concede that Nikon has won this round, and stick with Canon because it offers a better overall system.


----------



## BobSanderson (Mar 14, 2012)

The 5D3 is much better at generating controversy within this community. Check out Nikon Rumors - there is nothing like this going on there. Why not?


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 14, 2012)

BobSanderson said:


> The 5D3 is much better at generating controversy within this community. Check out Nikon Rumors - there is nothing like this going on there. Why not?



Good question. I'd venture to say that it's because the Nikon product line was so bad just five years ago, that even if the D800 isn't the exact camera they wanted spec wise, they're thrilled to finally have an option that can compete with Canon. On the other had, since the digital revolution Canon has set the bar very high, and its users expect nothing less than greatness. It must be odd to see how much the competition has caught up, but personally, I love competition


----------



## dunkers (Mar 14, 2012)

Threads like this one are my source of morning entertainment when there is nothing to watch on TV or if I'm waiting for class 


I wonder what kinds of topics we'd see if the two bodied were priced at the same point. 
And I'm curious to know what resolutuon D800 people will be using if they use it on trips and whatnot. To me, 36 is too much to use as a regular camera for day in day out/casual photography. More suited for just studio work imo. 

I couldnt see myself lugging arounda megapixel monster when hanging around with friends. I dont want to downsize them eigher becauxe then id rather just geta crop body. Plus downsizing the photos would involve editing, which leads to the tenptation to over-process my photos....something I am guiltyof from time to time 

Now if my work was mainly studio, then id be more tempted to get the d800....


----------



## Ivar (Mar 14, 2012)

Unfortunately I don't see how exactly it is better than a 5D2.



awinphoto said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > > Real world samples are already out for everyone to see. D800 is clearly superior in detail and DR. 5Diii might have edge on the noise department, but the images just look flat, most likely due to excessive NR. Regardless, D800 is superior in that it provides much better detail and DR and comparable ISO performance.
> ...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

Ivar said:


> Unfortunately I don't see how exactly it is better than a 5D2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's the beauty of it... =) As a package as a whole, its a much better tool, can deliver so much more, in worse conditions, and take a bigger beating, and still produce as good if not better images... It's a great image overall... No one ever snubbed the 5d2 on image quality overall... 5d3 takes the camera as a whole to the next level. No camera is going to make you instantaneously a better photographer out of the box as is... If it's not for you and you cant appreciate the camera for what it is... too bad..


----------



## Alker (Mar 14, 2012)

> Unfortunately I don't see how exactly it is better than a 5D2.



Well for me it is.
I have always been happy with the image quality of the 5D Mark II.
Except for some things which they have fixed in the 5D Mark III

I really don't care if the DR is 11 or 11.5 or whatever.
So yes I am happy with the Canon 5D mark III

It is very very simple.
If you don't like the 5D Mark III .........then don't buy it....
Like there are NO good pictures in the world left after Nikon has released a 36MP.....


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 14, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> BobSanderson said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D3 is much better at generating controversy within this community. Check out Nikon Rumors - there is nothing like this going on there. Why not?
> ...




Good question indeed. Canon, imo, has generally plateaued since 5d2..and to some degree before that. In contrast Nikon has spiked upward dramatically. Since the D3 / D300 launch, Nikon took the lead and has increased their position ever since. Now, a major point in product cycles has revealed Nikon continuing to expand their leadership. Maybe this is Nikon's peak and we're at the beginning of another cycle reversal, with the 5d4, etc leaping ahead in tech in 2014. Maybe not. It simply raises questions, especially when one looks at the quality of Sony sensors. 

Bottom line: Only Canon koolaid drinkers can deny Nikon's overall tech leadership since the D3. Yet, does it really matter? I don't think so. Again, it's just about bagging rights imo. And that tide can reverse at any time.


----------



## Ivar (Mar 14, 2012)

I have the right to express disagreement the same way as you satisfaction. 

Having owned a Canon D60, a 5D1 and currently owning a 5D2 I was expecting the same direction progress from Canon. I was ready to buy a 1Ds Mk3 successor, which as it came out turned to a sports camera. Now Canon seems to be a sports addict with the 5D3 too (ok that's a bit aggregated). 

It is the same for many, many users. 




Alker said:


> > Unfortunately I don't see how exactly it is better than a 5D2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > BobSanderson said:
> ...



To some points yes, some points no... for instance you brought the D300 up... Heck it could be argued the D200 rivaled and in some ways bested canons xxd series at the time and D300 took it one step further until canon came out with the 7D which trounced it... Flagships... It's been slight advantage nikon, but with the thinnest of margins... I feel spec wise, the only things the D800 has over the 5d3 is sensor size, pop up flash/flash commander and white balance, assuming Canon hasn't tweeked the AWB to be more accurate. The rest really is up to personal tastes, noise can be argued all day, DR is nice but can leave an image flat looking, color fidelity canon usually has an edge but until tests are done, i'll leave it for now, FPS Canon wins, AF Canon edges nikon in most areas but will concede more tests need to be done, Oh yeah, I do like that d-min option on nikons, but canon has a d-max/highlight tone protect, so i suppose you got to take the good with the bad... In the end it's a tool, a very very very nice tool, they both are, and it's about getting the right tool for the job... and for what it's worth 7d vs D300, 5d3 vs D800, 1dx vs D4/D3x/whatever... IF canon was behind technology wise, it's not by much.


----------



## kubelik (Mar 14, 2012)

BobSanderson said:


> The 5D3 is much better at generating controversy within this community. Check out Nikon Rumors - there is nothing like this going on there. Why not?



"What I absolutely don’t like is the fine grain visible even at ISO 100 in smooth middle and darker areas. I remebers me to my D300 which was great, but not so clear and smooth like my D700 at lower ISOs."

a post titled: "Guest post: Nikon D800 criticisms refuted"

"I have my D800 on preorder arriving March 21 but find it funny how all us Nikon folk are defending the D800 agains the MK3 whereas if the cameras were swapped across brands and we got the MK3 wrapped in a Nikon cloak, we’d have the whole Nikon camp cheering all its glory since it looks more like the camera we wanted as a D700 successor. "

"I think people were expecting LARGER pixels from a D800, not SIMILAR to those of enthusiast/semi-pro models."

"Just a quick poll: do you prefer the Nikon D800 the way it is, with a 36.3MP sensor, or you would rather have the D800 with the 16.2MP sensor from the Nikon D4?" Result: 58.7% for the 16MP sensor

... there's not much difference between Canon zealots and Nikon zealots, everyone thinks the grass is greener on the other side. if you feel that pained about your gear, sell it and get what you really want. what would probably do much more for all of our photographic improvement and skill growth, however, is for us all to get off the forums and go out and actually photograph stuff. I don't plan on frequenting here much until 7D Mark II rumors start getting fun. best to everyone, enjoy your gear and USE your gear


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 14, 2012)

I think both are very capable cameras. Most people will struggle to reach the limit of their capability.

No point fretting about it - just buy the one that you want and can afford


----------



## Alker (Mar 14, 2012)

Very interesting now the D800 is also online at Image Resource.
Smear detail also in the D800....

Found this topic:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=40908215


----------



## SpartanWarrior (Mar 14, 2012)

To me the 5D III looks better sharpness and High ISO than D800.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A7.HTM


----------



## Alker (Mar 14, 2012)

As far as I can see.....

Both camera's have there advantages.

However if high ISO is wat you want it seems the 5D Mark III is better
However for low ISO (till 200 ISO) the D800 seems to have the upper hand due to resolution

But Nikon D800 smokes the 5D mark III ---NO WAY
But Canon 5D Mark III smokes the Nikon D800 ---NO WAY

So why the Nikon-Canon war


----------



## tt (Mar 14, 2012)

Is there anyone who browses both canonrumors.com and Nikon forum sites ? Do Nikonites also sweat the details of unreleased Nikon cameras? See flaws in something not yet out, and debate it furiously also from the other side?
Curious to see where Nikon forum users would take their critique of the D4, D800 etc (like canonrumors does about AF, focus screens, f8 focal points etc)


----------



## Renato (Mar 14, 2012)

Silent shooting...


----------



## Renato (Mar 14, 2012)

Alker said:


> Very interesting now the D800 is also online at Image Resource.
> Smear detail also in the D800....
> 
> Found this topic:
> ...


 I have been waiting for those pic. Now finally we can compare apples with .. Canon. Excellent work of those folk s at IR.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 14, 2012)

Alker said:


> > Unfortunately I don't see how exactly it is better than a 5D2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well said.

and yes you are correct there are no more good pictures left in the world anymore because the D800 specs say there cant be. Its officially technically impossible for there to be any good pictures not taken with a D800 so all good picture taking has been reserved for D800 users unfortunately since it has not yet been release everyone is not allowed to take any good pictures with other cameras until they get their D800. Dont argue the specs tell us this and anyone that disagree's is a silly canon fanboi. 

(disclaimer - for people that dont understand sarcam, that last paragraph was not meant to be serious and does not represent the true views of the poster if i knew how to make the font smaller this would be in fine print but i'm too lazy to work it out.)


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > > Unfortunately I don't see how exactly it is better than a 5D2.
> ...



Lol 8) 8) 8)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 15, 2012)

DanielW said:


> I am very wrong or are we all comparing two very different cameras with different purposes? As I see from what I've been reading, the D800 is more a studio/landscape camera, and the 5Dm3 more an all-around camera, maybe what wedding photographers want. People seem to want a 30+ MP with a ton of DR and 10 FPS... No can do. Very different cameras, very different uses, or am I wrong?
> I don't understand the US$ 500 difference, though.
> It really seems that a high MP studio work/landscape camera missing in Canon's lineup, but it looks like it's on its way (or not?).
> In the beginning I didn't like this "mark x" thing, but now I like it and see advantages. What if:
> ...



The one interesting thing about the D800 is that it actually is as all around as the 5D3 or more. It has better reach for wildlife, more MP and DR for landscapes, same speed although only with grip and DX crop.

5D3 has more speed at FF.


----------



## 5dmk.iii (Mar 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I think both are very capable cameras. Most people will struggle to reach the limit of their capability.
> 
> No point fretting about it - just buy the one that you want and can afford



In case of Squibby... Two; ;D 1 series bodies


----------



## iso79 (Mar 15, 2012)

Renato said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting now the D800 is also online at Image Resource.
> ...



Nikon's color continues to always look off to me. I'm happy to stick with Canon.


----------



## dunkers (Mar 15, 2012)

People said the same thing about the D7000 vs the 60D. 

Still doesn't change the fact that both are great cameras. They both produce superb images.

Just because one may have better specs doesn't mean that the other one is a terrible camera.

If you need the higher megapixel count, then by all means buy the D800. I for one have no need for 36mp, so I am not interested. Simple as that. I couldn't care less if the D800 could see every individual groove of my fingertips at 100% crop. The human eye can't even see it unless your finger is a mere inches from your face. 

I need the higher fps and the iso capabilities so I'm sold on the 5D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 15, 2012)

dunkers said:


> People said the same thing about the D7000 vs the 60D. Still doesn't change the fact that both are great cameras. They both produce superb images.Just because one may have better specs doesn't mean that the other one is a terrible camera.



True, but the (no doubts in my mind) better camera d7000 is much more expensive than my trusty 60d ... and the price is the reason I got the latter and because I like the one hand usage of the Canon body better than the side buttons of Nikon.

It's the other way around for the 5d3 vs d800: the camera with the imho overall better specs is less expensive! The heated discussion shows that it's not as simple as saying "get the one you like", but there are many doubt about the future r&d capabilities of Canon vs Nikon/Sony. If you invest thousand of bucks in one system, you're stuck with it, and the manufacturers - Canon for one - know this.


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 15, 2012)

Two things that matter to me and how I use the camera the lure me towards the D800: 


More megapixels means more cropping opportunity. Honestly I often struggle with framing the shot in camera, but I'm a master cropper. : Could I just spend hours/months/years learning to frame better in camera? Yep. But if I can achieve the same thing just by changing equipment, why wouldn't I?
Autofocus in video. I'm not a videographer, and I don't make movies. But I'm a dad and I take pictures of my kids' sports. I don't have the skill or desire to learn to try and manually focus 7 yr olds playing soccer. Sure, I can buy a video camera, but then I have to lug extra equipment around, and still have inferior glass to what I already have for my DSLR

I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that these apply to, and if I weren't already heavily invested in Canon glass, I doubt I would even think twice about it.


----------



## Alker (Mar 15, 2012)

> I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that these apply to



Well believe it.

Seems the only thing you are thinking about is the DSLR....
More things are needed to take a good picture..

What if the Nikon D800 was only 22 MP...........
I guess all you guys (who really needs 36mp all of a sudden) would have no camera to take pictures with.

Please let everyone decide what they want, oke.......


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 15, 2012)

Alker said:


> > I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that these apply to
> 
> 
> What if the Nikon D800 was only 22 MP...........
> I guess all you guys (who really needs 36mp all of a sudden) would have no camera to take pictures with.



Well, I've manage to take AND SELL a fair number of pictures with 10MP, but if you're telling me that I can't do better with 36MP then I guess I'll just have to trust that you know more about my photography than I do.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 15, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > > I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that these apply to
> ...



+1 me too. The 40D sits in the car just in case. It is amazing what it can do. ;D ;D ;D

I feel SO inferior when using the 40D, I am frightened that I will be called a newb by a pompous person with a series 1


----------



## Alker (Mar 15, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > > I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that these apply to
> ...



Show me....that you all of a sudden need 36 MP and 22 MP is not enough.
Maybe you really need the 36MP and I am wrong.

All topics are about people don't understand why you should buy the 5D Mark III while the Nikon is better and cheaper....

Well again there is more then DSLR's
I love my Canon lenses and that's why I prefer Canon DSLR's


----------



## callaesthetics (Mar 15, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Autofocus in video. I'm not a videographer, and I don't make movies. But I'm a dad and I take pictures of my kids' sports. I don't have the skill or desire to learn to try and manually focus 7 yr olds playing soccer. Sure, I can buy a video camera, but then I have to lug extra equipment around, and still have inferior glass to what I already have for my DSLR



You may find that the autofocus in video will leave a lot to desire, it's nowhere near the level of camcorders.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > Alker said:
> ...


Newb :-*


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...




:'( :'( :'( :'(


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 15, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Autofocus in video. I'm not a videographer, and I don't make movies. But I'm a dad and I take pictures of my kids' sports. I don't have the skill or desire to learn to try and manually focus 7 yr olds playing soccer. Sure, I can buy a video camera, but then I have to lug extra equipment around, and still have inferior glass to what I already have for my DSLR





callaesthetics said:


> You may find that the autofocus in video will leave a lot to desire, it's nowhere near the level of camcorders.



Exactly. Accurate video AF of a 24 x 36mm sensor is much, much harder than with a tiny camcorder sensor, with its infinite depth of field.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


Don't worry your 40D is at least a DSLR i only have a point and shoot


----------



## meli (Mar 15, 2012)

hey the 40d is The classic out of the whole xxd series!


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 15, 2012)

meli said:


> hey the 40d is The classic out of the whole xxd series!



Yeh the 40D kicks ar*e out of the 7D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Dave T (Mar 15, 2012)

Reading through this whole thread (8 pages...really?) reminds me of something I heard an old cowboy say years ago. Some people would complain if they were hung with a brand new rope. (smile)

Dave


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 16, 2012)

Dave T said:


> Reading through this whole thread (8 pages...really?) reminds me of something I heard an old cowboy say years ago. Some people would complain if they were hung with a brand new rope. (smile)
> 
> Dave



That's just silly. I very much prefer getting hung with old rope. It's much more compliant.


----------



## dunkers (Mar 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> dunkers said:
> 
> 
> > People said the same thing about the D7000 vs the 60D. Still doesn't change the fact that both are great cameras. They both produce superb images.Just because one may have better specs doesn't mean that the other one is a terrible camera.
> ...



Don't forget it also depends on what kind of photography you do. One camera may have better specs in a certain area, but if you don't care for that aspect then it means nothing.

For sports shooters, the 5D Mk3 has better specs. Higher fps and better low light. Sure you can buy the battery grip and shoot in DX mode, but are you really going to spend $3000 just to do that? If I buy the D800, I would very much like to use all 36 megapixels otherwise I'd just get the D7000 and spend the difference on glass.

For studio shooters, the D800 supposedly has the edge thanks to the higher megapixel count for peeping every single eyebrow of your model. However, this can also be a bad thing because the model might not like the photo because you can see every single blemish on their skin. 

So you _can_ argue that one has "better" specs than the other, but if you don't care for those specs then it is meaningless.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> The heated discussion shows that it's not as simple as saying "get the one you like", but there are many doubt about the future r&d capabilities of Canon vs Nikon/Sony.



There is absolutely no reason to doubt Canon's R&D capabilities. If there's blame to be handed, point it towards the marketing, sales and finances departments.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 16, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> There is absolutely no reason to doubt Canon's R&D capabilities. If there's blame to be handed, point it towards the marketing, sales and finances departments.



I'm always the one to blame Canon marketing for red ring and big white lens brainwashing (see my smites ), while I love my camera, though it's only a lowly 60d + 70-300L, 100macro. But it was argued that in the long term, Canon might have a hard time competing with Nikon backed by Sony. But of course I don't really know about that, the advances in Sony sensor technology might just temporary good luck.


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 16, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > The heated discussion shows that it's not as simple as saying "get the one you like", but there are many doubt about the future r&d capabilities of Canon vs Nikon/Sony.
> ...


What's the point to have excellent R&D capabilities if they don't deliver them to end users in particular 5D users


----------



## Alker (Mar 16, 2012)

So now we are afraid that Canon is not able to keep up ???
Why ?
Explain ?

Because the 5D mark iii is not what you have expected ?
Because they have not 36 mp (Nikon was always the one with lower MP)
Check the companies financial numbers !!!!

If canon wants 40mp they can deliver 

And what about :

70-200 II 
300/400/500/600 II 
24-70 II
All updated lenses with so much improvement. 
Superb lenses !!!!!!!!!

Afraid Canon is falling behind is nonsense.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 16, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> What's the point to have excellent R&D capabilities if they don't deliver them to end users in particular 5D users



But they do deliver them. For all intents and purposes, the 5D3 is an excellent camera by any measuring stick. 
As I see it is, Canon feels sure in their position as market leaders so they didn't find the need to wow or overspec the 5D3 beyond what its user base wanted fixed on the 5D2. That makes a great package, albeit a risky one in the long run since it could backfire because Nikon _was _in a position that needed a big, flashy, exiting product to sway sales towards them. How it will pan out, no one can say at the moment but competition is a good thing for everyone. Especially since the 5D3 _is_ an excellent camera and it's not like we're stuck with a turd. 

Win - Win situation in my book.


----------



## Pyrenees (Mar 16, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > The heated discussion shows that it's not as simple as saying "get the one you like", but there are many doubt about the future r&d capabilities of Canon vs Nikon/Sony.
> ...



Look, it wouldn't surprise me. Over the last 20 years, the hugely increased (relative) power of these departments, and the obsession with cost-cutting has produced many downsides for the consumer. It brings to mind Porsche's shenanigans of disabling the Cayman's full potential to protect 911 sales.


----------



## Alker (Mar 16, 2012)

babarasghar said:


> wow ... who r these ladies ... who suddenly need 36MP ... it means they were Photographers who never took any pic till now cause they were waiting for their messiah ... waiting for 36MP sensor ...
> what were they doing till now ... washing cars cleaning toilets ...
> it makes me laugh that these idiots can't even buy D800 n just by memorizing the specs sheet they r bragging about something which they never can afford ...
> those who are serious photographers are out n taking pictures n will buy when the products are on shelves ...
> I wish such pixel peepers could implement such scrutiny in their own life too ... they can make this world a better place ... so much complain on a bloody camera ... how have u lived so far in this non-perfect world ... get a life ...




+ 1000000000000000


----------



## samthefish (Mar 16, 2012)

When I was in Boston last week strolled by the studio of a photographer 

http://www.cherylrichards.com

Her stuff looked great through the window (was evening and closed) and I saw she had photographed weddings of Matt Damon, Matt Lauer, and some other well known people. Objectively she looks to be doing very well, you can't afford rent in that part of Boston without doing something right.

I was thinking of this forum and laughing when I saw she does a lot of her photography with a $20 disposable film camera for the "unique imperfections" it imparts.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 16, 2012)

Alker said:


> So now we are afraid that Canon is not able to keep up ???
> Why ?
> Explain ?
> 
> ...



It's just a bunch of people who think that the sensor matters WAY more than it does it reality (for *most* photographers) to the final photo.

You don't buy into a body - you buy into a system. That's primarily lenses. I'd take a sharper or more creative lens over a bit more resolution any day.

And I'm not defending the 5d3 price btw - I think it's £500 too expensive. However, now that the dust has settled and I've seen RAWs, I'm very happy with my preorder 

Compare some of the lenses on both sides at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx


----------



## Alker (Mar 16, 2012)

> You don't buy into a body - you buy into a system. That's primarily lenses. I'd take a sharper or more creative lens over a bit more resolution any day.



+1


----------



## babarasghar (Mar 16, 2012)

why I simply can't understand 
there is a group of people who always complain ... why sky is blue ... why water is colorless ... so a message for you ... plz dnt get 5D3 ... 
PERIOD


----------



## rustyolshooter (Mar 16, 2012)

these Nikon vs Canon post are so funny. 9 page? really? listen, if you think your taking bad pictures because of your current Canon I doubt D800 is gonna help you out much. I still see plenty of great photos from old 350d, 20d even from the dreaded 50d! Nikon makes great cameras, they always have but so do Pentax, Olympus and yes even Canon. so grab whatever you choose and go out and take some photos and stop worrying about specs, specs, specs.


----------



## Orion (Mar 16, 2012)

When people speak of better, I imagine they are magnifying atoms and trying to look at photons to see which is better camera . . . . when, at the end of it all it becomes meaningless, once you hold the fricken camera in yuor hands and you get that sense that you can do anything with photography. 

Don't forget that the miniscule, when it comes to camera systems being compared, become nothing in real life. . . . hardly an afterthought.

btw, new video on the mkIII stills, etc . . . . filled with samples and shot settings.
http://blog.planet5d.com/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-stills-and-video-test-from-slovakia/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Planet5dBlog+%28Planet5D+Blog%29


----------



## Astro (Mar 16, 2012)

luninous landscape about the D800:



> Is it For Me?
> 
> A 36 Megapixel camera, with or without an AA filter is terra incognita for many photographers. Till now, unless one has been able to outlay $25,000 to $50,000 for an MF back, camera and lenses, this type of resolving power has not be accessible. Now, for about $3,000, is the D800 series able to match medium format other than in resolving power? We'll have to wait until photographers with MF systems have a chance to do some comparisons, but I wouldn't take bets either way at this point.
> 
> ...



http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_or_d800e.shtml


----------



## degies (Apr 14, 2012)

Canon 5D MK III vs Nikon D800 with Nathan Elson

I think this is pretty fair ?


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 14, 2012)

It's a very fair review. Apparently a 20 minute vid exceeds people's attention spans, because no one commented on this vid when other posters put it up


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 14, 2012)

degies said:


> Canon 5D MK III vs Nikon D800 with Nathan Elson
> 
> I think this is pretty fair ?



On big mistake they did make though was comparing dynamic range at very high ISOs, which is the place where nobody ever said the Nikon would be better. They don't seem to realize it is at ISO100-400 where the difference is to be found.


----------



## clicstudio (Apr 14, 2012)

*Can't really compare side by side*

All i hear When people talk of the D800 is: Whhhoooaaa 36MP!
Nobody cares about anyhing else. Comparing it to the 5D is not fair. 
The D800 is in a category of its own. Getting medium format size photos for $3000 instead of $20,000 for a digital back, is a steal!
People compare these cameras because they were released at the same time and cost is similar. 
A more fair comparison would be with a D700...

If u Are a studio photographer Who shoots 100 ISO images with a tripod, then this is The camera to get...
Unless u Are a wedding or concert photographer, the 5D is not a good deal. Hundreds more than the D800 and with half the IQ.
I've been a loyal Canon 1-series user since 2003 and I think I stay loyal because I've been using 1's and not any other lower quality camera. The experience of using a real pro camera makes a huge difference. At least in my case. 
I've said it before: the 5D is a camera for those who can't afford a 1D X.
The higher the number, the crappier the camera. 
Canon needs a "3D" camera with 30+ MP for $4000 to compete with the D800... 
If I were just starting photography and Needed to decide between brands and had a tight budget, I would never choose canon.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 14, 2012)

*Re: Can't really compare side by side*



clicstudio said:


> If I were just starting photography and Needed to decide between brands and had a tight budget, I would never choose canon.



Unless you want to buy lenses to use on the cameras. Have you seen Nikon lens prices?!


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 14, 2012)

*Re: Can't really compare side by side*



clicstudio said:


> If I were just starting photography and Needed to decide between brands and had a tight budget, I would never choose canon.




If you were just starting photography you'd hardly be like WHOAAAAA THIS LATEST NIKON FULL FRAME CAMERA PROVIDES HIGH RESOLUTION, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU GET ON A MEDIUM FORMAT! IT EVEN COMES WITH AN OPTION TO REMOVE YOUR ANTI-ALIASING SENSOR, MEANING I CAN GET SHARPER IMAGES, JUST NEED TO BECAREFUL ABOUT THAT MOIRE

This, if anything is aimed at the experienced user - who will, more likely than not - already have invested in a deep set of lenses, and wouldn't jump ship - that said, if the D800 IS successful, Canon can easily hit back - so theres even LESS reason to jump - just patience is needed in that regard


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 14, 2012)

*Re: Can't really compare side by side*




Tcapp said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > If I were just starting photography and Needed to decide between brands and had a tight budget, I would never choose canon.
> ...



... there are other things out there than Nikon & Canon  ... and 3rd party lenses fit on Nikon mounts, too. But seeing the latest Canon price tags (doubling the price for "upgraded" gear) I have to somewhat agree with clicstudio. The long-run full frame upgrade path in the Canon world is very expensive, while other brands might be quicker to make larger sensors or more mp available to the general public.



awinphoto said:


> Is it that Canon shooters are the most open minded shooters out there or have we gone crazy? You go onto nikonrumors, say one bad thing about nikon, and you get openly flogged... you go onto canonrumors, say bad things about canon and people agree...



I have to agree most people around here aren't that fanboy-like and while using Canon even consider T*****, T***** or S**** lenses an alternative  ... I don't know Nikon rumors, but it would be interesting what the reason for this reason in culture is (if there is indeed any).

One thing I'm annoyed about and that makes me fanboy-immune is Canon marketing that constantly seems to be out to put annoyances into products to make people upgrade to the "next best thing". The latest Nikon releases d7000/d800 seem to go into the different direction: evenly balanced products for an ok price. But still I got the 60d when I had to decide because I like the feel and handling of Canon better.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 14, 2012)

*Re: Can't really compare side by side*



clicstudio said:


> Hundreds more than the D800 and with half the IQ.


It's when people make grandiose statements like this that I realise that nikons marketing has done their job. 

If we're talking low iso and the d800 is 100% iq, the 5d3 is probably something like 90%. I can guarantee you that, when the dxo results come out, the 5d3 will not receive a mark which is 50% of that of the d800. 

If we're talking high iso, the graph tests so far show the 5d3 has better dr at high iso and you can't use all 36mp - you need to scale it down to get decent results, as expected. 

And 36mp is only about 25% bigger than 22 anyway. 

And if you look at the actual results - the photographs - produced by both bodies, the 5d3 still produces "nicer" looking photos to my eye. A video review showed the same and agreed.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 14, 2012)

Yes, the 5D3 is crap. The diopter dial moves too easily and causes all my photos to be out of focus.


----------



## dturano (Apr 15, 2012)

If you took both the 5dmk3 and the d800 along with 2 flagship lens for an outing or event - or lens of choice as long as its similar to each manufacturer, i.e. canon 50mm L and the nikon equivalent. Or the new canon (when avl) 24-70mm vs, the nikon counterpart.:

1. Would you load the images and be wowed "OMG the d800 is better on paper and my images truly reflect it! im so happy..."
2. Find flaws in images from both cameras and observe where it was technically the shooter not the lens or body? while some acceptable variations may occur the overall results compared would be similar.
3. Or make a choice not bashing one or the other resulting in proffering the ergonomics of one, the processing, and all overall basic results. 

For example on #3, when I shot film there was something that I favored in nikon film cameras, the color was different, i favored it more. I shot the counterpart canon body and lens and preferred the results form my nikon film camera, it was to my needs. Now canon fills the need, or i can adjust the need in pp.


----------



## smithy (Apr 15, 2012)

dturano said:


> 3. Or make a choice not bashing one or the other resulting in proffering the ergonomics of one, the processing, and all overall basic results.
> 
> For example on #3, when I shot film there was something that I favored in nikon film cameras, the color was different, i favored it more. I shot the counterpart canon body and lens and preferred the results form my nikon film camera, it was to my needs. Now canon fills the need, or i can adjust the need in pp.


Just out of curiosity (and as a film shooter), why do you think the colour was better when shooting film on a Nikon? The glass? Or the light meter? I can't think of anything else that could affect colour, since it's primarily the film's role to determine such things.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 15, 2012)

kraats said:


> Great pics is not about the camera and its specs. It is about the photographer and its creativity/style. So go out and shoot some!



Except for sports shooting, I guess we can all agree on that. But beyond that, mostly its a matter of putting hard earned money into an soon-to-be outdated body or in (what) lenses. And of course the thought if magic lantern runs on a body...

Concerning "shoot some": Lightroom is still processing the 1k shots from yesterday, what would I do in the meantime than post some  ... but have fun with your new 5d3, you should considering the investment.


----------



## jrista (Apr 15, 2012)

kraats said:


> Great pics is not about the camera and its specs. It is about the photographer and its creativity/style. So go out and shoot some!



I'm sorry, but this is such a naive addage. Skill certainly plays a role, but better equipment in the hands of a skilled photographer WILL improve that photographers capabilities. Both the 5D III and D800 will help a skilled photographer produce better photographs and higher rates of keepers. 



clicstudio said:


> If u Are a studio photographer Who shoots 100 ISO images with a tripod, then this is The camera to get...
> Unless u Are a wedding or concert photographer, the 5D is not a good deal. Hundreds more than the D800 and with half the IQ.



The D800 is a bit more niche and has an edge on Canon's offering in terms of resolution and DR, but none of the D800's bonuses are enough for anyone to seriously consider switching brands. Unbelievably naive statements like "5D is not a good deal...half the IQ" only serve to demonstrate you are an easier brainwash than the general population. The 5D III has an edge on the D800 in a couple areas, such as AF and better video (3x3 binned, low-moire vs. skip-line, high-moire recording). Comparing the cameras head to head, technologically, they are pretty equivalent. The D800 has a slight edge of maybe 5-10% IQ improvement. In terms of viability for use in pretty much any situation, the 5D III probably has a 5-10% edge...spec-wise its an ideal full-frame general purpose camera.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 15, 2012)

jrista said:


> I'm sorry, but this is such a naive addage. Skill certainly plays a role, but better equipment in the hands of a skilled photographer WILL improve that photographers capabilities. Both the 5D III and D800 will help a skilled photographer produce better photographs and higher rates of keepers.



The IQ of my prints would improve enormously with a top of the range printer, no other work needed to get better prints.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Apr 15, 2012)

Canon is doing one important thing better the Nikon D800 and that is delivering product. I've had a D800 order in since February and I still hear nothing. Canon is delivering product (unless you are talking super-tele, 1Dx, or the new 24-70 II). This seems like a strange time. Canon is announcing all these new video cameras and lenses all over 10k or 15k. I'm guessing we are lucky to even have gotten the 5D III still camera - no wonder it was $3,500.


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 15, 2012)

degies said:


> http://youtu.be/omTo7UxbJX8
> 
> I think this is pretty fair ?



Here's part 2. Part three has yet to come out, but it's a very fair real world review.

http://youtu.be/4W9EeDCaVFM


----------



## Longvision (Apr 15, 2012)

I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my reply to the OP.

In its latest issue, the French magazine "Chasseur d'Images" did a side by side review of both the 5DIII & D800. There conclusion is not at all that of the OP.

For those who don't know, Chasseur d'Images is a respected review, that has very systematic testing protocols. you might not agree with there approach, but you can't deny that they come closest to what you might call scientifically grounded tests. 

The review of the two cameras where both in the lab and in the field. TO make a 30 page long story short, here's their summarized conclusion.

The resolution advantage of the Nikon is only relative as it will matter only for prints A2 (40cm x 60cm) and higher. However, Nikon is a clear DR winner with 14 il at 100iso. The Canon only has 12il. The difference equalizes as you move up the iso scale. They do note however that the Canon raws still give plenty of room for highlight and shadow recovery, and that they can sustain severe post treatment. At higher iso, the DIII pulls ahead (less noise), delivering useable results at 12800, where the Nikon pretty much breaks down. Still, they rate the high iso of the Nikon impressive given its resolution. At 3200iso, the 2 cameras are practically equal.

AF on fast incoming mobiles yields a slight advantage to the Canon. All in all, however, both cameras seem to deliver very high, responsive and reliable performance in this department.

In spite of its less sophisticated metering system, the Canon delivers very good and reliable results. So does the Nikon, but that should have been expected as the D700 already excelled at that.

Noise : the Canon has a clear advantage over the Nikon, even in standard mode. The canon silent mode receives raving comments : it makes it possible to use continuous shooting in a concert hall. The camera might be heard only during a triple pianissimo or a flute solo, the reveiwer says. Sound measurement in silent mode yields 52db, more less the same level as the mirrorless Sony nex5.

menus and interface : there seems to be an agreement that the Canon is ahead.

Viewfinder : both are bright, crisp, and pleasant for people who wear glasses.

Very few negative points on either cameras. Nikon : the size of the files which makes it imperative to have up to date computer equipment. Canon : the 1/200 sync speed which receives a real bashing. Oh, and Nikon's program mode in video seems a bit inferior to the Canon, but I don't do video so I didn't fully understand : it seems D800 allows excessive shutter speed (?) .

My conclusion from the full reading of these reviews : both cameras probably exceed the needs of most photographers. What really differenciate them is 1. Nikon's extra 2il of DR at low iso ; 2. Canon's silent mode, and ultra high iso (12800 and up). 

In other words, people shooting events, shows, concerts etc, might be better off with the 5DIII, while landscape photographers should opt for the D800. Still the reviewer concludes that both cameras are impressively versatile, so there might not be very convincing reasons to switch if you have money already invested in one system.

Hope that helps.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 15, 2012)

Longvision said:


> Still the reviewer concludes that both cameras are impressively versatile, so there might not be very convincing reasons to switch if you have money already invested in one system.



Sounds like a sensible conclusion. Try telling people that though...


----------



## smithy (Apr 15, 2012)

Canon should have priced the 5D3 the same as the D800. That would've helped. By pricing it $500 higher, it creates an automatic impression that it is 'supposed' to be a better camera. If they are equally as good (which I'd like to believe), they should be closer price-wise.


----------



## Louis (Apr 15, 2012)

I was going to buy a Mark3 untill I saw 100% crops and how soft the images are, yes I have seen a few that have been somewhat sharp, but I cant take the risk, I need the camera in my hands and my own memory card to come home with and look at the images, I am a Canon user with a 5D mark2 and is happy apart from the autofocas, I have seen how stupid sharp that D800 is and it does make me sad that my own brand who I really do love is making me worried, I even checked the 1DX samples, and wasnt so sure how many where tact sharp at 100% I am talking studio set up shots, 

anyway, lets see


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 15, 2012)

For my shooting needs, the 5D3 is a more versatile machine, but even if I was a landscape or fashion photographer where the D800's DR and resolution advantage would be more useful, the gap isn't nearly large enough to warrant switching systems. At best, I'd concede that this round goes to Nikon, and hope Canon can close the gap with successive models. At worst, I'd buy a D800 and one or two lenses to supplement my Canon gear. 

Now, if Canon never catches up and Nikon destroys Canon well into the future, then I'd consider switching systems at that point. Despite the internet hoopla, I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 15, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> Here's part 2. Part three has yet to come out, but it's a very fair real world review.
> 
> http://youtu.be/4W9EeDCaVFM



Nikon color = Yuck


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 15, 2012)

Check out these comparison videos of the 5D Mark III and D800. I like that these videos show the two cameras in real world shooting applications instead of the usual rant about this one is better than that one because of tech specs or scientific hardware analysis. I think such comparisons don't hold much water over how they actually perform head-to-head in the same conditions. I am a 5D Mark III owner and these videos fall very close to what I have experienced with my copy. Note that the host WAS a Canon shooter and is NOW a Nikon shooter, but yet he seems to give credit where it is due towards each camera. There is a 3rd and final video that is not yet published covering the video performance of both cameras. So to all those who say that the D800 is the "BEST"; the 5D MARK III can definitely hold it's own in comparison and also clearly has areas where it outshines the D800.

In the first video, what I gather is that the D800 with 36mp captures more detail (DUH...) and is more suited towards studio photography with controlled lighting.
Canon 5D MK III vs Nikon D800 with Nathan Elson

Interestingly, the dynamic range and color reproduction of the 5D Mark III is shown to be better than the D800 in the second video. So much for the scientific DxO analysis of the D800 sensor, eh? 
Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800 Part 2 with Mike Drew

Oops, I didn't realize that these videos were already posted on this thread. LOL oh well


----------



## 1982chris911 (Apr 16, 2012)

Having the 5d MK III now and also having tested the D800 for a short time there are some very clear advantages the 5d MK III has for me:

First the C1 - C3 complete setting recall: If you use these you can easily adapt to many situations where on the D800 switching settings takes ages. This is very important if only carry one camera body with you. 

Second the lower MP count has a hugh advantage when you need to process images on the go. Did anyone ever take a D800 to travel and take about 500 to 1000 pics a day? With a current high end notebook/mac the file size of the 5d MkIII is still easy to handle. With a D800 this is really no longer the case.

Third the interchangeability of batteries and a lot of equipment with the 7D and 5D MkII if you own both. The system is just lighter and easier to travel with. This also makes a difference when traveling a lot.

Fourth the very high quality of Canon Jpegs that nearly need no post - all the Nikon shots I have seen so far where real advantages in IQ are noticeable needed a lot of post work from the raw. So here the canon wins again if you just don't have the time resources to really work with the large amount of data the d800generates in every single picture ... 

Fifth the Ergonometric of the Canon body, this may only be me, but I feel much more comfortable with the 5d than with the D800 in this respect ...

So all in all I would say the following: The 5d MKIII is the much better camera for serious amateurs, ppl who do travel a lot (including most ppl doing landscape) and ppl who are not only shooting one of the dedicated fields of the D800 (fashion, studio and high res landscape). 
The D800 wins where the highest level of detail is needed and where ppl commonly need to print extremely large (over 36' x 24'). However there are programs like Genuine Fractals, which have long been used to scale up resolution so this advantage can more or less be nullified when real high res is needed (very large 300 dpi prints as even the d800 needs to be pumped up here)

This is just my very subjective impression, so don't grill me for it ... ;-)


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 16, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> This is just my very subjective impression, so don't grill me for it ... ;-)



How dare you formulate your impressions after using both bodies in the field instead of quoting some lab tests 



> Fourth the very high quality of Canon Jpegs that nearly need no post - all the Nikon shots I have seen so far where real advantages in IQ are noticeable needed a lot of post work from the raw. So here the canon wins again if you just don't have the time resources to really work with the large amount of data the d800generates in every single picture ...



I shot a car race recently, and afterwards, the client wanted to downloaded jpegs straight onto his laptop. I know only amateurs and soccer moms shoot jpeg, but the ability to hand over high quality jpegs on a whim, when you don't have to opportunity to touch raw files up in post, is a huge benefit at times. To me, the out-of-camera Nikon files look like ass. That would bother me a heck of a lot more than, and take up more of my time to fix in post, than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DR.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Apr 16, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I shot a car race recently, and afterwards, the client wanted to downloaded jpegs straight onto his laptop. I know only amateurs and soccer moms shoot jpeg, but the ability to hand over high quality jpegs on a whim, when you don't have to opportunity to touch raw files up in post, is a huge benefit at times. To me, the out-of-camera Nikon files look like ass. That would bother me a heck of a lot more than, and take up more of my time to fix in post, than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DR.



The strange thing is that most Pros I know switch to Jpeg once they are shooting events where they are taking large amounts of pictures and not doing dedicated (set up) work like fashion or product photography (when they usually would not use any equipment currently offered by Nikon or Canon ... MF anyone ?), as they also don't have the time to work with hundreds of raws ... 

On a side note imagine the following not completely unimaginable scenario: Doing a one to two week photography trip where you would take 5 to 10k pictures ... do you still like 80MB raws afterwards with you limited processing power of a consumer notebook/mac ? I really don't think so and that is for what I need and want my camera to function perfectly ...


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 16, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> The strange thing is that most Pros I know switch to Jpeg once they are shooting events where they are taking large amounts of pictures and not doing dedicated (set up) work like fashion or product photography (when they usually would not use any equipment currently offered by Nikon or Canon ... MF anyone ?), as they also don't have the time to work with hundreds of raws ...



That's not strange at all. Shooting jpeg has a certain stigma to it, but both raw and jpeg have their time and place. If you're traveling for weeks at a time, I can see how even 25 mb raws would get cumbersome. Sometimes I'll edit a raw file only to end up with a massive TIFF that looks a lot like the out-of-camera jpeg, then wonder what's the point ? 

BTW, I love your landscapes and architectural shots. Great stuff!


----------



## smithy (Apr 16, 2012)

Can the 5D3 be set up to save RAW to the CompactFlash card and JPEG to the SD card simultaneously?


----------



## FrutigerSans (Apr 16, 2012)

smithy said:


> Can the 5D3 be set up to save RAW to the CompactFlash card and JPEG to the SD card simultaneously?



Yup it certainly can.

Its the very first option of the SetUp menu.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 16, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > I shot a car race recently, and afterwards, the client wanted to downloaded jpegs straight onto his laptop. I know only amateurs and soccer moms shoot jpeg, but the ability to hand over high quality jpegs on a whim, when you don't have to opportunity to touch raw files up in post, is a huge benefit at times. To me, the out-of-camera Nikon files look like ass. That would bother me a heck of a lot more than, and take up more of my time to fix in post, than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DR.
> ...


When i shoot sports its always small jpegs. Ya need the buffer and ya don't need a tons of info. Even at 1- 1.5 mg our lab uses fractals and creates nice poster sized images. Our prints really do look excellent. For weddings, i don't worry about buffer or file sizes. 
I am tempted to shoot both and use jpegs unless i need help with some files. Like the guy said in the video when he is done with editing the raws they pretty much look like jpegs anyway. The 5dm3 jpegs i am getting havent needed post processing which is pretty dang phenomenal but then i havent shot in a 3 diff light source poorly lit stadium either.


----------



## ssrdd (Apr 16, 2012)

i got nikon d800 a week ago, works pretty good in video mode. also we checked it with XF305 and D800 for a short film went for big screen with both shots. we just wanted to check the resolution of the both cameras. So we carefully shot with D800, tried not to have moire patterns or aliasing. Expectedly D800 has much more information than XF305. Better colors on big screen(although we tried to match them very closely) looks organic than canon big time camcorder. 

D800's 24mbps data contains more information than 50mbps clearly visible on big screen.
and 5Dmk3 is far better in video mode when it comes to the ISO performance, not sharp enough for the big screen.
XF305 costs me like $9000 and D800 comes around $3000 and i wonder how good it looks when i record Uncompressed HD video with new samurai native fix for D800? 

I am definitely gonna shoot my independent feature on it.


----------



## helpful (Apr 16, 2012)

Bosman said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



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

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

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

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

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

My point is that I hope some of the self-proclaimed experts on this site will take a moment to think before accusing people who use JPEGs of being soccer moms and amateurs. Shooting JPEGs is something that full-time professionals do. Amateurs might do it too, and they might not. But logically there is no relationship between what one unrelated person does and what a professional photographer does.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 16, 2012)

helpful said:


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



Gotta love those shirts! I can't figure out if the shirts are mocking people that shoot jpeg, or if the shirts are actually meant to mock people who shoot raw because that's what everyone else online does. 



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



I wish my technique were refined enough where I didn't have to perform any post, but at any rate, I try to keep it at a minimum nonetheless. I'm really diggin' the dual card slots on the 5DIII since it simplifies recording in both raw and jpeg. I record raws to the CF card, but unless I come across a file that needs a lot of work in post, I'll just pull the jpegs off the SD card, touch them up a tad, and submit them to my clients. The raws are more of a safety net in case I really mess something up.



> My point is that I hope some of the self-proclaimed experts on this site will take a moment to think before accusing people who use JPEGs of being soccer moms and amateurs. Shooting JPEGs is something that full-time professionals do. Amateurs might do it too, and they might not. But logically there is no relationship between what one unrelated person does and what a professional photographer does.



I've had the good fortune of working with some very talented pros, and I think people would be surprised by how many of them shoot jpeg. One commercial photog I know has shot many ad campaigns for GM, Chrysler, and Mazda. He mentioned that he mainly shoots jpeg, and occasionally raw, for the same reasons others have expressed in this thread. I thought jpegs were just for editorial hacks like me, but maybe not  That said, he's just one dude, and many others prefer raw and have good reasoning behind it. 

Of course, different situations call for different formats, and I'm well aware that raw files are advantageous for certain situations.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 16, 2012)

helpful said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Gee, bash the RAW shooters for bashing JPG shooters by doing the same thing? Really helpful =/

Whether or not you shoot RAW or JPG is up to each photographer, no? There will be a time and place for both - RAW can give you the leeway that might be useful for an important shot - but the ease of space on JPGs will give you the freedom to shoot more. Both have their own advantages or disadvantages, and while you can get it right in-camera, would you still knock that fact where you can have a bit more freedom? Each has its own advantages - freedom in post, or freedom to shoot more. To each their own, but calling people who do shoot raw "self proclaimed experts" or "pro wannabees" is the same as what you're trying to defend, no?


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 16, 2012)

Raw is great for the simple fact you can adjust white balance easier and with better results. 

Jpeg has its place, but for my wedding work I always shoot raw. 

</$0.02>


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 16, 2012)

Tim,

Have you redone your website lately? It looks great. You have a great eye for light.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 16, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Tim,
> 
> Have you redone your website lately? It looks great. You have a great eye for light.



Thanks man!! Means a lot, especially coming from someone who's work I admire! I did change the layout of my blog. I wanted a layout that shows a whole bunch of posts on the homepage that would load easier. Glad you like it! 

As far as my main site, I haven't changed it in a long while. I'm actually due to add some of my latest work to it!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 16, 2012)

Here we go again - demanding the best possible IQ and mps - and then suggesting using jpeg which degrades the IQ as soon as any pp is done.

Shooters taking candids/sports/wildlife/birding CANNOT guarantee to get the perfect exposure everytime so as soon as they touch the levels - oops there goes the IQ.

And then there are those that haven't got the right filters, or need selective light adjustments etc etc

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


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 16, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Tim,
> 
> Have you redone your website lately? It looks great. You have a great eye for light.



Also, Unrelated to topic at hand but...

This is why I like to hang out on this forum. The people here are awesome. Great knowledge to be had, and friends to be made.  

I bet the people on Nikon Rumors aren't as cool.  JK. ( I mean, they are the _dark side_ after all!)


----------



## smithy (Apr 16, 2012)

FrutigerSans said:


> smithy said:
> 
> 
> > Can the 5D3 be set up to save RAW to the CompactFlash card and JPEG to the SD card simultaneously?
> ...


Thanks. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about then. Just shoot both!


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 16, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> This is why I like to hang out on this forum. The people here are awesome. Great knowledge to be had, and friends to be made.



Yes, there are lots of talented people here. I suck at portraits, and taking pictures of people in general, so I've developed a deep appreciation for those that excel at it


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


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



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


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Here we go again - demanding the best possible IQ and mps - and then suggesting using jpeg which degrades the IQ as soon as any pp is done.
> 
> Shooters taking candids/sports/wildlife/birding CANNOT guarantee to get the perfect exposure everytime so as soon as they touch the levels - oops there goes the IQ.
> 
> ...



I think you hit the nail on the head. 

Raw=maximum quality
Jpeg=maximum convenience 

I always shoot raw. That said, I recently shot a wedding where the couple wanted to put the ceremony/portraits in a slideshow during the reception. Jpeg to the rescue! Raw to CF, Jpeg to SD. 

Also, I want to note that now with my 5d3, im ALWAYS shooting raw to CF and Jpeg to SD as backup. Yes, the buffer fills faster, but I dont care. Jpegs are small enough to fit thousands upon thousands of photos on one card, so I can basically keep my sd card in there all the time, from shoot to shoot, without formatting or removing it. That way if something unfortunate were to happen to my CF card, or (not that it ever happens) if i accidentally format the wrong CF card, the jpegs are safe and sound. Plus, if I shoot a couple photos and accidentally delete one that i wanted to keep, (not often, but it has happened) then the jpeg is still there since it only can delete from one card at a time. 

If I took a trip somewhere and i was going to take 10k images, I would still shoot raw. Call me crazy. Then again, I have an overclocked beast of a computer to power through the processing, but yea. Thats just me. 

Oh and to the comment about the camera applying certain processing to the photo to make it look better than an unmodified raw output... Lightroom has presets, so it can do the same thing upon import. The camera applies settings that lightroom doesn't have access to? Use a third party lens. Lightroom knows tricks the camera doesnt then! 

So yea, both formats have their merits. Different strokes for different folks. *NUFF SAID. Capisce?*


----------



## unkbob (Apr 16, 2012)

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

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


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 16, 2012)

unkbob said:


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



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


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 16, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > Who is responsible for this great pearl of wisdom? Ken Rockwell?
> ...


Who didn't deserve that? Ken Rockwell  ?



helpful said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## unkbob (Apr 16, 2012)

Tcapp said:


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



I was being serious! Sounds like Ken to me.

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


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 16, 2012)

helpful said:


> Totally agree. The people who wear T-shirts "I shoot raw" and only shoot raw are generally pro wananbes and not pros. I have worked for clients all over who want JPEGS, and the USATF wanted only Small JPEGs for their national Olympics.
> 
> RAW files basically give someone about 6 more bits of leeway if they took the picture wrong. The final used and delivered result never has more than the output from a JPEG, anyway.
> 
> ...



lol!

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

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

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


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

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

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

Try this out, it's a great system.


----------



## iso79 (Apr 16, 2012)

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


----------



## smithy (Apr 16, 2012)

iso79 said:


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


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


----------



## unkbob (Apr 16, 2012)

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


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 16, 2012)

V8Beast said:


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



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


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


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



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


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 16, 2012)

awinphoto said:


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



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


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


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



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


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


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



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


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 16, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Hey - did you miss the humour there?


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



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


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 16, 2012)

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


----------



## moreorless (Apr 16, 2012)

unkbob said:


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



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


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 16, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


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



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


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 16, 2012)

moreorless said:


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



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


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 16, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > unkbob said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## unkbob (Apr 16, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



The JPEG/RAW argument is a little daft. It's like saying oil paint is better or worse than pastels (yet you don't see courtroom artists using oil paint). Whether JPEG / RAW / both are the best option are dependent on what the image is for, how much time is available and how it will be reproduced. If time is a factor (because of urgency or low payment per image) then of course jpeg has its uses. But for many of us, processing is part of our style / brand and the type of work I do (mostly weddings) allows me to put more emphasis on an individual image. My work is not time sensitive and just about pays well enough per image for me to treat a photograph more like a piece of art than a commodity.

Plenty of fine art, fashion and advertising photography makes my wedding work look like a snapshot with a disposable camera - but for that kind of polished imagery where post production is so important, jpeg is obviously not an option. On the other end of the scale is a picture of a drunk celebrity falling out of a nightclub with a hooker on each arm - an editor could care less about framing, colour, white balance etc - they just want a clean, clearly identifiable shot which tells a story, and they want it now. That's the epitome of photography as a commodity. It takes skill, but not refinement. Nothing wrong with a commodity at all - money is money and we all have to pay the rent. But the less control you have over the final product, because you're letting the camera or an editor do the processing, the more your work becomes a commodity.

>>Plus many Roes based photo labs prefer to accept files in jpeg rather than tiffs or psd... kinda says something. 

Yes it kinda says that jpeg files are small. It has zero relevance to the value of jpeg as a starting point for post processing.


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


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



True enough. The D800 jpeg did seem rather boring.



awinphoto said:


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



Judging by everything else Ken does and says, I'm sure he never bothered to learn how to use any pp software (other than the saturation slider). Rather than learning it, he just dismisses it. Besides, he was probably too busy writing his version of the birds and the bees to learn anything that would be relevant to his "website".


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 16, 2012)

If you guys read my prior posts I was not saying that jpegs are the all to be all, nor was I saying that jpegs were as good as raw files at large sizes, but I am saying that there are times, even for the professional workflow, when a OOC files are more than appropriate... High quantity shooting, editorial, website only clients, small print clients, etc... Not everything needs to be RAW processed and for the quantity of shooting I can on occasion shoot, if I was to do raw processing for everything, i would be out of business a long time ago. Yes for large prints... for portfolio work... for times when you want to guarantee maximum quality or when you think you may be doing heavy post processing and want the best files to work with, yes, raw has it's place. The whole debate of the raw only or your amateur is silly but not respecting the raw ability is just as silly. Lastly, my comment regarding Roes systems, I know a lot of pro labs use roes systems, they only take jpegs... My point was if jpeg file formats were that inferior to tiff or psd, they, especially pro labs would demand you give them the tiff/psd... But in the end what quality jpeg and processing you had to do to get the file OOC jpeg/RAW in order to get the final result is all up to the photographer and his or her techniques and workflow to get there.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 16, 2012)

helpful said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



umm no

i mean yeah some pros use jpgs but many also use RAW, even non-studio/landscape pros

and no the in camera jpgs do not get access to extra info, HTP doesn't do any of the things you say, all it does is shoot at 1 stop slower ISO and set a few flags in the RAW file for JPG it takes that RAW data and then simply applies a special ton curve at top and slide most of the image back up 1 stop, so you save 1 stop of highlights at the price of losing one stop of shadow detail. You can do the same exact thing by just under-exposing 1 stop yourself and then applying a different tone curve when you process.


----------



## vbi (Apr 16, 2012)

Well...it fits my existing Canon lenses better than the D800


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 16, 2012)

vbi said:


> Well...it fits my existing Canon lenses better than the D800



Way to get us back on topic! lol. I almost didn't even know what you were talking about till I went back up to see what the original question was.


----------



## bp (Apr 16, 2012)

why bother getting back on topic? the whole D800 vs. 5D3 topic is so far past the "beaten to a pulp" phase. This dead horse of a topic has been beaten into a fine mist.

Forum junkies, dxo chart loving spec geeks, nikon fanbois masquerading as current canon users, and ticked off landscape shooters (none of whom have actually tried the camera) will continue to bash the 5D3, while professional shooters who are actually out enjoying their 5D3 will disagree and sing it's praises (wedding/event/low-light shooters especially). wash rinse repeat 

I don't personally know a single 5D3 owner who isn't happy with it, and I know quite a few... But I'll admit I know more people shooters, who're more likely to be shooting in low available light. Don't know any landscape shooters. I love mine. AF performance alone made it worth the upgrade. And don't even get me started on the ISO performance. If you think the D800 is awesome... great, go buy one. It's apparently a very capable camera, and I'm sure it'll serve you well (especially if you dig ginormous raw files for stills or horrible moire in video.... argh, now i'm stooping to that level aren't I - darnit).


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 17, 2012)

bp said:


> (especially if you dig ginormous raw files for stills or horrible moire in video.... argh, now i'm stooping to that level aren't I - darnit).



The file size argument is ridiculous. I started an external hard drive business after the D800 was announced, and since it's release sales have been booming. In fact, I'm about to start a new "Buy a 1TB hard drive, and get 4 gigs of RAM for free" promotion. At this rate, I'll be pimpin' a 1Dx in no time ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 17, 2012)

bp said:


> why bother getting back on topic? the whole D800 vs. 5D3 topic is so far past the "beaten to a pulp" phase. This dead horse of a topic has been beaten into a fine mist.
> 
> Forum junkies, dxo chart loving spec geeks, nikon fanbois masquerading as current canon users, and ticked off landscape shooters (none of whom have actually tried the camera) will continue to bash the 5D3, while professional shooters who are actually out enjoying their 5D3 will disagree and sing it's praises (wedding/event/low-light shooters especially). wash rinse repeat
> 
> ...



umm maybe stooping just a few levels of hell lower hah wow


----------



## James Tang (Apr 17, 2012)

Sorry I am new here but it does seem to me that we can always get the best of both worlds, shoot RAW with a JPEG copy anyway.

As a Canon user, I came from using Nikomat film camera 25 years back and still have one working. So to most of the people, unless fanboys, any system has its own merit and problems.

Regards


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 17, 2012)

bp said:


> why bother getting back on topic? the whole D800 vs. 5D3 topic is so far past the "beaten to a pulp" phase. This dead horse of a topic has been beaten into a fine mist.
> 
> Forum junkies, dxo chart loving spec geeks, nikon fanbois masquerading as current canon users, and ticked off landscape shooters (none of whom have actually tried the camera) will continue to bash the 5D3, while professional shooters who are actually out enjoying their 5D3 will disagree and sing it's praises (wedding/event/low-light shooters especially). wash rinse repeat
> 
> I don't personally know a single 5D3 owner who isn't happy with it, and I know quite a few... But I'll admit I know more people shooters, who're more likely to be shooting in low available light. Don't know any landscape shooters. I love mine. AF performance alone made it worth the upgrade. And don't even get me started on the ISO performance. If you think the D800 is awesome... great, go buy one. It's apparently a very capable camera, and I'm sure it'll serve you well (especially if you dig ginormous raw files for stills or horrible moire in video.... argh, now i'm stooping to that level aren't I - darnit).



Good point. I am very pleased with the 5D3. Just shot a nude female spread in low light this weekend and I couldn't ask for more in a camera. "Whatever" to all the D800 lovers and to those talking out of non-experience lol.


----------



## zim (Apr 17, 2012)

Ah so it IS better at photographing nude women, I'm for havin one of them. make it two ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## AprilForever (Apr 17, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> helpful said:
> 
> 
> > Bosman said:
> ...



Actually, the pros I know all shoot raw for anything at all important... And, no, raw isn't for just if you messed up the shot. There are scenes where JPG's lack of DR is swatted by raw everytime. I shoot mostly birds; when I switched from JPG to RAW, the colors came out better, the noise cleaned up better, the images became sharper, they looked a whole lot better because of retained shadow and highlights. So, no. Shooting jpg doesn't make you an enlightened genius who sees what the other pros do not. I just loses information.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 18, 2012)

Part II of the excellent Camera Store 5d III vs. D800 shootout. Canon really shines in this one.

Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800 Part 2 with Mike Drew


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 18, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> Actually, the pros I know all shoot raw for anything at all important... And, no, raw isn't for just if you messed up the shot. There are scenes where JPG's lack of DR is swatted by raw everytime. I shoot mostly birds; when I switched from JPG to RAW, the colors came out better, the noise cleaned up better, the images became sharper, they looked a whole lot better because of retained shadow and highlights. So, no. Shooting jpg doesn't make you an enlightened genius who sees what the other pros do not. I just loses information.



It depends a lot on the body, too. If I shot on a APS-C body, I'd use raw all the time. Otherwise, jpegs fall apart rather quickly in post, even for simple tweaks. I've found that jpeg files from full-frame bodies are much more forgiving. Arguing either way is pointless, since it's all personal preference.


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 18, 2012)

I've got nothing against any other brands (pentax, leica, nikon, etc.) and I'd switch in a heartbeat if necessary. The D800 looks like a great camera, but with that said, I'd rather prefer the 5DIII and I want one badly. For me the high FPS makes me actually prefer it. The D800 and larger file resolution does not make me want to switch at all. From what I can see, enlarging a 5DIII file or reducing a D800 file results in approximately the same end product, and I have enough editing skills to make either end file do what it needs to for a final print. If I really need the higher resolution, I'll gladly wait for Canon's upcoming high mega-pixel release or if I could afford it (which I can't) just go to medium format.

Having a 7D, 5DIII and Canon's upcoming high-mp release actually sounds quite good but if the high-mp release doesn't far exceed the D800 while keeping the features of the 5DIII I would without question simply get 2x 5DIII's instead. I could buy a 5DIII now (I'm not holding out for any other camera release or system switch) but I think I'm going to continue to invest in Canon glass at the moment and pick one up when the first or second wave of sales rolls in, the price is a bit hefty but understandable. I really want one right now though and if it weren't for reports of a potential need for a recall or update and the stock shortages I might consider just jumping the gun and putting it on my photography/computer credit line, the machine looks amazing and is basically everything I wanted out of a non-1D/permanent battery gripped sized body. I would not be surprised if I got one before the end of the year or sooner, or just shortly there after. Just ordered a 135 f/2L about 40 minutes ago and looking for more glass.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 18, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> It depends a lot on the body, too. If I shot on a APS-C body, I'd use raw all the time. Otherwise, jpegs fall apart rather quickly in post, even for simple tweaks. I've found that jpeg files from full-frame bodies are much more forgiving. Arguing either way is pointless, since it's all personal preference.



I'm shooing aps-c and shoot raw because of the *huge* dr difference to jpeg when using highlight recovery - esp. in LR4 there's no drawback in contrast to "recovery" in LR3 which dulls the picture. If you write that ff jpegs are more "forgiving" (I don't doubt that): Why exactly is that? Does the mk2 etc put more dr into the jpegs than my 60d?


----------



## photojrs (Apr 18, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> This fourm is like a bunch of 10 year old boys arguing over if Batman can kick Superman's ass.



How true! People should spend more time on taking high quality photos than than to participate in flamewars in the forums.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 18, 2012)

photojrs said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > This fourm is like a bunch of 10 year old boys arguing over if Batman can kick Superman's ass.
> ...



So says the person who joined and made his first post to add to the flaming.

Its all silly, can we just get back to the topic? I mean, EVERY 9 year old boy worth his salt knows Superman will kick Batman all over the place


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 18, 2012)

I touched a D800 yesterday.

Then I bought a Canon lens ;D


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 18, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> photojrs said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Flather said:
> ...



Lol....then you probably need to read "the Dark knight" by Frank Miller. Batam knocks out Superman's powers and goes toe to toe with him as motals....Batman mashes him. But the point is....it's trajic and they were always friends.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 18, 2012)

Here is my summary:

*5D3 wins:*
-2 fps faster.

-lower video noise at high ISO levels.

-higher maximum ISO values on paper (useful is another matter). However the D800 matches it quite easily when downsampled except in the values it can't shoot:
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-review#iso_performance 
(click next at the bottom of the page to see 5d2 vs d53 vs d800 comparisons)

-less moire on video (almost non issue) BUT sub standard resolution. quoted as resolving just around 720p levels. waxy looking video.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review

On the other hand, the D800 could be made to control moire with an aftermarket filter
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7809/mosaic-engineering-working-on-nikon-d800-anti-moire-filter

With the 5DmkIII can aid the poor video resolution by removing the OLP (which in turn introduces problems in your stills that the OLP solves)
OLP
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase


*D800 wins:*
-less low ISO noise than 5DmkIII namely pattern noise at ISO 100 which the 5DmkIII suffers just as its predecesor
http://diglloyd.com/

-still image resolution (duh), detail, DR, low ISO, crop flexibility, downsample flexibility.

-better metering module with face recognition (sees color unlike the 5DmkIII's ancient one). It more closely resembles the 1Dx in this regard which is impressive for a $3K body to sport flagship level metering module.

-optional model w/o anti alias filter equivalent.

-superior video resolution using its internal codec (samples 2240 x1260 internally)
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7590/first-truly-representative-nikon-d800-video-footage-dxomark-says-sensor-is-best-ever
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7788/classified-no-longer-how-the-nikon-d800s-36mp-sensor-line-skips-for-1080p

- 8bit 4:2:2 color uncompressed clean HDMI out (self explanatory) for recording on a Ninja or similar device.

-crop mode for video mode.

-USB 3 (finally)

AF-wise both are likely to be neck and neck and down to the photographer's skill and technique to win. Ergonomics are subjective.


----------



## grog13 (Apr 18, 2012)

Radiating said:


> I'm not trying to bash the 5D3, as I'm actually a Canon fan and will be getting the 5D3, but can anyone think of one major feature that the 5D3 does better than the D800?



So why are you getting the 5d3??


----------



## birdman (Apr 18, 2012)

I own the 5d2, and have the D800 on preorder. But the more I wait on the D800 which has never arrived, the more I see that the 5d3 may be a better option for me. 

Two things the 5d3 ACTUALLY DOES BETTER than the D800: High ISO (6,400 and above) and faster FPS. Also, has better battery life and seemingly better JPG engine. Yes, I shoot RAW as well as JPEG. I like to see my jpegs after I load my CF stick into my PS3 over my 40" Samsung LED screen. That way, I get a sense of what I have to work with on the RAW files. 

Both are super duper machines, but each fits a different purpose. Canon has much better telephoto lens choices, and their primes are a wash vs. Nikon. Let me list all the lenses you cannot get in Nikon's arsenal: 70-200 f/4.0 (IS or non-IS); professional grade 70-300L; 300mm f/4.0 IS; 400mm 5.6L; 100-400L; 50mm 1.2; 17mm TSE......Need I go on? I think u can make the same arguments with some Nikon lenses. I like Canon's arsenal WAY better, but that's just me.


----------



## woofmeow (Apr 18, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> I am very pleased with the 5D3. Just shot a nude female spread in low light this weekend and I couldn't ask for more in a camera.


post some samples


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 18, 2012)

woofmeow said:


> takoman46 said:
> 
> 
> > I am very pleased with the 5D3. Just shot a nude female spread in low light this weekend and I couldn't ask for more in a camera.
> ...



+1 you cant leave us hanging like this haha


----------



## tron (Apr 18, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> woofmeow said:
> 
> 
> > takoman46 said:
> ...


 ;D


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 18, 2012)

poias said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > > That is because Canon users are getting hosed and they know it. I have been a loyal Canon buyer for almost my entire pro life and I feel like Nikon has better technology and value. Why settle for less?
> ...



Wow, going through this mega topic and astonished at the sillyness! Clearly inferior? not seeing it. Looking at all the specs listed in this topic that claim inferior, the vast majority of them are untested and unknown - so stop acting like both of these cameras have been out for a year, stop acting like droves of clients are ditching their togs who shoot canon's cause they want giant sized prints of their kids (for most of us that will be the difference in MP's, not cropping...how many brides are saying ---please i want full wall sized 8 foot by 12 foot print???????)


----------



## bp (Apr 18, 2012)

ROFL - "canon users are getting hosed and they know it"

He's right, and you know it. I mean, for years, D700 shooters were laughed out of the room at any professional shoot, because they hadn't switched over to the Canon 5D Mk2, which had so many more megapixels, and that's all that matters. BTW, Ryan Brenizer is a noob who doesn't know what he's talking about, Ken Rockwell isn't leaning towards crowning the 5D3 as "best DSLR" - his blog was actually hacked by canon fanbois who are part of "Anonymous", and there aren't droves of VERY happy 5D3 owners. We're all just lying to save face. 

I'm in total agreement. /snark


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 18, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> photojrs said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Flather said:
> ...




Unless Batman has cryptonite!!!!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 18, 2012)

I reckon both cameras are very good - they have to be to survive in a competative marketplace. They just have things that differentiate them from each other - and the buyers just buy the one they want. Brand loyalty only goes so far as agreeing to take a haircut on the brand specific equipment.

Any 10 year old would know that Superman and Batman are good guys and would join forces with Yoda to beat those on the dark side


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 18, 2012)

After reading this whole topic from stem to stern ----I feel like the only way for me to go forward as a professional is to change my whole approach! Instead of shooting and displaying images ---I will shoot then send the images to a lab to perform all the various tests, get a detailed report and present the report to my clients...they will then choose the images which have the highest test scores. I have a lot of work to do then deleting alll of my images, because its the specs that matter, not the image itself. After reading this thread I am convinced this is the new best approach!


I hope you sensed the sarcasm there. When it comes down to it, each tool has its own purpose. And each user has its own clients and needs. As someone marketing themselves to the regular folk in need of fine portraits, whenever I meet a new friend or visit a new home I look at what sitting in the frames, on the desk, mounted on the walls. Most of what I see is bad IQ quality shots from point and clicks, but the moments are special. So when you sort it all out, what matters more for the general client is the ability to capture a unique moment, without that you end up in that place of sending clients a chart of IQ rather than images. The general client doesn't give a rats ass about most of the stuff we as photogs obsess about. 

If your working in more of a studio setup with more discerning clients, honestly, lighting makes way more of a difference than camera body, with possibly the exception of the need to print insanely large prints. And if you are selling insanely large prints, lets think of the market on that - from the print shop I go through to print at 40x80 (largest my very good local print shop goes) my cost is $200 - add your markup and the overall price comes to $1000-3000. If your selling enough prints at that size for it to matter, investing in 2 camera systems or more shouldn't be an issue for you at all (one sale is enough to afford either camera system.

I do also shoot art, and for that purpose, yeah, the d800 is attractive (as would any high MP beast). Do I sell enough to warrant buying an 'art only' camera? No, right now my income is split fairly equally between art, events, and portraits. So for me and my current income and current needs, if I were to upgrade from my 7D, the 5d3 would be my best choice. If my art sales accounted for a greater amount of my income, then yes I probably would be giving the d800 a good look. But even then, if my art sales were enough to justify the purchase of a d800, why does that mean yard sale everything else? I'd use the same logic as I am in keeping my 7D - if art is the focus of the d800 then why would i want to be putting a ton of miles on it shooting events for clients that don't want prints at all - clients that want nothing more than 900x600 jpegs to post on their website? 

I am not high rolling by any means - i am a start up business going on my second year - so don't take my next statement as coming from some high rolling pro with tons of income. What I don't get about all this is with both the d800 and the 5d3, we're talking about professional camera's designed for professionals. A $500 difference should not be a deal breaker unless the differences were so off the charts that it reallly made no sense (like if the new model was exactly the same as the mk2 for $3500). 

For the sake of nitpicking though, and, I really have nothing else to do for the next hour so here we go:

Price:

So, the fps is not an advantage of the mk3 over d800 cause all you need is that grip? Grip cost is $450. So to have a d800 that can match the frames per second mk3, cost becomes $3450. That equals it out quite nicely, so now price isn't an option.

"AA filter: Inferior"
Also, based on cost, if you want the AA filter removed you have to get the d800e - list price is $3300 on that. Again, this is more directed to those complaining of the cost of the mk3 and how they would so buy it if it was cheaper, I rarely see it pointed out that the 'e' model of the d800 is only $200 shy of the mk3 (back it up to the above point, if you want the extra fps your still paying $450 for the grip, which brings the cost up to $3750.

"Pop up Flash: Inferior"...i don't even get why this is in there at all????? i mean, if the d800 is meant for studio and landscape photography, what good does the popup flash do you? Are you triggering studio lights from your pop up????? How is this an issue to bring up at all?????

"Noise: Equal"
Not really. From everything I have read about the 2 bodies, the nikon has the edge in lower ISO's and the canon has the edge in the higher ISO's - I don't think you can claim them as equal, each user has to make the decision as to which trade off they want. And if your a pro, then it comes back to my very first statment in this reply - yeah, the very sarcastic who cares about the image itself, its all about the specs. If you are using canon now, and selling your work, do you really think your customers are going to pack up and buy from someone else based on DXO ratings? When you print and mat and frame are you titling the picture (D800 or 5dmk3?) Does the person standing in the gallery admiring the shot say, I love this piece, but i see it was shot on ____ as opposed to _____ so i just can't have it in my living room? And if your a studio shooter ---are you going to change your signage, ad's, biz cards to say you can trust me, I have camera (fill in the blank)? 

"Video: Inferior"
This only really applies if what you do is video. As a still photographer, this has absolutely no bearing on my decisions. If what you do is video though, then yes, the video options and performance trump all. Double edged sword though - that would also mean that non of the standard still features would make a difference to you either. 

Everything else is that list is purely subjective I think. What are your needs? If your in business, what makes the most sense. both are fine camera's. One has this edge, the other has another edge - if it makes that much of a difference to your business, then get the one that makes most sense! And if your not in business, then the whole argument changes. Sorry if this pisses off the hobbyists, but, at that stage it's pretty much about having something nicer than the other guy. I'm better than you cause i have a BMW, its much nicer than your acura, oh, but I am better than you cause I have a better BMW than your BMW.

Finally, I will end by returning to the utterly sarcastic opening. If you show an image to a client and they smile - do you interrupt the moment by telling the customer about how much DR the image has? And conversely, if they frown at the image, do you interrupt and tell the client, but it has this much DR? Again, are you selling a chart of data, or a finely crafted image?


----------



## smithy (Apr 18, 2012)

If it weren't for my modest (but significant for me) investment in my two L series lenses, I would _probably_ buy the D800 right now, due to its lower price point. It is $635 cheaper than the 5D where I live, which is not an insignificant amount - particularly if it can outperform or equal the 5D. I've only ever used Canon SLRs since buying the EOS 500N in 1997, but despite this, I don't believe in the concept of brand loyalty unless they give me something for free or they have an outstanding track record for reliability...

I really wish the 5D had 14 stops of DR too - that's what my black and white film is capable of (and it looks stunning), so I could probably shoot less film, or give it up entirely.


----------



## bp (Apr 18, 2012)

Anyone who blanketly states "Video: Inferior" has never had to explain what moire is, and why it ruined a shot, to a paying client. Not a fun conversation to have. They also most likely have not tried to shoot video at high ISO's in an uncontrollable situation

To a run-n-gun documentary shooter, or an event shooter (i.e. weddings, theatrical events), the combination of zero moire and USABLE 12600 ISO... the 5D3 is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Would I have liked it to resolve a few more lines of resolution? SURE! Would I be willing to give up it's immunity to moire and aliasing for those lines? Not a chance. I finally have a camera where I can stop down if necessary (i.e. flying on my steadicam) and not worry about that brick wall, or that stack of cardboard boxes in the background. To call moire a non-issue is just ignorant IMHO


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 18, 2012)

bp said:


> Anyone who blanketly states "Video: Inferior" has never had to explain what moire is, and why it ruined a shot, to a paying client. Not a fun conversation to have. They also most likely have not tried to shoot video at high ISO's in an uncontrollable situation
> 
> To a run-n-gun documentary shooter, or an event shooter (i.e. weddings, theatrical events), the combination of zero moire and USABLE 12600 ISO... the 5D3 is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
> 
> Would I have liked it to resolve a few more lines of resolution? SURE! Would I be willing to give up it's immunity to moire and aliasing for those lines? Not a chance. I finally have a camera where I can stop down if necessary (i.e. flying on my steadicam) and not worry about that brick wall, or that stack of cardboard boxes in the background. To call moire a non-issue is just ignorant IMHO



Yeah I don't get the talk about the 5D3 video being inferior to the D800 video. (sure they were ridiculous in leaving out zebra strips, poor in leaving out focus peaking and ridiculous in leaving out a truly crisp 1.6x crop 2x2 C300-like sampled 1920x1080 mode but those are different matters, ones the NEED to address in firmware, at least one can be done for sure in firmware and quite possibly all three) Anyway back to the 5D3 vs D800, well yeah the D800 is a little sharper but who cares when it has more aliasing and can get horrible color moire at times?!? The D800 also has at least 1.5 stops worse SNR for video (it might have a touch more DR at ISO100 video, but that is about the only plus) across the board.

Speaking of stills, the 5D3 IS a pretty awesome cam. It has good fps, great AF (so it sounds), etc. The only big let down is they mungled the sensor low ISO performance. It's not really any better than the 5D2 at all and the D800 is much better with much more dynamic range. The DR at low ISO is the one real let down with the 5D3 for me. I had really expected an improvement there as a given. The fps and AF and UI improvements are awesome though.

The price seems a touch high since they didn't improve low ISO at all, although if you can find it for credit card cashback it's not so bad I guess.

Anyway they did get the body specs for AF, fps, UI, etc. right this time. Good stuff. Really good stuff.


----------



## bp (Apr 18, 2012)

Yeah, crisp 1.6 crop would be a nice firmware bump. But I'm glad they didn't include zebra or focus peaking.

If they had, then my wife could make the argument that my SmallHD was a waste of money. And I love that thing. rofl


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 18, 2012)

bp said:


> But I'm glad they didn't include zebra or focus peaking.



In that case, please don't tell your wife that you can use focus peaking and zebras and more with magic lantern on the t2i to 5d2 - actually, anything *but* the 5d3 (and 7d) :->


----------



## bp (Apr 18, 2012)

YEP - well, truth be told, I do use ML for those features on the 5D2 and the T2i - (auto-restart is the bomb). In the older models, ironically, the SmallHD is really only stellar on the 7D, where it doesn't downscale as soon as you hit record. You lose all that glorious resolution while recording on the 5D2...

Wish Canon would hurry up with the first 5d3 firmware update - regardless of what it addresses - so that the ML people can dig in! ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 18, 2012)

bp said:


> Wish Canon would hurry up with the first 5d3 firmware update - regardless of what it addresses - so that the ML people can dig in!



I don't have a 5d3 and thus have not followed ml development for it - but I wouldn't be sure if there'll be a ml for it at all because Canon might have encrypted/signed the firmware updates better this time - and no modified firmware means no boot flag means no ml...


----------



## bp (Apr 18, 2012)

As of right now, they don't know if security has changed. I watch their Google Group for news - one of the devs attempted a firmware dump, but it didn't work. I think most of them are waiting on canon to release a firmware before they can say if it's even worth trying. Might not be possible at all, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 19, 2012)

tron said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > woofmeow said:
> ...



I thought about this... and I really would if it wouldn't violate the modeling agreement. On my end, I'm only allowed to show the photos to other prospective clients I meet with as sample images of my work.  Also, are there any rules on this forums about posting age restricted content? I wouldn't want to offend those who are not interested in viewing such explicit photos and get banned from this great forum! ;D

Maybe I can post cropped in versions that do not reveal the model's identity and also crop out explicit areas of the photo??? Like this:





So for the sake of this being a forum for Canon Cameras: 
Shot on 5D Mark III (no speedlite or studio lighting setup) w/ EF 24-70 f/2.8L @ f/5.6, 1/60 sec, ISO 8000
The available light was just three lamps with 60 watt CFL bulbs that can be commonly found in a hotel room. FYI I did a full shoot with strobes and diffusers but I worked it out a deal with the client explaining that I wanted to do some test shots after the formal shoot with the 5D Mark III since it is a new camera lol. She... I mean IT is amazing! There was no post noise reduction performed and I just corrected white balance in the above crop, brought down some highlights, and there you have it! Also, this is a pretty small crop of the original. Anybody still need 36 megapixels? j/k lol


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 19, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm shooing aps-c and shoot raw because of the *huge* dr difference to jpeg when using highlight recovery - esp. in LR4 there's no drawback in contrast to "recovery" in LR3 which dulls the picture. If you write that ff jpegs are more "forgiving" (I don't doubt that): Why exactly is that? Does the mk2 etc put more dr into the jpegs than my 60d?



I'm not exactly sure why, since I'm not the most tech savvy person out there  Not sure how a 60D stacks up to a MKII either, since I haven't shot with either of them. My APS-C experience is limited to the 10D, 20D, and 7D while the 5DC and 5DIII are my FF bodies. With the FF jpeg files, there's more headroom in highlight recovery compared to the APS-C files before the midtones and shadows lose detail. Likewise, it's easier to recover the shadows with FF jpegs without affecting the midtones and highlights, and there's far less noise as well. Obviously, raw files are different story. 

This is based on editing in various versions of photoshop and LR3. I haven't tinkered with LR4 yet, but it sounds it offers some more flexibility in highlight recovery.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 19, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Part II of the excellent Camera Store 5d III vs. D800 shootout. Canon really shines in this one.
> 
> Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800 Part 2 with Mike Drew



What I like a lot about this 2 part series is that it really seemed fair. Unlike many of where the personal bias is really noticeable. It was most interesting to see how often the canon shooter praised the nikon and vice versa. And the most notable conclusions based on both videos ---

If your already shooting canon, there's no need to switch, and if your already shooting nikon there's no reason to switch...


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 20, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> If your already shooting canon, there's no need to switch, and if your already shooting nikon there's no reason to switch...



Perfect summary of the overall topic


----------



## smithy (Apr 20, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > If your already shooting canon, there's no need to switch, and if your already shooting nikon there's no reason to switch...
> ...


Except for the obvious spelling mistake. Sorry, couldn't help myself. ;D


----------



## D_Rochat (May 20, 2012)

http://youtu.be/opyNMck9Jhk


----------



## birdman (May 20, 2012)

While I hate to mention his name on this site, KRockwell has determined that the 5d3 is the BETTER camera. Haha. 

Not that it isn't....I don't know that answer. I do know that KR benefits from folks clicking on his links to buy cameras that are actually shipping. And this leads us to the most available of the new DSLRs-- 5d3. 

I am no longer going to believe that anyone has a motive, other than profit, in recommending gear over other gear---unless we're on forums. forget DXO, DPREVIEW, DSLR magazines, etc. There is a profit motive with ALL OF THEM!!! and no sarcastic responses please. It's just my thoughts on how people on the line (housewives, amateurs, teenagers, middle-aged adults) can be persuaded by capitalists.


----------



## tron (May 21, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Nice pixels ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 21, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> http://youtu.be/opyNMck9Jhk



Yeah 5D3 takes the win for video.
If they add zebra, focus peaking and a sharp 1920x1080 1.6x crop mode and option for higher non-All-I bitrates then it will really, really take it. It would be awesome to get 10bit out, would help tremendously in post, otherwise you need to have the perfect profile for each shooting condition.


----------



## V8Beast (May 21, 2012)

birdman said:


> While I hate to mention his name on this site, KRockwell has determined that the 5d3 is the BETTER camera. Haha.
> 
> Not that it isn't....I don't know that answer. I do know that KR benefits from folks clicking on his links to buy cameras that are actually shipping. And this leads us to the most available of the new DSLRs-- 5d3.



Damn, I'm going to have to sell my 5D3, and buy a D800 now :-[


----------



## moreorless (May 21, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > If your already shooting canon, there's no need to switch, and if your already shooting nikon there's no reason to switch...
> ...



Seems to me there is a potential reason to switch if your use falls into the areas each camera excells at(Resolution/DR for the D800, FPS, Video and high ISO for the 5D3) but I'd say that doing so right now might not be a good idea if you've got a large investment in glass given that there are strong rumours both manifacturers may target those areas with another body reasonabley soon.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 21, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> birdman said:
> 
> 
> > While I hate to mention his name on this site, KRockwell has determined that the 5d3 is the BETTER camera. Haha.
> ...



That was my thought too


----------



## RLPhoto (May 21, 2012)

17 Pages? Really Now Guys? Where the dead horse was beaten to death, Is now a large canyon from sea to glistening sea. Can we continue this savagery on the 5D3? ???

what happened to the awesome threads like this one?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6019.0

Over ten years ago, Most of us were shooting film or early digitals which weren't that good compared to the great cams we have today.

Dunno, I was suprised to still see this thread alive and well.


----------



## D_Rochat (May 22, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> 17 Pages? Really Now Guys? Where the dead horse was beaten to death, Is now a large canyon from sea to glistening sea. Can we continue this savagery on the 5D3? ???
> 
> what happened to the awesome threads like this one?
> 
> ...



I'll take the blame for digging this one up, but it was only to link the new Camera Store video that was just uploaded. The first two videos were put on here and I thought I'd link the third. Like the videos show, not one camera is the clear winner and they both are amazing. Whether it's in this thread or another, the Canon vs Nikon thing will continue no matter what.


----------



## iso79 (May 22, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> I'll take the blame for digging this one up, but it was only to link the new Camera Store video that was just uploaded. The first two videos were put on here and I thought I'd link the third. Like the videos show, not one camera is the clear winner and they both are amazing. Whether it's in this thread or another, the Canon vs Nikon thing will continue no matter what.



I dunno about you but they were leaning a lot towards the Mark III for a lot of things in all three videos but didn't want to show a clear winner to show that they were unbiased. The only real advantage the D800 is megapixels and slightly better dynamic range. Sadly that's what a lot of people care about these days.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 22, 2012)

iso79 said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take the blame for digging this one up, but it was only to link the new Camera Store video that was just uploaded. The first two videos were put on here and I thought I'd link the third. Like the videos show, not one camera is the clear winner and they both are amazing. Whether it's in this thread or another, the Canon vs Nikon thing will continue no matter what.
> ...



make that massively better DR

and why is that sad? Is it sad if someone cares more about 6fps in FF mode or video without moire or clean, smooth 100% view in liveview? no? so why is carrying about dynamic range sad? why was it not sad to care when 5D2 had way more MP than the D700? the only thing I see is that if nikon has something better then it's a sad person who cares about those aspects and if Canon has something better well then of course that stuff should matter ;D

other than some cripplings in video and the sad old-school low iso dynamic range the 5D3 is excellent, fantastic

D800 has lots of MP and amazing low ISO quality and moired video and poor liveview and no 6fps without grip, etc. it's not sad to care about any of those aspects or not


----------



## jspiteri (May 23, 2012)

It is interesting how much the ADL (Active D-Lighting) does to the D800 images , as seen in DP reviews dynamic range tests (images below). Source: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/19 

It can be seen in the last image, albeit less dramatically.


----------



## moreorless (May 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > D_Rochat said:
> ...



Surely his point is that resolution/DR is "all" alot of people seem to care about. Personally I find myself in that position mostly taking landscapes and would probabley buy a D800 if I upgraded to FF(most of my investment is in EF-S lenses anyway) but it does seem to me that alot of amature reviews are focused on these areas to the almost total exclusion of everything else.

The net photographic community generally has a bias towards these areas IMHO, partly i'd say because its something that easier to quantify for users who'll never own or never use these cameras in situations were features like FPS and AF will be important factors.


----------



## V8Beast (May 23, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Surely his point is that resolution/DR is "all" alot of people seem to care about. Personally I find myself in that position mostly taking landscapes and would probabley buy a D800 if I upgraded to FF(most of my investment is in EF-S lenses anyway) but it does seem to me that alot of amature reviews are focused on these areas to the almost total exclusion of everything else.
> 
> The net photographic community generally has a bias towards these areas IMHO, partly i'd say because its something that easier to quantify for users who'll never own or never use these cameras in situations were features like FPS and AF will be important factors.



Yes, the 'net is fixated on DR and resolution at the moment, but prior to the 5D3 announcement, much if not most of the talk revolved around AF. There was the occasional resolution debate, but many people wanted to talk about was how many AF points they needed. "Cross-type points" was the catch phrase back then, and pulling an arbitrary number of cross-type AF points out of your ass was en vogue ;D

Other common declarations:

"There's no way Canon will ever put a 1-series AF system in a 5D3."

"We'll be lucky if Canon puts the 7D AF system in the 5D3."

"Canon will never put the 1Dx's AF system in anything other than a 1Dx." 


Welp, Canon proved those claims wrong, addressed the most glaring weaknesses of the 5D2, but now the hot topic is DR and Canon still sucks.


----------



## Kernuak (May 23, 2012)

jspiteri said:


> It is interesting how much the ADL (Active D-Lighting) does to the D800 images , as seen in DP reviews dynamic range tests (images below). Source: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/19
> 
> It can be seen in the last image, albeit less dramatically.


Examining the DPReview results, the 5D MkIII has almost half a stop more DR than the D800 with HTP and ADL switched off, but the overall DR with HTP and ADL switched on is the same, the difference is in the priorities. Canon as usual has prioritised recovery of highlight detail, while Nikon has given priority to shadow detail. In contrast, the D7000 has noticeably greater DR judging by DPReview's data.
Perhaps now we can lay the DR arguments to rest, but I somehow doubt it. I still maintain that it is about making use of the equipment available to overcome the compromises than worrying about detailed specification lists. If whichever camera does the job you need it to do, then you don't need to worry what another camera might do. If it doesn't, then get the one that does, if you can afford it and the overall system also gives you what you need.


----------



## Bruce Photography (May 23, 2012)

jspiteri said:


> It is interesting how much the ADL (Active D-Lighting) does to the D800 images , as seen in DP reviews dynamic range tests (images below). Source: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/19
> 
> It can be seen in the last image, albeit less dramatically.



Thanks for the DPR graphs. By the way, I did go to the DPR site and what your last graph did not show is where the D800 was set to ADL Extra High. I've been shooting my D800 with this setting and I've been amazed on the DR that I can pull out of my RAW images. I also set my 5d3 to with HTP on and off. But the HTP forces the ISO up to 200 instead of my normal ISO of 100. Both cameras have the same highlight EV when the 5D3 is set to HTP On and the D800 is set to ADL Extra High. However on the shadow side I'm getting alot of shadow detail that I haven't seen before. Part of that is due to upgrading to Lightroom 4.1 and CS6 Photoshop with their new and effective shadow controls. When I do comparision shooting between cameras I now set both at ISO 200 so the shooting is more comparable. I'm now using a long RRS rail to hold the two cameras and make the exposures at the same time. Before I was getting inconsistent results due to changes in lighting from one shot to the other. This is an exciting time for Digital Photography.


----------



## Bruce Photography (May 23, 2012)

Radiating said:


> It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800. Here's what I know so far:
> 
> 5D3 vs D800/E by catagory:
> 
> ...



Well I can tell you at least one thing that is MUCH MUCH better with the 5D3 than the D800. If you were a landscape person using tilt shift lenses, Live View focusing of those manual lenses is a very preferred technique. Using the Canon's excellent back LCD screen at 10X it is easy to do manual focus. Using the Nikon D800 is like looking through a bowl of jello and trying to focus at one mag factor less than Max. Max mag on the Nikon for focusing is horrible and un-usable. I've tried a cheap Marshall field monitor on the Nikon but that was even worse. I'll go over to the Nikon forum and ask for some help on this problem.

By the way, I love Canon lenses. My 17 and 24 tilt shift lenses are both one generation ahead of anything Nikon has. With the exception of the 14-24, my Nikon lenses are good but not up to the latestest generation of Canon glass. I really wish I could fit Canon glass on the D800 but I'm told many times that it is a physical impossibility.


----------



## well_dunno (May 23, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Surely his point is that resolution/DR is "all" alot of people seem to care about. Personally I find myself in that position mostly taking landscapes and would probabley buy a D800 if I upgraded to FF(most of my investment is in EF-S lenses anyway) but it does seem to me that alot of amature reviews are focused on these areas to the almost total exclusion of everything else.
> ...



Indeed! Mainly AF improvements were on demand for the successor of the mark 2. Though I think Canon came under fire because of the price tag they put on the mark 3. Many, including myself, feel there is not 3,5 years +$1300 difference between the mark 2 and the mark 3. Unfortunately, D800, selling $500 cheaper than the mark 3, became the reference point for this argument and thus it's strong sides got more and more mentioned... IMHO anyways...

Cheers!


----------



## awinphoto (May 23, 2012)

jspiteri said:


> It is interesting how much the ADL (Active D-Lighting) does to the D800 images , as seen in DP reviews dynamic range tests (images below). Source: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/19
> 
> It can be seen in the last image, albeit less dramatically.



I noticed that also... I mentioned that in another thread and someone said it's because they use jpegs and not raw... uh huh... even looking at that, if you tally the difference in highlight for canon and shadow for nikon, DR is only maybe a stop off if that..


----------



## Ivar (May 23, 2012)

I'm sorry but Canon would not have done such a thing, it just was not possible to get by without doing so. 

What would have left of the 5D3 without its AF in the marketplace?



V8Beast said:


> Other common declarations:
> 
> "There's no way Canon will ever put a 1-series AF system in a 5D3."
> 
> ...


----------



## awinphoto (May 23, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> jspiteri said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting how much the ADL (Active D-Lighting) does to the D800 images , as seen in DP reviews dynamic range tests (images below). Source: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/19
> ...



For what it's worth regarding priorities... Since the beginning of digital, it was widely understood that highlights got lost quicker than shadows. In film you shot for the shadows, printed for the highlights, with digital, you had to be very careful with the highlights and recover the shadows for print... This is partial to why HDR got so much traction, it gave you the best of both worlds and let you be creative as well... I think this is why canon added the ALO (auto light optimizer) as well as the HTP, like the old film ideals of d-min, d-max, but like film, you had to deal with grain, now we deal with noise... I'd like to see it where you can use both ALO and HTP without adding noise and essentially being able to achieve massive DR at low ISO... perhaps i'm dreaming or asking too much... it is what it is


----------



## Marsu42 (May 23, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> Examining the DPReview results, the 5D MkIII has almost half a stop more DR than the D800 with HTP and ADL switched off, but the overall DR with HTP and ADL switched on is the same, the difference is in the priorities.



As far as I've researched it and asked here on the forum, htp is nothing more than a tone curve applied in camera or in the raw converter. As you may or may have not suspected, htp or any other gimmick does not exchange the sensor in your camera when you're not looking. In the best case it's just a convenience, in the worst case marketing has put it in there to make you think what you obviously think


----------



## Kernuak (May 23, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > Examining the DPReview results, the 5D MkIII has almost half a stop more DR than the D800 with HTP and ADL switched off, but the overall DR with HTP and ADL switched on is the same, the difference is in the priorities.
> ...


And with the added downside that you are shooting at ISO 200 instead of 100, which is why I always switch it off, then I can control what I want to recover and what I can compromise image by image. I can't imagine Nikon is any different with ADL, apart from the different philosophy.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 23, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> And with the added downside that you are shooting at ISO 200 instead of 100



No, you aren't  ... the reason htp starts at iso 200 is that when it's on, the camera deliberately underexposes 1 ev and then applies a tone curve. So you can get the same effect with underexposing 1ev yourself or shooting full m at 1/2 iso and apply a curve in post, but you don't get to see such a nice preview on the camera display. 

Actually, htp isn't that bad and I'm using it when there are extreme highlights like the furry edges of an animal with the sun behind the animal body - if I underexpose manually, the preview would be too dark.


----------



## ablearcher (May 23, 2012)

Both cameras are fine, but one thing i do not get is why such a price gap? $500 extra for Canon in the US and $700 in Canada? WTF? Somehow Nikon manages to offer Canadians the same price as in the US, but Canon thinks its OK to charge Canadians extra $200 on top of its US price $500 premium. Disgusting.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> jspiteri said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting how much the ADL (Active D-Lighting) does to the D800 images , as seen in DP reviews dynamic range tests (images below). Source: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/19
> ...



DPR is just testing jpgs and doing weird things.
This is another example of the difference without resorting to numbers:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41585485


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2012)

ablearcher said:


> Both cameras are fine, but one thing i do not get is why such a price gap? $500 extra for Canon in the US and $700 in Canada? WTF? Somehow Nikon manages to offer Canadians the same price as in the US, but Canon thinks its OK to charge Canadians extra $200 on top of its US price $500 premium. Disgusting.



If you care about 6fps, the price difference does go away though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Surely his point is that resolution/DR is "all" alot of people seem to care about. Personally I find myself in that position mostly taking landscapes and would probabley buy a D800 if I upgraded to FF(most of my investment is in EF-S lenses anyway) but it does seem to me that alot of amature reviews are focused on these areas to the almost total exclusion of everything else.
> ...



It was actually the pure fanboys who were doing all of the talk about how Canon would never do that and how dare you image to ever get nice AF in anything other than a 1 series.

So far 5D3 AF working well for me for one shot, def better than 5D2 and 7D, although I've only hit a subset of situations so far. I'm not quite sure about for macro yet compared to 7D and didn't test it for sports yet.

Anyway DR got talked about first since it was easy to measure and safe to talk about having never even touched the camera yet and it was kind of a shock that there was zero improvement, maybe exmor level would not have been realistic, but the fact that at ISO100 it delivers nothing better than 3 years ago shocked people into lots of talk. AF takes time to test out and you need the cam in hand for a while. But everyone had been mentioning how awesome it was that on paper they finally did something fantastic below the 1 series in terms of AF.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2012)

Bruce Photography said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800. Here's what I know so far:
> ...



I hear that max mag is also slow frame rate, so focusing for movies can be tricky. (on d800)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > And with the added downside that you are shooting at ISO 200 instead of 100
> ...



yeah it doesn't actually do anything for you in RAW that you couldn't do anyway but when you do need to favor highlights 1 stop then it certainly makes reading the histogram and image previews easier than looking at underexposed ones (And for jpgs/movies, those are cooked, so it's a real mode for jpgs since you can't add HTP back in afterwards in that case)


----------



## Kernuak (May 24, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Kernuak said:
> ...


But in my experience, by underexposing by one stop, you are increasing shadow noise. Also, the EXIF states ISO 200 (or at least it did on my old 40D), regardless of whether or not it's underexposing. Personally, I'd rather shoot in RAW at the optimum ISO for the circumstances, so that I can control how much exposure I want (not the camera) and so that I can push the highlights as far as possible without losing detail to maximise DR. For landscapes, with the use of the correct amount of grad filters, I can mostly get as much DR as I need. For wildlife, shadows are rarely important enough for me to worry too much about them. There is also the argument that I just need better lighting.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 24, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> But in my experience, by underexposing by one stop, you are increasing shadow noise.



Of course you are, and it's the same with htp.



Kernuak said:


> Also, the EXIF states ISO 200 (or at least it did on my old 40D), regardless of whether or not it's underexposing.



Like a couple of people explained: The iso number is wrong, actually the picture is shot @ 1/2 iso you're seeing.



Kernuak said:


> Personally, I'd rather shoot in RAW at the optimum ISO for the circumstances, so that I can control how much exposure I want (not the camera) and so that I can push the highlights as far as possible without losing detail to maximise DR.



htp applies to raw since a tone curve is applied in the converter. But htp does *nothing* to the dr potential of the sensor, you cannot increase it, you can just fully use it (= histogram filled and raw recovery) or distribute the data differently (expose to the right for shadow detail, to the left for highlight recovery aka htp).


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 4, 2012)

To me the proof is in the pudding... Some landscape/scenic shots I took this weekend... Yes I know the 5d3 supposedly blows for landscape work, but here it is...


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > But in my experience, by underexposing by one stop, you are increasing shadow noise.
> ...


I didn't say it increases DR, I just said I'd like to maximise DR, big difference. I also said _I'd[/] prefer control not the camera, I didn't refute anything you or anyone else said._


----------



## iso79 (Jun 4, 2012)

Yep, the 5D Mark III has shitty dynamic range


----------



## nightbreath (Jun 4, 2012)

iso79 said:


> Yep, the 5D Mark III has shitty dynamic range


It's a wonderful image! Could you show the original JPEG, so we can see how much of PP is there?


----------



## iso79 (Jun 4, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, the 5D Mark III has shitty dynamic range
> ...



I got it from here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh


----------



## Halocastle (Jun 4, 2012)

For the paper jockeys:

Resolution, high ISO comparisons...
Canon 5D MK III vs Nikon D800 with Nathan Elson

AF, buffer, white balance, quality comparisons...
Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800 Part 2 with Mike Drew

Video comparison...
Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 Part 3 with Chad Tweten


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Jun 4, 2012)

Well, one thing is for certain. The 5D3 appears to be much better at being in stock. 
Nikon should really get their sh1t together with their supply chain.


----------



## Tayvin (Jun 4, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Well, one thing is for certain. The 5D3 appears to be much better at being in stock.
> Nikon should really get their sh1t together with their supply chain.



LOL So true.


----------



## justsomedude (Jun 4, 2012)

kraats said:


> Canon 5d mark III is by far the more versatile camera. I canceled my order however since it is at least 500 euro overpriced and it does not really add something new for landscapers. If you shoot weddings or even sports and that kind of stuff it is better then nikon d800 by far.



Agreed. 

The canon 5D3 has its place for certain uses - low-light events being one of them. At 36MP, I'd never use a D800 for a wedding ... that's just way to much data to process for an image heavy shoot. However, given the specs of the rumored 3D, I feel like I'm being screwed by Canon. At this point I'm seriously debating selling the 5D3, dropping back to a 5D2, and waiting for the 3D.

Given the improvements rumored for the 3D, the 5D3 doesn't seem to hold much market value with the 5D2 still on the shelves. My perfect lineup would be a 7D, a 5D2 and the 3D (with the current rumored spec sheet). The 5D3 falls by the wayside in my mind - but that's just my $0.02.


----------



## yulia (Jun 4, 2012)

what would you say is better for kids/family/newborn photographers? D800 or Markiii?


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 4, 2012)

yulia said:


> what would you say is better for kids/family/newborn photographers? D800 or Markiii?



I'm 100% positive you wont get biased answers, but my vote goes to the markIII... The AF is a slightly snappier and faster (a fraction according to most reviewers) which may or may not be needed for kids and babies. Most the fine detail and dr gets thrown out the window for portraits as most clients wont want every zit magnified, and unless you make your living off of 30x40's, the mark III will do everything you want and then some, as well as give pleasing skin tones (d800 has been criticized for having a slight green cast, but then again Kermit the frog would be pleased and ready for photographs!).


----------



## gn100 (Jun 4, 2012)

iso79 said:


> Yep, the 5D Mark III has shitty dynamic range



Great shot of Lake McKenzie ...... awesome part of the world.

Yep, the 5DIII can take decent photos - in almost every case it's the photographer not the camera that holds back the output


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 4, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Well, one thing is for certain. The 5D3 appears to be much better at being in stock.
> Nikon should really get their sh1t together with their supply chain.



Probably because its 3500$.


----------



## williejr (Jun 4, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> kraats said:
> 
> 
> > Canon 5d mark III is by far the more versatile camera. I canceled my order however since it is at least 500 euro overpriced and it does not really add something new for landscapers. If you shoot weddings or even sports and that kind of stuff it is better then nikon d800 by far.
> ...



I've never owned a 5D2 until last week when I found a used one for $1300. I can tell you, that my 5D3, BLOWS away my 1DMIV and the 5D2 by a country mile. So for everyone that can't tell the picture quality from the 5D2 to 5D3 needs to get your glasses check or you are just kidding yourself. 

The new AF system & SOOC are shoots at the HIGH ISO are just blow away the 1DIV. 

If everyone is putting so much weight on the 5D2 and how wonderful it is just PROVES that the 5D2 is still relavant and way before it's time for technology that is almost 5 years old, but for now, my new/used 5D2 will sit in my bag as a backup, just because it can.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Jun 4, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Probably because its 3500$.



I think not. The usual crappy supply situation at Nikon is probably the one to blame. Coupled with a few defects on early batches (including batteries).

On flickr, for what it's worth, there are quite a bit more 5D3 users.
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_5d_mark_iii/
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d800/


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 4, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Probably because its 3500$.
> ...



I just hope it drops to 2999$ by christmas time. Then I could justify it perhaps.


----------



## yulia (Jun 4, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> yulia said:
> 
> 
> > what would you say is better for kids/family/newborn photographers? D800 or Markiii?
> ...



thank you 

i already got mark iii and i love it...but...the grass is always greener...


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 4, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > Well, one thing is for certain. The 5D3 appears to be much better at being in stock.
> ...



I think not. When the 5D3 rumors weren't to my liking, I seriously considered switching systems. I had my Nikon glass narrowed down to the 16-35, 24-120, and 70-200 but they were almost always out of stock. I just checked B&H for fun, and while the 70-200 is in stock, the 16-35 and 24-120 still are not available. So, I don't think you can definitively say that the D800's cheaper price vs. the 5D3 is why it's always out of stock. Unless the aforementioned lenses are as in as high of demand as the D800, Nikon clearly has supply issues across the board.


----------



## sparda79 (Jun 5, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I bought my 5D3, 2 months ago here in Malaysia. The street price was RM9,600. That's about US$3,000. If not mistaken, it's slightly cheaper than D800 street price.


----------



## nonac (Jun 19, 2012)

I am so frustrated with Canon. I waited and waited for the 5d Mk III and I just can't pull the trigger to buy it. I wanted a landscape camera and the D800 surpasses the 5d in that regard. I could live with the Canon if it were priced the same as the Nikon, but it's not, and that really irks me. I am very close to buying the Nikon along with a couple dedicated wide angle lenses for landscapes. I really don't want to as I've been a Canon loyalist for 30+ years now; however, I think Canon dropped the ball on this one and I also feel that their prices, not only on this camera, but on many of their lenses, is getting out of control.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 19, 2012)

nonac said:


> I am so frustrated with Canon. I waited and waited for the 5d Mk III and I just can't pull the trigger to buy it. I wanted a landscape camera and the D800 surpasses the 5d in that regard. I could live with the Canon if it were priced the same as the Nikon, but it's not, and that really irks me. I am very close to buying the Nikon along with a couple dedicated wide angle lenses for landscapes. I really don't want to as I've been a Canon loyalist for 30+ years now; however, I think Canon dropped the ball on this one and I also feel that their prices, not only on this camera, but on many of their lenses, is getting out of control.



If you want low noise at low iso get a 1DS3


----------



## nonac (Jun 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> nonac said:
> 
> 
> > I am so frustrated with Canon. I waited and waited for the 5d Mk III and I just can't pull the trigger to buy it. I wanted a landscape camera and the D800 surpasses the 5d in that regard. I could live with the Canon if it were priced the same as the Nikon, but it's not, and that really irks me. I am very close to buying the Nikon along with a couple dedicated wide angle lenses for landscapes. I really don't want to as I've been a Canon loyalist for 30+ years now; however, I think Canon dropped the ball on this one and I also feel that their prices, not only on this camera, but on many of their lenses, is getting out of control.
> ...



That one is a little too far out of my price range.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 19, 2012)

nonac said:


> I am so frustrated with Canon. I waited and waited for the 5d Mk III and I just can't pull the trigger to buy it. I wanted a landscape camera and the D800 surpasses the 5d in that regard. I could live with the Canon if it were priced the same as the Nikon, but it's not, and that really irks me.



For once, the fact that Nikon is way ahead in sensors is not a ploy by Canon marketing, but rather Nikon using Sony's advanced sensors. Even if the 5d3 would have a reasonable price that wouldn't change. If you want (and/or *need* - do you?) high dr and mp for landscape now, switch to Nikon, no one will say it isn't a sound decision. Or wait until Canon catches up, maybe in early 2013 with a high mp body - but that is likely to be way more expensive than the d800.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 19, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> nonac said:
> 
> 
> > I am so frustrated with Canon. I waited and waited for the 5d Mk III and I just can't pull the trigger to buy it. I wanted a landscape camera and the D800 surpasses the 5d in that regard. I could live with the Canon if it were priced the same as the Nikon, but it's not, and that really irks me.
> ...



Although the D4 uses none of those patents and also has a lot better dynamic range (if not to Exmor levels at low ISO, although actually better than Exmor at very high ISO). Someone was saying something about Canon wanted to get another round of profit out of their current old fab, but who knows if that is really true or what they could have done otherwise anyway, maybe Nikon has some sneaky magic sauce in their production.


----------



## nonac (Jun 19, 2012)

"Or wait until Canon catches up, maybe in early 2013 with a high mp body - but that is likely to be way more expensive than the d800.
[/quote]

And why should Canon's version be so much more expensive? They are going to have to start matching price points or they will find themselves in real trouble. I think their prices have already started to go out of control and above the competition in many areas. I for one am not paying extra money for the name "Canon," especially if another company can give me something at or better for less.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 19, 2012)

nonac said:


> And why should Canon's version be so much more expensive?



Well, Canon has this 5d3 thing at $3500 with a polished 5d2 sensor and 22mp. And they have a big money 18mp pro 1dx they will release eventually for serious sports photography and so on.

If you were Canon, what would you do once you got around developing an ok 30mp+ sensor - put it into a $5000 body, sell it to people who are willing to pay this for at least a year and then trickle it down - or put it into a $2500 body right away cannibalizing the whole premium product line? Yeah, right.


----------



## nonac (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> nonac said:
> 
> 
> > And why should Canon's version be so much more expensive?
> ...



If they put it in a $5,000 body they will watch more and more D800's fly off the shelf and more Canon products sitting on the shelf. They are pricing themselves out of the midrange segment.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

nonac said:


> If they put it in a $5,000 body they will watch more and more D800's fly off the shelf and more Canon products sitting on the shelf. They are pricing themselves out of the midrange segment.



Yes and no - Nikon will still sell lots of d800, but they'll do that anyway. But Canon will grab and hold photogs who want a second high mp body next to their 1dx, 5d3/5d2, or want a first body which has some "pro" features the d800 lacks like higher fps.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 20, 2012)

nonac said:


> If they put it in a $5,000 body they will watch more and more D800's fly off the shelf and more Canon products sitting on the shelf. They are pricing themselves out of the midrange segment.



I know where I live that as soon as the stores get a shipment of 5D Mark III's in, they fly off the shelf. They seem to be doing fine selling it at the current price. I would assume that a big body with high mp would sell just fine at $5000.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 20, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> nonac said:
> 
> 
> > If they put it in a $5,000 body they will watch more and more D800's fly off the shelf and more Canon products sitting on the shelf. They are pricing themselves out of the midrange segment.
> ...



its only the vocal minority making lots of noise about the 5Dmk3 price
IMO its a high calibre PRO body and is priced accordingly


----------



## TTMartin (Jun 20, 2012)

The 5D MkIII is demonstrated as being clearly better than the D800 in the role depicted in this video:
Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800 Part 2 with Mike Drew
http://youtu.be/4W9EeDCaVFM


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 20, 2012)

that sigma lens looks so kick arse


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jun 20, 2012)

As far as that Video goes, I believe that guy was a JPG only shooter. He never did any postprocessing and they judged mostly from the back of the 3.2 inch screen. Fine for him. I make large print landscapes. I have both cameras and I'm not waiting for Canon to catch up. I am waiting on my D800E order so I can complete my testing with I now do with both cameras (Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800). I shot with the Canon today using my 500 F4 at the ocean and the shots look ok but hard to crop now that I'm spoiled by my D800. When Canon decides to make a high MP camera to compete with Nikon, I'm sure I'll buy another Canon to hook onto all my Canon glass but until then I'm waiting on Nikon for lenses and the D800E. Meanwhile I'm shooting first with Nikon and then with Canon for lenses that I don't have in my Nikon bag. Gee I even have a 14-24 right now!


----------



## takoman46 (Jun 20, 2012)

nonac said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > nonac said:
> ...



Although many enthusiasts might buy a big megapixel D800 for $2000 less than the rumored 1D formed big megapixel Canon; I don't think Canon would then care about the market split. I have a couple friends who shoot medium format and neither of them would trade their hasselblads for a D800. To them, the D800 is a gimmick and not up to par with their demands. Have you considered that a $5000+ big megapixel Canon DSLR might be aimed at medium format professionals and not enthusiasts that want to make like they have a medium format camera? If the big megapixel Canon body merges the advantages the top of the line DSLRs and meets the requirements of medium format users, wouldn't medium format professionals then have the option of using a very versatile high resolution system? A D800 can't deliver that.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> nonac said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Whats truly disappointing is that an old 4x5 view camera can out-resolve about any SLR camera. Its alot cheaper than a d800 too.

Sensor size is king, no serious medium format shooter will replace their 60Mp hasselblads for a D800. If anything, a better reason to invest more in the system to show the real difference's in medium format. Soon, 200MP medium format will be the norm.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 20, 2012)

Bruce Photography said:


> As far as that Video goes, I believe that guy was a JPG only shooter. He never did any postprocessing and they judged mostly from the back of the 3.2 inch screen. Fine for him.



Get used to it, this sort of poorly made propaganda is becoming very popular lately.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Sensor size is king, no serious medium format shooter will replace their 60Mp hasselblads for a D800. If anything, a better reason to invest more in the system to show the real difference's in medium format. Soon, 200MP medium format will be the norm.



Stunning if they can also keep the noise down and the DR up at the same time.

I would hazard a guess they wont be used as sports cameras


----------



## rpt (Jun 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Sensor size is king, no serious medium format shooter will replace their 60Mp hasselblads for a D800. If anything, a better reason to invest more in the system to show the real difference's in medium format. Soon, 200MP medium format will be the norm.
> ...


At 10 seconds a frame they would make great sports cams - for chess... That's a sport too!


----------



## tron (Jun 20, 2012)

rpt said:


> At 10 seconds a frame they would make great sports cams - for chess... That's a sport too!


 ;D


----------



## TTMartin (Jun 20, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Bruce Photography said:
> 
> 
> > As far as that Video goes, I believe that guy was a JPG only shooter. He never did any postprocessing and they judged mostly from the back of the 3.2 inch screen. Fine for him.
> ...



That's funny, because if you watch all three videos, in part one it's obvious they are Nikon fans, and you can see how uncomfortable he gets in part 2 when the limitations of the D800 start to show, then when they move to part 3 which addresses video, again the 5D MkIII outshines the D800. But, at this point they seem to have a new found respect of the Canon 5D MkIII. Their final review seems fair and balanced at the end of part 3 (and not a Fox News kind of fair and balanced).


Canon 5D MK III vs Nikon D800 with Nathan Elson - Part 1 of 3
http://youtu.be/omTo7UxbJX8

Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800 with Mike Drew - Part 2 of 3
http://youtu.be/4W9EeDCaVFM

Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 with Chad Tweten - Part 3 of 3
http://youtu.be/opyNMck9Jhk


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Get used to it, this sort of poorly made propaganda is becoming very popular lately.



Could I also get into the business of spreading poorly made propaganda if Canon gives me a free 5d3+600rt flash  ... even the idea makes me like the 5d3 a lot more! Or the d800, if Nikon takes my offer.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 23, 2012)

nonac said:


> "Or wait until Canon catches up, maybe in early 2013 with a high mp body - but that is likely to be way more expensive than the d800.



And why should Canon's version be so much more expensive? They are going to have to start matching price points or they will find themselves in real trouble. I think their prices have already started to go out of control and above the competition in many areas. I for one am not paying extra money for the name "Canon," especially if another company can give me something at or better for less.
[/quote]

I am so getting sick of the price complaints on the 5d3 vs the d800 and how canon better match the price. Whenever I see that kind of post I check amazons top slr sellers list, both the d800 and the 5d3 have been in the top 10 for some time now, currently the mk3 is at 8th and the d800 at 9th. Tell me this, if the mk3 is selling that well at the current price, why would canon mgmt decide to lower it? I could see them doing that if the cam was a complete flop, but it isn't. The low light capabilities are quite awesome and if your shooting weddings and events, the extra $500 over the d800 would be easily made up for in sales, and new clients. Not knocking the d800 by any means - but, even if I was invested in nikon glass, while the d800 would take stellar shots at a wedding, the file size would be a deal breaker for me. No SRAW or MRAW option is a big deal. Add up the necessary investment in CF cards (at full size you get about 200 images on a 16 gig card, if you shoot weddings that's a big deal. Generally i flip between SRAW and LRAW at weddings, I use SRAW for candids, and reception and LRAW for the bulk of the ceremony and formals (and other key moments that you want the extra data). If you factor on a full day wedding you may shoot 1600-2000 images, so that would take at least 8 16 gig cards, where on the mkiii you could easily get away with using 3 16 gig cards. Lets assume you already have 3 cards, so thats 5 more cards you have to buy - at $50-150 per card, thats $250-750 you have to invest in memory. The only other options are to shoot less cause your worried about memory (your bride will not like that at all, I can see that now, why are you just standing there???? Oh because I am only shooting really important things to save memory...yeah, that will work!!!), or you bring your laptops to the wedding and set up constand memory dump times, or your wasting time going through images and deleting on camera, or your shooting in crop mode, or lastly, you bring another body with you to do the grunt work. Either way, the d800 isn't the optimal camera for wedding work, and there are lots of wedding and event shooters out there and yeah I am guessing that is the base for sales on the mkiii. If you shoot in studio often, or landcape/art, or do commercial work - the d800 is is the best option for you. But with that said, its the studio/commercial folk that can most easily justify the expense, unless your selling your landscape work at $2-4000 a pop (and if you are, you are probably in MF territory anyway!).....

Either way, sick of all the ohhh the price this the price that on this camera. If you can't see the value/return on the investment, then you probably shouldn't be considering any camera above $2000....just my 2 cents


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 23, 2012)

nonac said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > nonac said:
> ...



I agree to a certain extent and am wondering what canon is going to do with the 70d, 7d and supposed entry level FF ---all of those should fit that midrange price point. Also, if they make a 30mp beast, it can easily differentiate from the others no matter the price point - files sizes and overall capabilities will remain the trump card for that...see the above reply - if you shoot weddings the d800 really isn't the best fit - I am guessing that if canon does do a 30mp+ beast, it will also be slanted towards landscapers/commercial/studio users. Large files, big resolution, less fps, less ISO range. 

And again, refer to above post, the mk3 is doing quite well in sales actually!


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 23, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Either way, sick of all the ohhh the price this the price that on this camera. If you can't see the value/return on the investment, then you probably shouldn't be considering any camera above $2000....just my 2 cents



Why limit us to a camera under $2000?

You seem to think only of the camera as a money making tool :


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 23, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Either way, sick of all the ohhh the price this the price that on this camera. If you can't see the value/return on the investment, then you probably shouldn't be considering any camera above $2000....just my 2 cents



Amateurs by definition have no return on investments, or at least not something you can evaluate in $$$ 

I would/will buy the 5D3 for 2500$/2300€ body only. But honestly, it also depends on the hypothetical 70D and 7D2, on the new 24-70 etc. I need a crop and a FF, and I can't afford to shoot both Canon and Nikon. When everything will be on the table (after Photokina, I hope), I'll choose the one which provides me the best [(FF + Crop + Lenses) / (Price)] combination.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, sick of all the ohhh the price this the price that on this camera. If you can't see the value/return on the investment, then you probably shouldn't be considering any camera above $2000....just my 2 cents
> ...



Notice I said value/return on investment ---ROI is important to those of us trying to make a living shooting. Value though, thats totally subjective - the value could be in landing a $5000 wedding (which would also be good ROI), but it could also be a magical image you print and hang on your wall and that's that. 

I see a camera as a tool, yes, and that tool is to capture amazing images. And to that end, it IS a relationship between the user and the tool, the tool has tons of potential if and only if the user maximizes it. When I see the complaints about price, yeah, I do have to wonder if many of those people aren't using their tools to their potential. I use and love my 7D, and after 2 years on it the part of me that says I need to upgrade ends up questioning that due to how often it surprises me. It has given me both ROI and value - see the attached image. Shot earlier this week - and its funny because because to me what makes this image special isn't about the camera bod I used (i only have a 7d, lol, so that choice was pretty easy!), but in the filters I put on the lens. Again, realizing potential. Wish I had more ND filters, lol, on that shot I used a .06 ND, and cheated and used a circ polarizer as a second ND to slow the exposure down. shot at ISO 100, f22, 13 seconds. Without the filters the slowest I could have gone was just under a second, not enough to get that surreal fluffy look on the water. A d800 alone wouldn't do that. A mk3 wouldn't either, neither would a 1dx, d4, or a MF body. a lens that could go up to f40 may be able to do it, but the point still remains - getting amazing shots isn't just about the body, its about decisions made by the user, and the stuff that goes on the body (tripod gets included here too, cause I don't see anyone doing 13 second hand held and steady...). I could have shot that hand held, at f8, at 1/100th, but would the water look so fluffy and lovely?...It would be jagged and harsh. Which may be to your liking....which brings us back to the point of value ---- value is subjective, value is hard to quantify ---thats what I meant by if you can't see the value then maybe you don't need it....there are options on options on options to be had....


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 23, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



How does that apply to amateurs?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



LOL, maybe if you finish the paragraph in the quote it would be more clear -

Notice I said value/return on investment ---ROI is important to those of us trying to make a living shooting. *Value though, thats totally subjective - the value could be in landing a $5000 wedding (which would also be good ROI), but it could also be a magical image you print and hang on your wall and that's that. * If getting that great image you want is of value, spend what you wish to get man. Is the $500 difference between the d800 and mk3 gonna affect that? Well if your answer is yes, then don't buy an mkiii. If the value is there, then go for it, whether it be selling a print, or capturing that shot of your child taking its first steps....


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 23, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



8) 8) 8)


----------



## ramon123 (Jun 24, 2012)

Canon changed their market when making the 5D Mark III. The 5D Mark II was a portrait, landscape camera that was also used for weddings but had a terrible AF especially in low light situations eg. weddings. 

The 5D Mark III is more of an all-round camera specializing in events, weddings, portraits, sports etc. I think the direct comparison of the D800/E should/will be made with the upcoming Canon 5D X/3D (35+ mp camera)


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 24, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> The 5D Mark III is more of an all-round camera specializing in events, weddings, portraits, sports etc. I think the direct comparison of the D800/E should/will be made with the upcoming Canon 5D X/3D (35+ mp camera)



Exactly! The thing is a work horse and it's worth every penny. One camera to rule them all!


----------



## ramon123 (Jun 24, 2012)

I like what Canon did by making it more of an "all-round" DSLR as is it gives more versatility. Other areas of photography might become more relevant in a year and having the 5D Mark III which is strong in so many areas will be of big benefit.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 24, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> I like what Canon did by making it more of an "all-round" DSLR as is it gives more versatility. Other areas of photography might become more relevant in a year and having the 5D Mark III which is strong in so many areas will be of big benefit.



The 5DIII is certainly very tempting. If only I could get my PW to work I would be very tempted indeed


----------



## Tammy (Jun 27, 2012)

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/18/rumor-second-nikon-d800-firmware-update-coming-out-soon.aspx/#more-40884

http://testcams.com/blog/2012/06/20/nikon-d800-left-autofocus-point-issue/

Anybody else happy with how their Canon is focusing??

Nikon D800 left autofocus points defect

This apparently is quite an issue. Light leak issue macro magnified. It doesn't just affect a certain smaller genre style photographer.

Just read the comments in these threads.. by Nikon shooters/owners... gotta empathize with them..


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 27, 2012)

kraats said:


> Price is dropping fast and is close to 3000 euro now in the netherlands so price is not an issue anymore



Where do you get this prize from? In Germany, it's no less than €3250, didn't drop a cent since release - obviously they're still serving back-orders and there's no competition yet.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 28, 2012)

Tammy said:


> http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/18/rumor-second-nikon-d800-firmware-update-coming-out-soon.aspx/#more-40884
> 
> http://testcams.com/blog/2012/06/20/nikon-d800-left-autofocus-point-issue/
> 
> ...



it is interesting because I'm having no such problems, and neither seem most nikon guys in forums. One wonders how much of an issue it really is since as usual the internet magnifies everything and given the sheer volume of D800 owners, I'm not seeing a big reaction even in nikon boards. If there is a batch out there with alignment issues, it will no doubt be recalled by serial and repaired, as canon has done for their goofs in the past.

Leason: if you're an early adopter, you're going to get burned sooner or later.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 28, 2012)

Is there anyway of getting real numbers of the bodies been sold? I would love to see how many 5DII have been sold so far apart from the usual suspects, the D800 and 5DIII

The D800 and 5DIII numbers all seem to be plucked out of the air, there is nothing better than real facts.

Amazon numbers are fine for comparing Amazon sales but I suspect these bodies main selling place is elsewhere such as the pro/specialist outlets


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Amazon numbers are fine for comparing Amazon sales but I suspect these bodies main selling place is elsewhere such as the pro/specialist outlets



Why do you think so? Esp. with a camera body, there's every reason to get it as cheap as possible, and that might be Amazon. For lenses, it's different because you may want to try the particular sample before buying it or return it without any hassle if it's a bad copy.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 28, 2012)

Has anybody mentioned that the 5D3 takes canon lenses? A benefit that cannot be over-stated for people who already have Canon lenses.

Simple:

If you need 36MP today then get a nikon D800

If you don't and don't want to get a 5D3 then either keep using the 5D2 that was already doing a job for you or get a 1DX or 1D4.

Canon will steal the march on Nikon soon enough, and you'll want to swap back.

Does anybody think that in all seriousness NOT having a D800 is going to cost them work, money or enjoyment?

By the time you take account of ability, talent, planning, technique, post-processing skills, lens quality etc the camera really is the 1% difference.

I really do not understand it. How many of you make money selling lab shots of focus charts at ISO 102'800?

Get. A. Grip!.


----------



## kevl (Jun 28, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Does anybody think that in all seriousness NOT having a D800 is going to cost them work, money or enjoyment?



Great question! I chose the 5D3 for various reasons, but I think I can IMAGINE two people who might answer "yes." 

1. The "pro" who either doesn't want to, or cannot, properly frame shots while capturing a decisive moment. With the D800 he'll be able to crop the shot in post to make it look like it was properly shot with a 5D3. If this person "only" had 22MP he would not sell his work because he'd have to crop it to 6MP or something.  

2. Have you shot with or seen the files from a medium format camera? I got to check out the Phase One earlier in the year and just looking at those files makes a person smile. The single D800 file I've played with sort of had that feeling too it. So a pixel peeper, camera trekkie kind of guy may actually enjoy their D800 much more than other (in class) cameras simply because of the insane amount of detail that is captured. I'm not convinced that translates to any meaningful benefit in print however. 

The thread asks if the 5D3 is better at anything over the D800. My answer? When I had the chance to play with both of them I didn't even touch the D800. The 5D3 sells itself because of expectation and reputation. The only thing that the D800 seems to best the 5D3 at is a failed (IMO) marketing move of having 36MP which are at least 18 more than we really "need" and I put that in quotes because I'm not convinced we need that many even. 

The 5D3 is better at fitting into my workflow, both by giving me the tools I need and not getting in the way with "features" I don't. 

If you're a Nikon guy with lots of glass get the D800, if you're Canon get the 5D3 just like every credible review has said neither camera is strong enough to make a person who is at all invested in the product line switch. They are both truly great cameras. The 5D3 is just better.  

It's better because it fits me. 

Kev


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 28, 2012)

Some guys on the Australian forums are having trouble with the AF on their D800's too.
I know of one that has been back to Nikon to get fixed, and it came back exactly the same.
His test shots are terrible, and he is a very accomplished photographer and is getting really pissed off.

I think that for my types of photography, which is a lot of different types, if I didn't have any lenses, I'd still go for the 5D3 over the D800.
The D800 is good for one or two genres of photography, but the 5D3 is good at ALL of them.

I'm very happy with mine.
I've pushed it in all sorts of ways and it always comes up trumps.
It focuses well when I can't even see the object I'm photographing through the viewfinder because it's so dark!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 28, 2012)

kraats said:


> @marsu:
> http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/305483/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii.html


Thanks - actually, the lowest price seems to be rather ~3100€, and if only one supplier is listing it that low it sounds a bit dodgy. I once fell for the lowest price, but these suppliers simply might not have the item in stock but wait for a near price drop of the original manufacturer (Canon in this case). This in combination with horrendous fees for pay after delivery will engineer people into paying up front and having to wait for ages. Many will cancel the contract, but some may not, so that's a business model too for catching customers.

But maybe it's just a terrific offer and I'm paranoid. On the other hand, being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you


----------



## pwp (Jun 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> kraats said:
> 
> 
> > Price is dropping fast and is close to 3000 euro now in the netherlands so price is not an issue anymore
> ...



Check this...Under $3000!
http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-body-only-digital-slr-camera.html

PW


----------



## aznable (Jun 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> kraats said:
> 
> 
> > @marsu:
> ...



under 3000€ here in italy

http://www.tuttoinprontaconsegna.it/b_prodotto.aspx?idProdotto=18118

we are dumping the price with money we will get from Germany ...hahaha

5 pieces avaiable 

nikon d800 it's around 2500€ btw


----------



## Abraxx (Jun 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> kraats said:
> 
> 
> > Price is dropping fast and is close to 3000 euro now in the netherlands so price is not an issue anymore
> ...



?! Thats not true. In Germany the price dropped already to 3100 body only.
And http://www.oehling.de/ even had even a 15% discount... sold many 5D3 with the discount, Kit and Body only (unfortunately I noticed to late, out of stock now).
Plus other CPS dealers are already giving you a discount on request!
So I think you are not searching well or maybe you should confront your local dealer


----------



## jaduffy007 (Jun 28, 2012)

kraats said:


> Canon 5d III is by far more versatile
> Canon is still the better system
> It is better at sports
> Price is dropping fast and is close to 3000 euro now in the netherlands so price is not an issue anymore
> ...



Damn, you drank all of the koolaid. Didn't your mother teach you to share?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 28, 2012)

The 5D3 is better at being more expensive. ;D


----------



## sparda79 (Jun 28, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The 5D3 is better at being more expensive. ;D



It's cheaper than D800 when I bought it.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jun 28, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The 5D3 is better at being more expensive. ;D



That is soooo good. Canon took a page from their own playbook of Super-Tels and priced the 5D3 at the absolute top of their range. With a vertical grip, extra battery, and an L bracket the 5D3 is a $4,000 camera. And yet I'm hoping for even more. I'm ready for a 1D style camera, 45MP for around $5,000 and I'll be willing to pay for it. I've added a D800 to my tool set and I'm loving the high MP results. I've been able to almost double the print sizes I print and I'm going to different presentation media (laminates) for commercial purposes. More technology is giving me new types of business for my art. But my Canon glass is not getting much use right now. I need a camera body from Canon that can equal or best the D800. Canon - Are you listening? I'll wait.


----------



## Tammy (Jun 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Amazon numbers are fine for comparing Amazon sales but I suspect these bodies main selling place is elsewhere such as the pro/specialist outlets
> ...



You've never happened to have gotten a bad body. Same thing. Except usually more important because it affects all of your lenses, even if they are functioning great. Even for camera bodies now that still do not have af microadjustment feature, a body may be out of spec front or back focused and throw off all of your lenses from what you were used to shooting with your last body.

There are people returning bad copies of their 5D3. There are those returning their D800's with focusing problems.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 28, 2012)

Nikon is better at creating fanboys. ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 28, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Nikon is better at creating fanboys. ;D



Do you actually have a comparison? I don't visit nikonrumors.com, it results in bad karma, but maybe there some Canon fanboyz are just as effective in unmasking Nikon's weaknesses as the other way around?


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol, what I wanted to say was that the 5DIII created alot of Nikon fanboys. I don't frequent NR either, but who knows there might be Canon fanboys over there too. I just see what's over here.


----------



## aznable (Jun 29, 2012)

Bruce Photography said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D3 is better at being more expensive. ;D
> ...



really? so you wasted your time on those years...your business could have expanded years ago buying an high mpix MF camera


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2012)

Tammy said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



i returned my first 5Dmk3 it was a dog, the new copy i got however is awesome


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 29, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Tammy said:
> 
> 
> > There are people returning bad copies of their 5D3. There are those returning their D800's with focusing problems.
> ...



Interesting - never heard of bad camera bodies before. Since I'm out to buy a new 5d2: Can you please provide some information or link(s) on what to test a camera body for to tell if it's ok?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2012)

my 5Dmk3 could not accurately autofocus to save its life even after spending weeks messing with AFMA and trying everything. The new copy is sharp straight out of the box even using fast glass

my other 2 5Dmk2 bodies were also perfect straight out of the box well as good AF as a 5Dmk2 can be anyway

the 5Dmk3 was the first faulty camera body i've had


----------



## bkorcel (Jun 29, 2012)

There is one thing that the 5DIII is better at and no one ever mentioned...It's better at using Canon lenses. With an adapter you can use a Nikon lens in crippled mode as well (have to manually focus).


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 29, 2012)

I mentioned it at reply #338.

Crippling Nikon lenses - isn't that Nikons own speciality (the any f-mount on any f camera doesn't bear scrutiny.. dx lenses crop severely on FX bodies, expensive AF-D lenses don't AF on cheaper Nikon bodies etc)


----------



## silat shooters (Jun 29, 2012)

I agree about the Mark III being better at taking my 8 EOS lenses over the D800. Don't know if it's been mentioned but small quibble where I also find the Mark III better:

Quiet Mode (vastly superior to D800 similar mode and very useful in application)

The Rear Grip area where the Thumb sits, the folks at Nikon seem to miss that. Your thumb just slides off. You have to squeeze the camera body to hold it securely. The Mark III address the ergonomic better for shooting.

I got to say I'm very impressed with the Mark III, it's a really nice camera to shoot and files are truly gorgeous! I come here and read these posts and agree that the D800 appears to be a better camera for less money. That makes it worse frankly. But I enjoy using the Mark III so much more than Mark II. It's truly superior on soo many key ways. I've read that there's not much difference in IQ between the two but to my eye, high ISO is better and love the camera NAILS focus consistently and is more responsive. My keeper rate is much, much higher with the Mark III. 

I bit my lip and paid the $3500 and really enjoy the camera. But do feel it should be $2999.00. It's a great camera but I don't see what makes it worth $500 more than the D800, outside of possibly the focusing system.

The camera is paying for itself but as a consumer I like to feel like I'm getting good value. This purchase made me feel like I was paying a premium to stay 'in the club'. It wasn't a warm fuzzy feeling. Whereas, Nikon buyers feel like they are getting a bargain, 36megs, 200K shutter, same focusing system as D4, built-in flash, 100% viewfinder coverage, weather-sealing, great metering system for $500 less than the Mark III. Hard to argue with that comparison. 

Canon has a HUGE video shooting base, and video shooters are used to paying far more for their cameras so they may have priced to camera based on that. I don't know, just throwing out an idea. But when I start to feel frustrated about what I paid for the camera, I pick it up and start to use and forget about that and just enjoy it. The camera is really a "tool" now, for me much more so than the Mark II was.


----------



## tron (Jun 30, 2012)

silat shooters said:


> I agree about the Mark III being better at taking my 8 EOS lenses over the D800. Don't know if it's been mentioned but small quibble where I also find the Mark III better:
> 
> Quiet Mode (vastly superior to D800 similar mode and very useful in application)
> 
> ...



Can I take a chance of your experience with 5DMkIII and ask you about sharpness ? It seems to me that the case with updated DPP was to deal with the more powerful AA filter. I do not wish a camera with a strong AA filter. I have never observed Moire in my 5DMkII and I would feel stupid to pay so much for a camera that needs more sharpening 

P.S I use my 5DmkII for stills (mostly landscapes)...


----------



## silat shooters (Jun 30, 2012)

Can I take a chance of your experience with 5DMkIII and ask you about sharpness ? It seems to me that the case with updated DPP was to deal with the more powerful AA filter. I do not wish a camera with a strong AA filter. I have never observed Moire in my 5DMkII and I would feel stupid to pay so much for a camera that needs more sharpening 

P.S I use my 5DmkII for stills (mostly landscapes)...
[/quote]

To my eye, the Mark III has better sharpness than my Mark II. Not sure whether it's the sensor, or the improved AF, or the way noise in processed in the image, but it's noticeable. I hadn't heard or read that. I would suggest you rent a Mark III for a day or two and test it yourself before investing the sizable $$$$ in one. But I can tell you that the shooting experience is considerably improved over the Mark II. Hope this helps.


----------



## Infrared_Fred (Jun 30, 2012)

With any Canon body you can buy any SDHC SDXC or CF Card or Both depending on your body from any manufacturer from 1 gig to 512 gig with nikon you have to buy San Disc proprietary Nikon storage media and a 32 Gig card is going to set you back 230$ and the more storage you desire the smaller your wallet will get,with Canon and my Pro discount i can get a pair of San Disc SDXC universal card's that are 128 gig's and still go out to a nice lunch ,whereas you and your Nikon can't make it through a Pre wedding, wedding and reception without dumping your card onto something else which means your missing "Money Shots" changing cards or something else that is costing you additional money because it has to be set up for Nikons proprietary system so your carrying more gear spending more money and losing pictures in order to Play Nikon, i in 35mm swore by my Nikon F3 HP Titanium's that i used, but in the digital age Canon's Digic proccesor is hands down the absolute winner, because they have worked the same processor for years and just keep refining it and adding power to it and functionality no one else has done this. I shoot their fore i am !


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 30, 2012)

@Infrared_Fred


> Canon's Digic proccesor is hands down the absolute winner, because they have worked the same processor for years and just keep refining it and adding power to it and functionality no one else has done this.



+1

I would add that Canon are distinct from Nikon in that they also manufacture the sensor. Those who follow DXO labs findings slavishly ignore this point - unprocessed raws have not been through the digic, or proprietary DPP, so it's a bit like test driving a car thats had it's gearbox removed.


----------



## tron (Jul 1, 2012)

silat shooters said:


> To my eye, the Mark III has better sharpness than my Mark II. Not sure whether it's the sensor, or the improved AF, or the way noise in processed in the image, but it's noticeable. I hadn't heard or read that. I would suggest you rent a Mark III for a day or two and test it yourself before investing the sizable $$$$ in one. But I can tell you that the shooting experience is considerably improved over the Mark II. Hope this helps.



It was mentioned on this site. Canon finally updated DPP. (I was referring to raw only). I agree that the shooting experience has to be much better. Even the much better AF would be enough for that.


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 2, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> @Infrared_Fred
> 
> 
> > Canon's Digic proccesor is hands down the absolute winner, because they have worked the same processor for years and just keep refining it and adding power to it and functionality no one else has done this.
> ...



I've just come to the conclusion that DxOMark is as fair and balanced towards Canon, as MSNBC is to the Republicans or FoxNews is to the Democrats.

I've spent hours poring through DxOMark.com, trying to find a rational explanation why their scores so poorly reflect real world output of cameras. All, I've found was more things that point to outright bias, than to real unbiased testing.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 2, 2012)

I recently read side-by-side reviews in a consumer photo magazine. 

Their tests matched what I expected. The D800 is superior in resolution, but starts to fall apart at ISO 1600. The 5DIII's resolution can't match the D800, but at 1600 and above, Canon clearly outperforms the D800.

So, basically, pay your money and take your pick. If you want really big prints and don't play in the high ISO area, choose the Nikon. If you need high ISO performance and you aren't printing murals, pick the 5DIII.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 2, 2012)

unfocused said:


> If you need high ISO performance and you aren't printing murals, pick the 5DIII.



... or the 5d2 at nearly half the price - I for one cannot tell raw samples apart up to iso3200, but of course ymmv.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 2, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I recently read side-by-side reviews in a consumer photo magazine.
> 
> Their tests matched what I expected. The D800 is superior in resolution, but starts to fall apart at ISO 1600. The 5DIII's resolution can't match the D800, but at 1600 and above, Canon clearly outperforms the D800.
> 
> So, basically, pay your money and take your pick. If you want really big prints and don't play in the high ISO area, choose the Nikon. If you need high ISO performance and you aren't printing murals, pick the 5DIII.



And also if you don't need the FPS, great AF, AWB, etc.


----------



## SuperCrazySamurai (Jul 2, 2012)

Radiating said:


> It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800. Here's what I know so far:
> 
> 5D3 vs D800/E by catagory:
> 
> ...



I think the better question is:

"Can the photog with the 5dmk3 do anything better than the photog with the D800?"

At the end of the day the client does not care about the gear, just the quality of the shots. In the end its really a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Cheers!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 2, 2012)

And This EPIC Thread Lives on. 25 pages worth of controversy. 8)


----------



## thepancakeman (Jul 2, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> And This EPIC Thread Lives on. 25 pages worth of controversy. 8)



C'mon, we're so close to 26! ;D

Honestly though, I am a gearhead as much as the next guy and love the latest and greatest toys, but people on these threads do seem to get carried away. I mean, with the new 24-70 announced, all the sudden you would think no one ever sold or published a photo from the Mark I. There is so much more to tech (and life) than just the specs.

Can't I use the 5D3 simply because I "like" it? Maybe it's the weight, or the button placement or the menuing system or something completely intangible. I really don't see anyone LOSING BUSINESS because they use a 5D3 instead of a D800 or a Mark I L lens instead of a Mark II. Get a good camera, some great glass and take pictures. If the budget allows, by all means get the latest and greatest. But also don't be surprised if some great work turns up from equipment that isn't (the latest and greatest).


----------



## D_Rochat (Jul 2, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > And This EPIC Thread Lives on. 25 pages worth of controversy. 8)
> ...



A few months ago there was a "Wildlife Photographer of the Year" exhibit at a local museum and they had maybe upwards of 100 large prints on display from winners and runner ups. Under each image was the camera and settings that were used. While most had pro grade equipment, quite a few were using Rebels and they were nothing short of stunning. I didn't hear one person in the museum mutter anything about DR or complain about MP.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 2, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> C'mon, we're so close to 26! ;D



Set your forum preferences to display more messages per page, then there's only 8 pages and everything seems much calmer 



D_Rochat said:


> While most had pro grade equipment, quite a few were using Rebels and they were nothing short of stunning. I didn't hear one person in the museum mutter anything about DR or complain about MP.



No one disputes that you can shoot stellar photos with a pinhole camera. But you're reasoning is flawed: Of course people didn't complain about dr/mp, because the shots that would have suffered from the lack of these either were not shot in the first place or were not shown in the exposition. So the real, but impossible to answer question is: How many more good shots could have been taken by upgraded equipment?

Btw: If the cameras were advertised with the shots, I guess most pro camera bodies were sponsored by the respective manufacturer - to that's a bias, too.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> @Infrared_Fred
> 
> 
> > Canon's Digic proccesor is hands down the absolute winner, because they have worked the same processor for years and just keep refining it and adding power to it and functionality no one else has done this.
> ...



So you think the in cam jpgs that have been digic processed are brilliant then? Better than what LR/ACR does?? ??? ???


----------



## captainclutch (Jul 3, 2012)

I just had the choice between both cameras with no investment in glass on either side. I wanted to want the D800, I really did. I read enough about both to know that on paper the D800 was slightly better than the canon in most regards. However after holding both, I am 100% happy with my decision to go with the canon. As many have said, there is just something about the 5D3 that puts it above the D800 when you handle both. I figured that I'd end up using the 5d more just because its a pleasure to hold and use. The D800 just didn't give me that same feeling. I'd recommend everyone trying both in person before making the call. I'm glad I did.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 3, 2012)

> So you think the in cam jpgs that have been digic processed are brilliant then? Better than what LR/ACR does??



No, and nowhere did I say that, but I think the CRW's that have been through DPP are a lot better than what DXO are measuring from. 

In cam JPEGS are printable, unlike RAWs/CRW's. So in terms of a real life end image for viewing or printing then, yes if I had to choose between a CRW to take to the printers, or a JPEG I would take the JPEG.


----------



## markd61 (Jul 5, 2012)

It's better at mounting Canon lenses. 

Seriously, if you are suffering over specs so much you should buy the D800. Then you can kiss it and lick it and make goo goo eyes to it and generally be embarrassing but the rest of us will just go out and take the pictures we wanted to in the first place.

As most images on the web are less than 1000 pixels across and displayed on monitors of questionable origin and calibration I am not sure why you care what the images were made on. 
If you make prints you wont be showing them to anyone who will see a difference or give a [email protected] what you took that LOLcat photo with.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 5, 2012)

markd61 said:


> If you make prints you wont be showing them to anyone who will see a difference or give a [email protected] what you took that LOLcat photo with.



+1

I print a lot of images from my 1D4 on A3 (about 16x12) which needs a crop from 3:2 to 2.828 :2 (not much)

For IQ:

The most important aspect of those size pictures is lack of blur, either through OOF or camera/subject movement.

Next down the list is noise, followed by lens softness 

Last on the list is DR

Modern camera technology advances has switched emphasis from mps increases to ease of getting a well exposed and focussed images and improved optics to allow more people to get top IQ - a switch from a black art to a consumer capability

I would think that this applies to most 'standard' pictures

There are of course times when all IQ aspects have to be first class (excellent) such as in fine art. However when printed the limitations of the printer are hit first - hence the latest improvements in print technology which are striving to keep up with camera technology.

The most cost effective way to improve your images is probably a top of the range printer with multiple black inks.


----------



## tron (Jul 5, 2012)

markd61 said:


> It's better at mounting Canon lenses.



+1 (multiplied by the number of our lenses ;D )


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 5, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> So you think the in cam jpgs that have been digic processed are brilliant then? Better than what LR/ACR does?? ??? ???



Yes, I think for basic RAW conversion that DPP does a better job than LR/ACR.

I do like some features of LR, but, when it comes to the best RAW conversion for CR2 DPP wins.

Do you think Nikon CNX2 does a better job than LR/ACR does?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 5, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> Yes, I think for basic RAW conversion that DPP does a better job than LR/ACR.



Are you talking about new adobe raw converter for the 5d3, or for all Canon cameras? If the latter, do you have some links that do some in-depth side-by-side comparisons? I have read that dpp might sometimes do a better job at denoising, but not so much that I'd want to use it.


----------



## K3nt (Jul 5, 2012)

I think Ken Rockwell also published a head-on comparison and the 5D3 won it based on useability alone. 

(Apologies if this was already mentioned, didn't feel like reading all 26 pages of replies. )


----------



## unfocused (Jul 5, 2012)

K3nt said:


> I think Ken Rockwell also published a head-on comparison and the 5D3 won it based on useability alone.
> 
> (Apologies if this was already mentioned, didn't feel like reading all 26 pages of replies. )



Great. Now we are going to get 26 pages of Ken Rockwell wars.


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 5, 2012)

unfocused said:


> K3nt said:
> 
> 
> > I think Ken Rockwell also published a head-on comparison and the 5D3 won it based on useability alone.
> ...



Why? Because he bounces around like ping pong ball in a lotto machine?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 5, 2012)

It's at moments like these I seek some perspective from Marvin Gaye's 'What's going on?'.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 5, 2012)

Ken Rockwell is a genius : : :


----------



## FunkyCamera (Jul 5, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > K3nt said:
> ...


 He recognises that the 5Dmk3 is 500x the camera that the D800 will ever be, so he can't be that stupid.


----------



## K3nt (Jul 6, 2012)

FunkyCamera said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



The man did state quite clearly that for that test and his use, the 5D3 was the better machine but that that might change in the future, which to me sounds like a very healthy approach. Use whatever tool is best for the job. In the end, it doesn't really matter what 'brand' it is. :


----------



## commercialshooter (Jul 6, 2012)

Funny that Ken Rockwell is a Nikon guy and he flat out thought the 5D3 was a better camera then the Nikon D800. Basically if you read his article he states that there are better cameras out there for any one thing. The beauty of the 5D3 is that it does everything well. If you are after a camera that you can have with you and it will do any type of shooting well then there is no better option then the 5D3. That's what he is saying. You want higher res and dynamic range for landscapes then there are better options...but those options will not be better at almost anything else. He also said that ease of use and the ability of the camera to get the job done efficiently were more important then pixel peeping. I agree. 

The 5D3 is a great camera that takes amazing pictures. All of the people whining that Canon is losing the battle to Nikon are wasting their time. Canon is not going away and they will not change their pricing because Nikon wants to low-ball them. Personally I find these discussions laughable because the people that are all complaining about how the 5D3 has terrible dynamic range probably don't do anything with a camera that would justify more dynamic range. Go ahead and print a 24" x 36" poster print of a 5D3 image and a D800 image and see if you could blindly tell the difference. I bet you couldn't. How many of you actually EVER print bigger than that?

You don't like the direction Canon is going? Go buy a Nikon. I DON'T CARE. Have fun. I'll be doing my job and getting paid for shooting with my Canon. Oh..and by the way...not one client has ever said, "You might want to think about changing cameras. That one seems to have poor dynamic range." I went from a 1DS2 to the 5D3 and no one knows the difference except me.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jul 6, 2012)

commercialshooter said:


> Funny that Ken Rockwell is a Nikon guy and he flat out thought the 5D3 was a better camera then the Nikon D800. Basically if you read his article he states that there are better cameras out there for any one thing. The beauty of the 5D3 is that it does everything well. If you are after a camera that you can have with you and it will do any type of shooting well then there is no better option then the 5D3. That's what he is saying. You want higher res and dynamic range for landscapes then there are better options...but those options will not be better at almost anything else. He also said that ease of use and the ability of the camera to get the job done efficiently were more important then pixel peeping. I agree.
> 
> The 5D3 is a great camera that takes amazing pictures. All of the people whining that Canon is losing the battle to Nikon are wasting their time. Canon is not going away and they will not change their pricing because Nikon wants to low-ball them. Personally I find these discussions laughable because the people that are all complaining about how the 5D3 has terrible dynamic range probably don't do anything with a camera that would justify more dynamic range. Go ahead and print a 24" x 36" poster print of a 5D3 image and a D800 image and see if you could blindly tell the difference. I bet you couldn't. How many of you actually EVER print bigger than that?
> 
> You don't like the direction Canon is going? Go buy a Nikon. I DON'T CARE. Have fun. I'll be doing my job and getting paid for shooting with my Canon. Oh..and by the way...not one client has ever said, "You might want to think about changing cameras. That one seems to have poor dynamic range." I went from a 1DS2 to the 5D3 and no one knows the difference except me.



It's better to just save your breath. The complainers just want to complain no matter what sort of logic you throw at them. Besides most of the ones that are bitching have never even touched a 5D Mark III or D800.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 6, 2012)

It is like what's better an s class or a 7 series. A few of us might have an opinion, some might even base it on having driven an E class or a 3 series. But how many of us will actually buy a brand new s class or 7 series?

It's more fun going for a drive than talking about hypothetical cars, it's also more fun taking photos than talking about hypothetical cameras.

Canon have lost it. Finished. Blah blah blah. How come the same voices keep coming back? If you're going to Nikon, begone, and give us all peace.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 6, 2012)

commercialshooter said:


> Funny that Ken Rockwell is a Nikon guy and he flat out thought the 5D3 was a better camera then the Nikon D800. Basically if you read his article he states that there are better cameras out there for any one thing. The beauty of the 5D3 is that it does everything well. If you are after a camera that you can have with you and it will do any type of shooting well then there is no better option then the 5D3. That's what he is saying. You want higher res and dynamic range for landscapes then there are better options...but those options will not be better at almost anything else. He also said that ease of use and the ability of the camera to get the job done efficiently were more important then pixel peeping. I agree.
> 
> The 5D3 is a great camera that takes amazing pictures. All of the people whining that Canon is losing the battle to Nikon are wasting their time. Canon is not going away and they will not change their pricing because Nikon wants to low-ball them. Personally I find these discussions laughable because the people that are all complaining about how the 5D3 has terrible dynamic range probably don't do anything with a camera that would justify more dynamic range. Go ahead and print a 24" x 36" poster print of a 5D3 image and a D800 image and see if you could blindly tell the difference. I bet you couldn't. How many of you actually EVER print bigger than that?
> 
> You don't like the direction Canon is going? Go buy a Nikon. I DON'T CARE. Have fun. I'll be doing my job and getting paid for shooting with my Canon. Oh..and by the way...not one client has ever said, "You might want to think about changing cameras. That one seems to have poor dynamic range." I went from a 1DS2 to the 5D3 and no one knows the difference except me.



I like reading Ken's stuff. Its good information but like all things, You have to sift thru the crap to get the good information.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jul 6, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I like reading Ken's stuff. Its good information but like all things, You have to sift thru the crap to get the good information.



Better bring a big a** sifter! ;D


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 6, 2012)

> Go ahead and print a 24" x 36" poster print of a 5D3 image and a D800 image and see if you could blindly tell the difference. I bet you couldn't. How many of you actually EVER print bigger than that?



How many even print that big? I think I got a canvas done at 30x40" (entirely different resolution ball game) but even 15x10" is big for me these days.


----------



## commercialshooter (Jul 6, 2012)

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have made big prints before. The point is unless you do it all the time why are you sitting here complaining that Nikon has a 36 mp camera and the Canon equivalent is only 22 mp. Really? You can make a VERY large print from a 22mp camera and have it hold up quite well. Unless you are Peter Lik and sell wall sized images for $10,000.00 each you don't need 36 mp. and frankly the extra resolution will do you virtually no good at all.

That's my problem with the complainers. These are the same people that just want specs. For the most part they don't actually shoot images that need those specs anyway.

Two other points...Do the Nikon lenses even have the resolving power to give you36 MP worth of data? I don't think so. I think I read that the average pro level SLR lens maxes out at about 25 mp anyway.

My other point...people are all up in arms about Dynamic range...excuse me but aren't contrasty images much more pleasing to the eye in general? By definition you can't really have a contrasty image and high dynamic range. You get clipping but that is okay. The images have punch. HDR is either fake looking or flat for the most part because there is not enough contrast. Just my 2 cents...worth about 1 cent probably...lol.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 6, 2012)

got my mk3 in on tuesday, and the word WOW has popped out of my mouth several times as I have used it. after following all these posts as i considered the purchase, its now even fuinnier to read all this stuff. In an hour, off to go shoot a wedding with the mk3, and I am very glad I didn't have to buy several more CF cards like I would have had to with a d800 (sRAW on the mk3 is pretty freaking nice, IQ wise, sRAW looks like it could stand against a full RAW from my 7D.) With the d800, have fun losing the FF capabilities so save some space. 

In my local photographers community, the whole d800 thing has come up, and the nikon guys say this ---- for weddings, the d800 would be in the bag 90% of the time, only popping out for the few key moments ----because the file sizes are just way to big for wedding work. In regard, do the math to see which is more worthwhile -- $3000 for a camera that will just be extra weight in your bag 90% of the time, or $3500 on a cam you will use 95% of the time (this only applies to wedding/event shooters - again, if landscapes are your bread and butter the size of d800 would be more manageable). 

The d800 really seems to be a niche camera. If I were making my living shooting landscapes, then yeah its a fine choice, but if you work in a variety of settings, you really can't beat the mk3. It's just such a versatile camera.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 6, 2012)

commercial shooter you're preaching to the choir here.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 6, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I like reading Ken's stuff. Its good information but like all things, You have to sift thru the crap to get the good information.
> ...



Lolz. ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 6, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> > Go ahead and print a 24" x 36" poster print of a 5D3 image and a D800 image and see if you could blindly tell the difference. I bet you couldn't. How many of you actually EVER print bigger than that?
> 
> 
> 
> How many even print that big? I think I got a canvas done at 30x40" (entirely different resolution ball game) but even 15x10" is big for me these days.



I regularly print in A2 and have some commercial images on A0 - off 21mp


----------



## commercialshooter (Jul 6, 2012)

Glad I'm not the only one that isn't living in la la land!


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 6, 2012)

commercialshooter said:


> Glad I'm not the only one that isn't living in la la land!



and I am only a happy snapper ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Guru (Jul 6, 2012)

Complaining about file sizes? How is that an issue really? Canon shooter here, doing event photography, and i sure as heck not shooting in RAW all the time.
If i had a 36Mp camera, i doubt i will be shooting at full res outside studio work - even for a wedding.
Both cameras are the same price as a second hand car - its a lot to be tossing unless you really need it.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 7, 2012)

It was probably mentioned earlier but...in addition to the extra 2 fps, the 5d3 has many more cross type AF points and a much better LCD...and a great silent shutter which I'm finding quite handy.

In March I switched from Nikon to the Canon 5d3 because I had been wanting to move up to FF. I'm happy with the 5d3, it's a great all around camera but I wanted to stick with Nikon. I was disappointed when they announced the d800 specs. Like many other dark siders I was hoping for a follow up to the d700, with:
1. a bump in mp to 18-22
2. the Exmor sensor and more DR
3, the same AF
4. The same 8 fps
5. The same or better low light capability

Nikon would have killed canon with a camera like that...killed the 5d3 anyway, but I digress. So I switched to the 5d3 for its great all around capability.

With that said, I completely understand why some canonites are disappointed with this camera.....3-4 years since the 5d2 and canon didn't improve the IQ or meaningfully bump the MP's...and the result is only a 1/2 stop improvment in high ISO NR in raw. The 5d2 should have already had a great AF, so I discount that improvement somewhat. 

So again, I get why some might complain about the 5d3, but for me, the 5d3 was pretty close to what I was looking for from Nikon, but they blew it IMO and now I'm a canonite.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 7, 2012)

What is a usable small aperture at 36MP pixel ptich? Do canon users with the 'mere' 22MP make more of hyperfocal focusing?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 7, 2012)

commercialshooter said:


> By definition you can't really have a contrasty image and high dynamic range. You get clipping but that is okay. The images have punch. HDR is either fake looking or flat for the most part because there is not enough contrast.



Well, there's hdr (like the horrible, outdated amateurish hdr look) and hdr (prevent clipping in natural looking images). And you are free to edit your shots locally to give more contrast to one part while more dr prevents white clipping or noisy shadows in another part. If it's about "punch" alone, a mobile phone camera would be a good choice


----------



## markd61 (Jul 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > > Go ahead and print a 24" x 36" poster print of a 5D3 image and a D800 image and see if you could blindly tell the difference. I bet you couldn't. How many of you actually EVER print bigger than that?
> ...



As always the subject matter is important. When I bought my 10D I promptly shot a tight headshot and printed it 40x60 ( I owned a photo lab at the time) and my clients were convinced it was medium format. Landscape scenes were another matter.
While I have to agree that with total attention to good technique the D800 will eke out a bit more res, I doubt that it would be easy to see even at 40x60 inches and certainly not at 16x20 and smaller.


----------



## birdman (Jul 8, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> commercialshooter said:
> 
> 
> > My other point...people are all up in arms about Dynamic range...excuse me but aren't contrasty images much more pleasing to the eye in general? By definition you can't really have a contrasty image and high dynamic range. You get clipping but that is okay. The images have punch. HDR is either fake looking or flat for the most part because there is not enough contrast. Just my 2 cents...worth about 1 cent probably...lol.
> ...



Amen, brother. The only "qualm" I have with your analysis is that you may not know exactly how each camera differs (5d3 vs. d800) until you truly have each camera and shoot the same scene side by side. I (was) a 5d2 user until a few days ago. Sold it, and maybe I made a poor decision--because its just a hobby for me, anyway. 

AF speed or AF points not critical for my style. But good, wide glass is...and this is where Nikon may have more of what I need. The 5d3 can be bought for $3150-3200 on Ebay all day long, I see. You may even find it for $3,000. It seems the D800 certainly spells out what I want in a newer DSLR. It's got less to do with 36Mp and more to do with higher IQ at lower ISOs. At least, that's what people say....

And finally, I do think Canon will be able to replicate the DR capabilities of the Sony sensor. Once they commit to solving this, what's left? Better wide glass? It came down to me not needing telephotos lenses as much as wide and medium FL. Canon has the better telephoto choices, and more of them. But every rose has it's thorn.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Look at DPreviews stop wedge here.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19

Without any additional ADL or any extra processing in camera and nothing on. The d800 gets the same DR as the 5D3? Its showing this, so does that mean all the nikon is doing is pulling more from the blacks and pulling more recovery by a software curve at the cost of noise? Its seems like fake DR to me.

If yes, This means that the nikon sensor is not doing anything better than the canon. Just adding a curve which I could do to the canon in post and get the same result right? This also confirms my suspicion that Bayer sensor have hit there peak already and new sensor design like the Fuji S5pro are needed to gain True DR.

If not, Is this test valid?

Just seems like a false 14-stop DR from nikon by this test.


----------



## Ivar (Jul 9, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong here. Look at DPreviews stop wedge here.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19
> 
> ...



This test is JPG.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2012)

Ivar said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong here. Look at DPreviews stop wedge here.
> ...



But it mentioned that it could be applied in post. Does that mean the RAW without any extra processing is the same DR, but must be processed to achieve the 14 Stop DR?


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 9, 2012)

Ivar said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong here. Look at DPreviews stop wedge here.
> ...



Then either Nikon has a really crappy in camera JPG engine to lose a 2.7 stop advantage, or more likely DxOMark scores are not accurate for Canon cameras.

DxOMark uses their own RAW decoder. It is my belief that DxOMark's RAW decoder cannot fully decode Canon CR2 files, so DxOMark scores are not accurate for Canon cameras.

The other possibility is that DxOMark is just marketing shill for Nikon.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 10, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Speculation...I've speculated for some time now that dxo could (as a very small company) be influenced (if you know what i mean) to purposely set up their testing procedure to favor one company over another in exchange for.....

Both nikon and canon are large global corporations with significant resources...this "influencing" could easily be done...imo. Again, I'm speculating here, but we've observed time and time again in the global corporate world and in politics all over the world - money influences decisions. Example, in the news today in the US...mitt romney raises $100 million dollars for his presidential campaign...um, that was just for the month of july AND why do citizens and corps give him that kind of money, we know why right?? Also, a couple months ago walmart was accused of a large scale bribary campaign in Mexico....humm.

Just some stuff to think about....and again, im just speculating and providing raw opinion. Thanks.


----------



## markd61 (Jul 10, 2012)

Radiating said:


> It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800.
> Thanks.



Tell us how you like your D-800 or are you just going to tell us specs and DXO scores?


----------



## Ivar (Jul 10, 2012)

Northstar said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > Ivar said:
> ...



I haven't seen A SINGLE evidence Canon doing better or even the same in DR department no matter the RAW converter. 

DxO has clear methodics, while maybe not covering all the aspects, still being a scientific approach and very usable for one knowing what to do with that info. 
Opposite to the forum - one "thinks" and "believes", with absolutely no evidence. 

P.S. more than sure, the next gen Canon will have a lot of DR, definitely more than Nikon today. 

P.P.S Now this is what I believe - Canon just wanted to use the same old tech for economics reasons. This is why there is no high MP camera currently from Canon - stuffing more pixels in and being less attractive in IQ and asking a premium do not exactly fit together. They compete with versatility, which is quite an argument too. Absolutely fine with that, becuse for most applications the IQ is already so good that it does very well even not being the top notch.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 10, 2012)

Ivar said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...



Did you even view the stop wedge? ???


----------



## Ivar (Jul 10, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > This test is JPG.
> ...



This is like high ISO - some prefer more (or less) cleaning as opposed to default settings. Moving a shadow slider is no more difficult task. The key is if the source file breaks down during that process or not.

So yes, it needs to be processed - but it MUST contain the info to be extracted in the source. 

A photo camera processor is always weaker than a PC, thus allows the latter using more complex and quality algorythms - this is why for the ultimate quality the RAW is preferred over in camera JPG engine (which is still good enough these days for majority of tasks).


----------



## rumorzmonger (Jul 10, 2012)

I've had my D800E since the beginning of July, and here are a few unscientific observations I've made...

Dynamic Range - the 5D Mark III has a bit more dynamic range straight out of the camera, but the D800E files give you a whole lot more dynamic range to work with if you want to spend the extra time in post-processing.

Image Sharpness/Acuity - it's close, but I would give this one to the 5D Mark III if it were not for the lower pixel count; the amount of fine detail sharpness and resolution is better in the Canon files, but the Nikon file has 28% more real estate which helps it when you make larger prints (24 x 36"). I really expected to see better sharpness with no AA filter in the D800E, and Canon seems to be getting better performance out of their lenses with the new lens correction profiles loaded into the 5D mark III, so this comparison might surprise a lot of people.

Focusing - the 5D mark III is vastly superior in AF speed and, more importantly, in accuracy. The D800E isn't bad - it's about the same as the D700, but the Canon is in a different league altogether.

Metering - I would call it a draw... both cameras are pretty good, but neither one is perfect.

High ISO Noise - I have no idea - I normally shoot at ISO 100.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 10, 2012)

I was prohibited from using a flash last night and shot several frams at ISO 12,800 on my 5D Mark III and only applied 20% NR and the noise was gone. I can't complain.


----------



## tron (Jul 10, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I was prohibited from using a flash last night and shot several frams at ISO 12,800 on my 5D Mark III and only applied 20% NR and the noise was gone. I can't complain.


This is really good! I would never try 12800 with my 5DMkII. The top ISO I use is 6400.
Did you use Lightroom or photoshop?

I ask because it has been said that only Canon's DPP latest versions exhibit the maximum sharpness... (reported on other threads on this site a few months ago)


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 10, 2012)

tron said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I was prohibited from using a flash last night and shot several frams at ISO 12,800 on my 5D Mark III and only applied 20% NR and the noise was gone. I can't complain.
> ...



I took a ton of shots at my daughter's recital and alot were @12800 and they looked great. Never had to use flash once. I was using my 70-200 2.8II with Av and auto ISO.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 10, 2012)

tron said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I was prohibited from using a flash last night and shot several frams at ISO 12,800 on my 5D Mark III and only applied 20% NR and the noise was gone. I can't complain.
> ...



Even better. All I literally did was import it to Adobe Camera RAW, apply NR, and saved it to maximum JPEG. I'll show you later when I get home.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 11, 2012)

you should give topaz denoise a go
you can apply differenct degrees of noise reduction to shadow, highlight and colour channels as well as custom noise reduction to deal with pattern banding if you have to push 4 stops of shadow

they do a 30 day trial version, its worth playing with


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 11, 2012)

I promise I'll post it, I just haven't slugged through the photos fast enough yet this evening. I'm on a timeline to get these done :-\


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 11, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I promise I'll post it, I just haven't slugged through the photos fast enough yet this evening. I'm on a timeline to get these done :-\



I have a backlog of processing to do too  i still havent processed my photos from my trip to china!  :-[


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 11, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> you should give topaz denoise a go
> you can apply differenct degrees of noise reduction to shadow, highlight and colour channels as well as custom noise reduction to deal with pattern banding if you have to push 4 stops of shadow
> 
> they do a 30 day trial version, its worth playing with



I use Nik Dfine


----------



## Bosman (Jul 13, 2012)

If you like going thru hard drives like water then the D800 is for you. 1000 raw images fills 750gig of hd space. No thanks. The buffer is terribly slow too, thats why they dont offer medium raw because med raw would slow it to a crawl.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jul 13, 2012)

Bosman said:


> If you like going thru hard drives like water then the D800 is for you. 1000 raw images fills 750gig of hd space. No thanks. The buffer is terribly slow too, thats why they dont offer medium raw because med raw would slow it to a crawl.



Actually that is not correct. If you shoot lossless compressed, which is the default, it averages about 45MB per shot doing typical landscape type shooting of high detail subjects. I went to one of my D800E directories and found 270 NEF file that averaged 45MB each for a total of 11.5GB size according to windows. If you multiply the 270 by 3.7 you'll get about 1,000 files. Taking that number a 1,000 NEF lossless compressed files gives you 42.59 GB. You are off by more than an order of mangnitude. 

On an average my 5D3 takes about 28-30 MB in size. Assuming again 1,000 files, the 5D3 takes about 28 to 30 GB for 1000 files. The net difference between the 5D3 and the Nikon D800E is about 12-15 GB for every 1,000 raw files or about the same percentage that 36 mega-pixels is larger than 22 mega-pixels.


----------



## Ivar (Jul 13, 2012)

This assumes the same type of photography, but the cameras may well and are differently used. 
Poor MF digital shooters. Btw. exactly the same could have been said also to the 5D2 users what is said today to D800 users, so there seem to be not much brand logic. 

P.S. memories are priceless but memory is cheap (hint: choose what is worth it). 

P.P.S memory sizes still increase and the storage gets cheaper faster than cameras are developed.



Bosman said:


> If you like going thru hard drives like water then the D800 is for you. 1000 raw images fills 750gig of hd space. No thanks. The buffer is terribly slow too, thats why they dont offer medium raw because med raw would slow it to a crawl.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 13, 2012)

I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return. Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ. So why do it?


----------



## Ivar (Jul 13, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return. Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ. So why do it?



May I suggest that with more MP more thinking takes place before the shutter is pressed?
That is certainly true with MF digital.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 13, 2012)

This thread is going on 30 pages. Seriously? :|


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 13, 2012)

Ivar said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return. Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ. So why do it?
> ...



You're inferring then, that with less mp, less thinking is going on. I beg to differ as I have a 16mp 1D Mark IV and I can tell you I think no less than if I had a 36mp camera. I put great thought into my photography, regardless of camera. Yes I also have an EOS-3, which hurts my brain sometimes ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 13, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Interesting - ff fans say with big mps we can crop out the picture and also we would have to think harder before taking the picture. Sounds like there is a gap in the thinking there


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 14, 2012)

Ivar said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return. Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ. So why do it?
> ...



See, if you shoot lets say...weddings, there are moment where thinking is aplied, and crafted, and applied again, all while trying to control chaos around you. But, there are other points, at receptions and during the ceremony where you as a tog have to be in the moment, and you know what, at that point instinct and experience take over. That's where you shoot in 3 shoot bursts to make sure you get the perfect expression ...and thats also where your filling up your cards. Also, if you take a photo-journalistic approach, and those who do that tend to hand over 600-1000 EDITED images to the client, much of the time from a primary and secondary shooter. How many overall shots do you do to get that kind of return? Generally it will be in the vicinity of 1500-3000 images!!!! a high mp camera just isn't suited to that kind of work unless you can tone the files down a bit. and on the d800, they don't have a sRAW or mRAW option, its RAW or crop and sorry, I'd rather use sRAW for filler shots than crop mode. This kind of issue though is only gonna be important for shooter who who shoot a lot, like wedding photographers. If your a studio/commercial tog, more of your shooting will be spent setting up the shoot than actually shooting ---its an apples to tomatoes comparison.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivar said:
> ...



Brian, there was no thinking going on by that person's comments. None.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 14, 2012)

People just don't get that these are 2 very different cameras offering 2 different shooting styles.


----------



## rpt (Jul 14, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> This thread is going on 30 pages. Seriously? :|


+1,000,000


----------



## fullframe (Jul 15, 2012)

I agreed with you. 5dm3 is better than d800 bcoz the low light perfomance is great, also a 22MP sensor is enough to do all the work


----------



## D_Rochat (Jul 15, 2012)




----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 15, 2012)

Exactly.


----------



## Chewy734 (Jul 15, 2012)

is that Abe Lincoln beating a horse? ???


----------



## Bosman (Jul 15, 2012)

Bruce Photography said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > If you like going thru hard drives like water then the D800 is for you. 1000 raw images fills 750gig of hd space. No thanks. The buffer is terribly slow too, thats why they dont offer medium raw because med raw would slow it to a crawl.
> ...


I wasn't talking about compressed lossless was i?

Also given how the buffer drops dramatically in med raw settings its enough to tell you thats why they eliminated the option from the already slow buffer on the d800. I would probably want to throw it at the ground trying to shoot a wedding. Much like that time a guy convinced me the 1d was a superior camera to a 5d which is true but given that the buffer was so painful i missed shots at weddings where emotion took place. You dont want to miss those moments so you do shoot a burst. At least after i sold it and got the 5d in the end it was so much faster than the 1d but not wowsers fast just enough for what i did. 
I don't need to be patronized over how i should think more to get shots, thats what landscape photographers do. I always compose my shots but during peak moments i don't want to concern myself with all of the elements. Those are the wedding photographers who miss the moments, the ones you don't hire to shoot your wedding.


----------



## Ivar (Jul 16, 2012)

It is well understood the value of the 5D3 for weddings. But the same goes for other specialties like studio-landscape where the D800 does better. Different niche, different choice. I bought a 5D2 exactly for these reasons - big "unusable" file size for the time it was released, also very slow camera. 

Now I really enjoy the true upgrade to my 5D2 (sorry for the JPG artifacts, also note not so good lens and it was handheld though quite high shutter speed):


----------



## D_Rochat (Jul 16, 2012)

Ivar said:


> It is well understood the value of the 5D3 for weddings. But the same goes for other specialties like studio-landscape where the D800 does better. Different niche, different choice. I bought a 5D2 exactly for these reasons - big "unusable" file size for the time it was released, also very slow camera.
> 
> Now I really enjoy the true upgrade to my 5D2 (sorry for the JPG artifacts, also note not so good lens and it was handheld though quite high shutter speed):



Good for you (seriously). You needed different tool, so you went and got it. Who cares about brand loyalty. Get what suits your needs.


----------



## Bosman (Jul 16, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > It is well understood the value of the 5D3 for weddings. But the same goes for other specialties like studio-landscape where the D800 does better. Different niche, different choice. I bought a 5D2 exactly for these reasons - big "unusable" file size for the time it was released, also very slow camera.
> ...


This is a d800 and 5dm3 post, why are you getting on him for posting?


----------



## D_Rochat (Jul 17, 2012)

@Bosman What are you talking about? I was commending him for actually switching to a system that suits his needs rather than constantly bitching about how the mark III isn't the camera they wanted. I added the "(seriously)" because I was being serious when I said "Good for you". :


----------



## Woody (Jul 17, 2012)

Hasn't visited this forum in a while. Interesting post. 

I agree Canon need a major shake-up. The most important of which is their sensor department. In the past, they can afford to offer meager functionality (compare D200 vs 40D, D70 vs 10D etc etc) because their sensors totally rule. But now, the tables are turned.

In order to compete on equal footing, Canon may as well follow Pentax, Olympus and Nikon, and start buying Sony sensors for their camera bodies.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 17, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



having actully shot a wedding with a D800, I'm in a position which many here aren't to actually comment in any informed way. sRaw is IMO useless for the wedding photographer. You're throwing away all that data and letting the camera's inferior algorithms resample your image. photoshop will do a far superior job at resizing if you need to sample down due to space constrains. Doing such a thing is next to insanity IMO for you may as well shoot jpg if you're letting the camera handle something as critical as a wedding portrait. You may as well buy/rent a D4 or 1dmk4 and spray and pray low res files which will look better because they won't be butchered by the horrendows "sraw" resize algorithms. If you're nearly out of space and need to switch as an emergency, you'll get better image quality from a 12bit lossy compressed D800 image than from a small raw.

in the day of ever decreasing prices of storage, and ever increasing improvements of print and display media, to capture an image for client in anything but the absolute best the camera can deliver is not only silly, but pointless. sraw is really there for the sport shooters that get 15 shot of the same car going by. 

personally, if I knew the photographer shot my wedding at anything less than the highest quality its camera could, well they would simply not get the job at all. If a client pays for the best I can deliver and I wouldn't cheap them out just to carry one or two less CF cards. I'd only step back on the quality if it was an emergency. But if you do weddings for a living and are skimping on the basics...well, that's an entirely different problem not one any one camera can fix.



fullframe said:


> I agreed with you. 5dm3 is better than d800 bcoz the low light perfomance is great, also a 22MP sensor is enough to do all the work


well if you shoot in a lot of dar places and detail isn't important to you it is. if you shoot light filled landscapes, you know "photo-graphy" as in light not dark-ography, then the selection changes.


----------



## birdman (Jul 17, 2012)

What to do? What to do? Recently sold my 5d2 and waiting on next announcement from Nikon or Canon. Have a D800 set to arrive in the next week. Beautiful DSLR. going with the Nikon 16-35vR or Tokina 16-28 if I keep that camera. 

I needed high MP like poster who uploaded Castle or whatever that amazing building was. Still, I am almost intent on sending back the D800 once it arrives. Too late to cancel right now. Anyway, only the higher useable ISO of the 5d3 are of interest to me over the D800. Well, and build quality supposedly on par with Nikon's offering. 

I would hope the low iso files of the 5d3 are noticeably cleaner than 5d2. The JPEG engine on Canons are generally superior to Nikon (I should know -- I've owned the Nikon D70, D80, D700, and D7k, Canon 40d Rebel XS, and 5d2). Canons also meter better. Yes, with its more simplistic metering my Canons produce scary good exposure results. And finally, Canons are generally more user friendly. The final statement I want to make is this: why did Canon only allow 5d3 users to choose between highlight tone priority OR shadow optimizer? Weird choice to force you to choose one or the other.....to me it is, at least.


----------

