# Nikon D800 vs Canon 5d3 sample images.



## sanj (Mar 4, 2012)

I hate to admit but the Nikon sample images look wayyy better. 
I am telling myself that Nikon used better photographer... :-[


----------



## image2paint (Mar 4, 2012)

+1


----------



## kede (Mar 4, 2012)

Just seeing the sample images (and I'm not giving conclusion) I admit.

All the sample I've seen from the 5D3 looks way too soft. It can be 2 things : First is post prod NR. Second is 5D3 NR. If It's the 5D3 NR they use it wayyyy too much. 
Ok nice, you see no noise at 1600 ISO or even 6400 but it ruin the quality. 

It does exactly the same as Neat Video. 

Second, as I look to the image, it look photoshoped! In some of them I can see clearly bad photoshop! 
I think that we really have to wait unofficial pictures. 

(sorry for my english ^^)


----------



## Brad Trent (Mar 4, 2012)

I'm confused.....are you saying there are side-by-side comparisons of the two cameras, or are you comparing the images released by Nikon and Canon? If the later, then so what? until you can look at the same scene photographed by both cameras, using simliar lenses, and simliar post-processing corrections, any comparison is kinda meaningless.

BT


----------



## Renato (Mar 4, 2012)

Brad Trent said:


> I'm confused.....are you saying there are side-by-side comparisons of the two cameras, or are you comparing the images released by Nikon and Canon? If the later, then so what? until you can look at the same scene photographed by both cameras, using simliar lenses, and simliar post-processing corrections, any comparison is kinda meaningless.
> 
> BT



Totally agree, also need the original RAW images without any NR. I am totally surprised that Canon and Nikon fail miserably at providing such information and that the photographic community lets them get away with murder and misinformation.


----------



## zim (Mar 4, 2012)

Hi, a bit off topic but I didn’t want to start a new just for this. There was a post and link given at some point in the mêlée pre 02/03 to a web site where the guy compared Canon & Nikon sensors when the same image is pushed. Was a photo looking out a window so very high DR. Can anyone help me with that link again please?


----------



## sanj (Mar 5, 2012)

Brad/Renato.
Sometimes it is not necessary to see the same image side by side to compare. That is necessary only when the difference is small.
In this case the difference is so obvious that there is no need to put the images side by side, IMHO.
Sanjay


----------



## Martin (Mar 5, 2012)

yep. I heve already post some my thoughts about those samples in other topic, but now i realize that there is a topic about it so...

I am a canon user from 1 year. I switched from Nikon. Bad decision-YES!. I waited for 5d3 in order to made my final decsion to stay or go away from Canon. 

Speaking about the main topic...

When I firstly saw a 5d3 sample I was in shock-how is it possible? It looks like crap from good high mpix compact camera, not a 3500$ dlsr. There is no sharpness at all. Everything looks crappy and very soft, even photos developed from Raws (animal photo). Every photo looks like after strong in camera pp. Please take a closer look on eyebrows, lashes, eyes, hair. Guys-it's drama. Than I took a look on D800 (nor E) samples-amazing. I am not a tech guys, but photographer, but from I have seen the decision is obvious and clear. I think thats not about resolution, it's about whole things related with image processing and sensor. 5d3 photos lacs details and sharpness, they look strange in 100% view. What is strange also is that I think that photos from my 5d2 looks better in terms of sharpness and detail. I am frustrated due to being already invested in Canon gear, but I know I will probably sell me lens and switch back to Nikon even losing some money. I would be very happy to see other point of views, especially from more advanced or professional photographers.


----------



## Martin (Mar 5, 2012)

sanj said:


> Brad/Renato.
> Sometimes it is not necessary to see the same image side by side to compare. That is necessary only when the difference is small.
> In this case the difference is so obvious that there is no need to put the images side by side, IMHO.
> Sanjay



Same opinion here. Followed by marketing, people are happy because new AF, but no one took a look at samples . It's drama for me. There is nothing to compare with D800. I waited for 5D3, having a 5 lens from Canon, but now I decided to sell it and switch, unfortunately. Shame for Canon in my opinion.


----------



## meli (Mar 5, 2012)

zim said:


> Hi, a bit off topic but I didn’t want to start a new just for this. There was a post and link given at some point in the mêlée pre 02/03 to a web site where the guy compared Canon & Nikon sensors when the same image is pushed. Was a photo looking out a window so very high DR. Can anyone help me with that link again please?



might be this: http://testcams.com/blog/2011/05/03/nikon-dx-vs-canon-aps-c-dynamic-range/


----------



## rj79in (Mar 5, 2012)

Martin said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Brad/Renato.
> ...



Would suggest you wait for the non"Official" photos before you are able to make a reasonable comparison. These marketing guys ain't no photographers!


----------



## ashe (Mar 5, 2012)

These images look really sharp http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/ .

In this image you can see the details of the models leg http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/08.jpg

Pretty impressive if you ask me. 

Ashe


----------



## altenae (Mar 5, 2012)

impressive ?
Not really most camera's can do that.


----------



## ashe (Mar 5, 2012)

altenae said:


> impressive ?
> Not really most camera's can do that.



Yeah but the issue here is sharpness... and they seem to be pretty sharp.


----------



## RedEye (Mar 5, 2012)

Martin said:


> I will probably sell me lens and switch back to Nikon



ARRRRRR! A pirate your are matey!

Or a boondock something...lol


----------



## psolberg (Mar 5, 2012)

I do expect the nikon to produce more technically impressive RAWs but I expect the canon to offer some more latitude in difficult shooting conditions.

However, I think it is silly to compare them on their respective strong points. Many canon fanboys will chant: "see, at ISO 51K, it blows the D800 out of the water". Only to be greeted with nikon fanboys please to remind them that "well, at ISO 400, it shoots the 5DmkIII out of the sky".

The 5DIII can't match the detail of the nikon, period. get over it. It wasn't meant to do that. Just as the D800 wasn't meant to be a night vision camera and it will be a poor tool for that.

A more relevant comparison would be on how much these cameras can do to offset their drawbacks. For instance, will the cleaner images of the 5DIII record more detail? or will the scaled down images of the D800 show less perceived noise. 

That's more interesting than creating a comparison where you know who the winner is before you started.


----------



## dafrank (Mar 5, 2012)

Just seeing the sample images (and I'm not giving conclusion) I admit.

All the sample I've seen from the 5D3 looks way too soft. It can be 2 things : First is post prod NR. Second is 5D3 NR. If It's the 5D3 NR they use it wayyyy too much. 
Ok nice, you see no noise at 1600 ISO or even 6400 but it ruin the quality. 

Aside from the possible bad judgment and/or low talent of the people Canon chose to shoot their samples, I've come to almost the same conclusion as you have, but I'm just not quite as sure as you are, and I would like to see images from raw, shot by a good photographer and processed in DPP by a good craftsman before I could be. If, under those conditions, the results from raws look great, then I'd have to say that Canon has rolled up a big fat fail with its 5DIII in-camera Jpg processing.

But, there is another possiblity that is something I have deduced from the available specs and samples, plus statements by those associated by Canon with the 5DIII release. It's possible that Canon, in order to satisfy the potential video users of this camera who had previously complained about the bad aliasing and moire on 5DIII video, has used a much stronger AA filter on this camera to help cure it, and that the softness you see in the released Jpegs is mostly from this. There are two other points that can support this. One is that Canon is offering the unprecedented function of supposedly deconstructing the effect of the AA filter in the latest version of its raw software converter, DPP, to be released with the camera. Why do this now, unless it is especially relevant to the 5DIII? Although this might be their software answer to the Nikon D800 without AA filter, I doubt Canon could have developed this software function in the short time after which they likely learned of Nikon's plans. Also, in looking at many of the Canon 5DII samples, I noted an unusually low level of moire in many of the samples, several of which I know would certainly have displayed some level of moire if shot with my 1DsIII. I hope I am wrong about this, but I am afraid that I may well be correct in my deduction.

Second, as I look to the image, it look photoshoped! In some of them I can see clearly bad photoshop! 
I think that we really have to wait unofficial pictures. 

Most likely what you are seeing, and I too, at first, suspected as possibly some sort of horrible Photoshop work, is rather the awful effects of using the new in-camera HDR function, which, at different settings results in effects that range from bad to absolutely pathetic. This function needs either to be vastly improved or deleted from the firmware ASAP.

Regards,
David


----------



## candyman (Mar 5, 2012)

dafrank said:


> I think that we really have to wait unofficial pictures.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> David




+1
Photos from the final productionmodel with the final firmware


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 5, 2012)

> It's drama for me. There is nothing to compare with D800. I waited for 5D3, having a 5 lens from Canon, but now I decided to sell it and switch, unfortunately.



goodbye!


----------



## foobar (Mar 5, 2012)

ashe said:


> Yeah but the issue here is sharpness... and they seem to be pretty sharp.


It's okay but it's far from mindblowing. Whenever artificial light in involved and you can shoot at base ISO with the lens stopped down a bit, you can get that kind of sharpness even with a rebel and a kit lens. Seriously.

In fact Canon's sample image actually seems a bit soft to me. That might be caused by diffraction (shot at f/16), the RAW converter settings or the JPG compression.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing the 5D3. It's just that I've seen sharper pictures from lesser setups and therefore don't think this image does the camera justice.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 5, 2012)

Either way, *both* companies should be ashamed with the quality of photography *skill* demonstrated in these samples. Half the people on this site could do better.


----------



## SK (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm assuming you are comparing sample images from canon website and nikon website.

D800 images are 20mb jpeg and 5D3 images are 5~10mb jpeg.

I agree that 5D3 images seem too soft, but still I won't change to Nikon just after comparing sample images...


----------



## sandymandy (Mar 5, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> Either way, *both* companies should be ashamed with the quality of photography *skill* demonstrated in these samples. Half the people on this site could do better.



Thats what struck me also. Its like they wanna promote their 5D mk iii to be like some newbie photographers first camera. Sample images look kinda....like..well....random snap shots. They should show off whats really possible with this camera. The camera is geared towards the more "pro" people i think. People who are willing to spend lots of money on their cameras. Im not sure if some photos of leafs or drinking glasses are gonna make an impression really in the targeted audience.. ;D


----------



## EIREHotspur (Mar 5, 2012)

...and the opening line in a new DSLRs for Dummies would go a kinda like this.....

...The Canon 5D2 sold by the bucketload.....the Canon 5D3 is the update to that camera....

Don't you all think that the 5D3 has to be an improvement on that?

Have seen some spectacular shots from the 5D2 over the years.

Look the Canon people chose 4 guys on bikes in a warehouse to showcase their new cashcow.....you cannot judge the camera until you see some independant users get their hands on it.

I preordered yesterday.


----------



## rj79in (Mar 5, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, *both* companies should be ashamed with the quality of photography *skill* demonstrated in these samples. Half the people on this site could do better.
> ...



Totally agree ... most people who will be buying the III will either be semi-pro / pro knowing a thing or two about photography. Canon should've known that the prospective buyers would have an discerning eye when it posted the sample pictures which, in all fairness can be bettered by a number of low end models in the Canon roster. 

Why these samples? Who holds the answers? Probably some marketing guy wielding a powershot / coolpix.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 5, 2012)

For those looking to compare bodies/images, I agree with other posters who recommend waiting for the final versions to hit the market before doing serious analysis.

And while I admit that I am very impressed with the d800's low ISO images (they really are amazing), I suggest some of you check out the high ISO samples over at DP Review. The 6400 is incredible and will certainly be printable at larger sizes with some minimal NR applied...

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-low-light-iso-samples 

6400 - http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1779794.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1330975364&Signature=ewGdJM%2f87buRe3mBO3dtota8ruA%3d

12800 is more than useable - http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1779795.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1330975263&Signature=b8czTmYoKCfKEI97z4qsGsP3JSI%3d

It looks like the d800 and 5D3 will satisfy two separate markets. I almost see the d800 as a high rez landscape camera, whereas the 5D3 will be an event, concert, portrait, and wedding photographer's dream. In my opinion, those high ISOs will set the 5D3 apart from any other dSLR in the price range.


----------



## ashe (Mar 5, 2012)

A few more: http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html


----------



## altenae (Mar 5, 2012)

Also like to see a CRISP 100 ISO image.
I also like to use the 5D MK III with 100 ISO also 

Maybe it's not NR but a strong AA filter ??

I guess we have to wait and see....


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 5, 2012)

EIREHotspur said:


> Look the Canon people chose 4 guys on bikes in a warehouse to showcase their new cashcow.....you cannot judge the camera until you see some independant users get their hands on it.


Nice 

I envisioned Canon engineers being let out of a giant hamster cage , then told they have 1 hour to shoot something for the website. And if they don't return and upload the pictures in 1 hour, their explosive collars will surely detonate.


----------



## RuneL (Mar 5, 2012)

Are we forgetting the lens?
Just looked at the picture of the woman in red. It's probably more about the lens (24-70 2.8L) it looks exactly the same as what my 1D IV delivers with than particular lens. Same soft-ish look. Running it through my sharpening routines it looks fine. 
I don't see any real evidence of heavy noise reduction, maybe some retouching on the face of the model, but not anywhere else. 
When not pixel peeping at 100% it is fine too. 

I've scaled down and sharpened these (cropped the tiger), I think it looks pretty good. Originals:

Tiger: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/14.jpg
Woman in red: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/08.jpg


----------



## rj79in (Mar 5, 2012)

RuneL said:


> Are we forgetting the lens?
> Just looked at the picture of the woman in red. It's probably more about the lens (24-70 2.8L) it looks exactly the same as what my 1D IV delivers with than particular lens. Same soft-ish look. Running it through my sharpening routines it looks fine.
> I don't see any real evidence of heavy noise reduction, maybe some retouching on the face of the model, but not anywhere else.
> When not pixel peeping at 100% it is fine too.
> ...



The point is ... with sample images Canon is trying to "Sell" this camera to you. You should be allowed to pixel peep at 100% to make a judgment. If one only had the sample images to go by how many will buy the "new" camera?


----------



## altenae (Mar 5, 2012)

I agree they look good, but at 1600px width they should.
Don't get me wrong, but even a not sharp picture can look sharp at 1600 px.


----------



## etg9 (Mar 5, 2012)

The woman in the red trench has the focus (imho) missed. On the full version you can see her gloves are very much in focus while her face isn't. I think the samples in general were pretty weak and Canon does an inconsistent job posting good and bad samples for their products.


----------



## RuneL (Mar 5, 2012)

rj79in said:


> RuneL said:
> 
> 
> > Are we forgetting the lens?
> ...



They should let us have the raws. 



altenae said:


> I agree they look good, but at 1600px width they should.
> Don't get me wrong, but even a not sharp picture can look sharp at 1600 px.



I felt that posting full res images here would be a rather pointless strain on the servers. 

Also, how many people will be showing the pics from the 5D III in excess of 1600px? 
You could print the Canon examples in a magazine too without any issue. 

Wait for some real world results, yeah. And it is shocking that the examples aren't better.


----------



## altenae (Mar 5, 2012)

> Also, how many people will be showing the pics from the 5D III in excess of 1600px?
> You could print the Canon examples in a magazine too without any issue.



Correct, but if that is all you do with the pictures you don't need a 5D Mark III right ?


----------



## RuneL (Mar 5, 2012)

altenae said:


> > Also, how many people will be showing the pics from the 5D III in excess of 1600px?
> > You could print the Canon examples in a magazine too without any issue.
> 
> 
> ...



Lol, tell that to the people who are going to be buying it. http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_5d_mark_ii/ It is the new Rebel.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 5, 2012)

sanj said:


> I hate to admit but the Nikon sample images look wayyy better.
> I am telling myself that Nikon used better photographer... :-[



Link(s)?


----------



## RuneL (Mar 5, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to admit but the Nikon sample images look wayyy better.
> ...



http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm
Be aware of focal lengths though, before comparing sharpness on the people pics.


----------



## ashe (Mar 5, 2012)

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/03/02/should-i-upgrade-to-the-5d-mk-iii-from-the-5d-mk-ii/#comment-456497550

ChrisGampat wrote,

It's fine.

I know that the D800 has the same pixel density as the D7000 in terms of physics, which makes me believe that it may have slightly better high iso capabilities. With that said, the 5D Mk III had better pull some magic because the D7000 sensor is said to be better than the Mk II.

Pound for pound though, these two cameras are very much the same with some single outlying features. Overall, Canon's lenses are ones that I'm happier with.

Lastly, I own cameras and lenses in both systems. But at the end of the day, my Canon investment has saved me more money.

-Chris Gampat
Editor in Chief
The Phoblographer


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 5, 2012)

I agree. Samples so far are very disappointing imo. Your suggestion about the use of a very strong AA filter for video aliasing & moire reduction is looking likely...and that would be very, very bad news.





dafrank said:


> Just seeing the sample images (and I'm not giving conclusion) I admit.
> 
> All the sample I've seen from the 5D3 looks way too soft. It can be 2 things : First is post prod NR. Second is 5D3 NR. If It's the 5D3 NR they use it wayyyy too much.
> Ok nice, you see no noise at 1600 ISO or even 6400 but it ruin the quality.
> ...


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 5, 2012)

SK said:


> I'm assuming you are comparing sample images from canon website and nikon website.
> 
> D800 images are 20mb jpeg and 5D3 images are 5~10mb jpeg.
> 
> I agree that 5D3 images seem too soft, but still I won't change to Nikon just after comparing sample images...




+1 on both points, the d800 looks sharper at 2 to 3x file size. The 5D3 pics looks worse than my 50D, so I'll assume the samples are just plain bad.

If the 5D3 can't best my 50D then Canon is f*cked.


----------



## ashe (Mar 5, 2012)

Video samples: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/05/comparing-video-from-the-canon-5d-mark-ii-and-5d-mark-iii-at-iso-12800/


----------



## Grum (Mar 5, 2012)

I have to agree that the Canon samples are fairly poor - difficult to believe on such a major release but it does look like they are not quite in focus on at least a couple of the shots.

These look pretty good though IMO

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcfever.com%2Fnews%2Freadnews.php%3Fid%3D6365

Though I'm definitely holding judgement until we've seen proper RAW file conversions and reviews/tests.


----------



## Martin (Mar 5, 2012)

Hope that AA filter theory is wrong, on the other side the theory is convincing. I can belive I waited so long and the camera will produce soft images due to AA filter. After I bought canon gear and worked with it for several months I knew that I had made bad decision but I hoped that 5d3 will change a lot. I don't understand guys who say that presented official samples are sharp and ok. Samples are out of detail and very soft (not mentioning the price) We need to wait.


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 5, 2012)

dafrank said:


> Just seeing the sample images (and I'm not giving conclusion) I admit.
> 
> All the sample I've seen from the 5D3 looks way too soft. It can be 2 things : First is post prod NR. Second is 5D3 NR. If It's the 5D3 NR they use it wayyyy too much.
> Ok nice, you see no noise at 1600 ISO or even 6400 but it ruin the quality.
> ...



It could also be due to JPEG compression. I would expect at least some of those images to be closer to 15-18 MB if uncompressed. Certainly most of them should be over 10 MB.


----------



## altenae (Mar 5, 2012)

Maybe due to jpeg compression. 
More likely the file size is smaller due to heavy NR. 

I am afraid so.


----------



## Martin (Mar 5, 2012)

If this is true there will be a huge disappointment on the pro/semi pro market waiting for the camera.


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 5, 2012)

altenae said:


> Maybe due to jpeg compression.
> More likely the file size is smaller due to heavy NR.
> 
> I am afraid so.


It does looks like heavy noise reduction to me (although it could also be compression on top). From what I saw yesterday when I switched the noise reduction off (only on the back screen though), the results can be much better and don't need all that noise reduction. I seem to remember that previous sample images from new cameras also had heavy noise reduction.


----------



## ashe (Mar 5, 2012)

Here you go... some additional samples:

Canon
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14022610&postcount=2459

D800

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

After seeing these it looks like it is heavy NR.


----------



## studio1972 (Mar 5, 2012)

Martin said:


> Hope that AA filter theory is wrong, on the other side the theory is convincing. I can belive I waited so long and the camera will produce soft images due to AA filter. After I bought canon gear and worked with it for several months I knew that I had made bad decision but I hoped that 5d3 will change a lot. I don't understand guys who say that presented official samples are sharp and ok. Samples are out of detail and very soft (not mentioning the price) We need to wait.



Apparently the AA filter is weaker than the one in the 5D2, so no. Anybody who buys a camera on the basis of the example images on the manufacturers website is a prize numpty in my book anyway. Wait until some respected pros (not paid by Canon) have had a go with it first, then make your mind up.


----------



## hyles (Mar 5, 2012)

Well, if we are talking about the pictures on canon site and the one on the nikon site, i may say they are quite different. Most of the nikon are taken f8 to gain dept of field and increse detail. Nikon maximum ISO setting is 640.
Most of the canon portrait are wider than 2.8 with iso reaching 3200. 
Nikon pictures are taken in studio, the canon are close to the pictures anyone can take. Don't think there are any pictures really comparable.
The nikon bride is 640 ISO f4.5, the ones on the canon sites are wider and/or higer ISO. 
Actually the canon bride @ 7.1 is quite good to be shot at 3200 ISO. 
And last but not least, tiger are jpg generated by the on camera raw converter.
Think that most of the people complaining for the lack of sharpness are better wait for more pictures...
Diego


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 5, 2012)

The D800 samples specifically say that they are raw files that have been processed in Nik software and are well though out photos taken to show the camera at it's best. Appropriate lenses are used for the shots too, this also makes the camera look good... As sample photos should be.

The 5d3 samples are all let's face it... S___. I really really hope they are off the camera jpg's and not processed raw's. 

The one of the fall leaves looks to have been taken using the on camera hdr tool. The fact they show this image as sample with the abysmal dark fringed artifact border between the trees and sky is mind boggling. Did they give the camera to a bunch of Nikon execs and ask them to take the photos?

The 5dr images are virtually all appallingly soft and some are not even in focus. Some of this isn't the camera though, they make some of the lenses look bad as the image gets blurred as they get further from the center, I'm thinking of the 17-40mm shots here. One thing that has shown me is if I do keep my 5d3 on preorder and no get a d800 instead is that I will need to upgrade my 17-40mm ... Although Canon do not have an ultra wide that has anything like the corner to corner sharpness of the Nikon 14-24mm.

Not making a proper effort to get properly thought out, well taken and well processed sample shots seems a pretty stupid move by Canon. I know you can't read too much into sample images but it does take something away any initial buzz when they are this crap. 

For these two cameras it also perhaps shows the target use. D800... Highly detailed images in good or highly controlled conditions. 5d3... Good high iso images in badly lit conditions and action shots.

It's certainly not helping me decide to stay with Canon already tempted by the "buy a d800e and 14-24mm, it's closer to the medium format cameras you can't afford" gremlin that keeps whispering in my ear.


----------



## Brad Trent (Mar 6, 2012)

I just read through this thread (and most of the other New 5D-related posts) and I can't believe how many guys actually saying it's _not important_ to see the same scene, photographed by both cameras side by side, before they make a decision about which camera is gonna make the better final image! My first impression was, _"You can't be serious?!!"_, but then I really shouldn't be too surprised, based on the mountains of fanboy praise piling up about the new 5D that I had to climb over to find any comments that might have a kernel of level-headed reason to use in making an informed opinion. My God...the lengths some people will go to prove their undying allegiance to a camera company! Unless there are a few _'Explorers of Light'_ in attendance, it's not like Canon is paying any of you to publicly kiss their ass. 

I think I'm gonna give up on trolling the boards for any further news on either the 5Dmkiii or the D800. Until these things hit the streets, it's pointless to go on when 99% of what's getting tossed about is speculation. I now know all the specs and once I can get my hands on them to do a real test, all this back-n-forth from people who just seem to wanna hear their own voices rise above everybody else (and the backbiting that ensues) is serving no purpose.  Or maybe dpreview will get a full review out on both bodies that I know I can trust...

BT


----------



## te4o (Mar 6, 2012)

Brad Trent said:


> I think I'm gonna give up on trolling the boards for any further news on either the 5Dmkiii or the D800. Until these things hit the streets, it's pointless to go on when 99% of what's getting tossed about is speculation. I now know all the specs and once I can get my hands on them to do a real test, all this back-n-forth from people who just seem to wanna hear their own voices rise above everybody else (and the backbiting that ensues) is serving no purpose.  Or maybe dpreview will get a full review out on both bodies that I know I can trust...
> 
> BT



Not only this, Brad, you and I will have to take OUR OWN lenses to a cam-shop and give it a good test. It's not that simple with a FF above 12 MP: the lens-sensor alignment, optical micro-adjustments and I don't know what have to fit so that I can decide for or against a purchase. Seeing these samples makes me a fan of the 5D2 again, for my usage this will be enough. But I guess that the lenses used for the samples and the narrow apertures on the landscapes are spoiling the sharpness too. No way anyone can decide for or against the two new big DSLRs without seeing them not only in the hands of "independent" reviewers but YOUR hands too!


----------



## JoeDavid (Mar 6, 2012)

I concentrated on the landscape shots because you would think that they were included to show off the resolution capabilities of the 5DM3. I saved the images locally and used DPP to see the full Canon information.

The shot of the village on the hillside was taken with the 50mm f1.2L at f8 and 1/400 sec, Image Quality setting was Fine, and a Picture Style of Landscape. To me it looks like a soft image over-sharpened a little when viewed at 100%. It worries me if that is the best it can do at ISO 100. Metering was set to Evaluative with a -2/3 Exposure Compensation setting (so much for Canon's perfect metering...).

The fall foliage shot across the water was taken with the 70-200/2.8L IS II at 85mm using f8 and 1/320 sec. Image quality was again set to Fine with a Picture Style of User Defined 1 at ISO 200. To me this shot also looks like a soft shot that has been slightly over-sharpened when viewed at 100%. This one was also metered with Evaluative metering with a -2/3 Exposure Compensation.

The last one (the one of the lake with the hills in the background) was taken at 17mm with the 17-40mm f4L; NOT the 17mm TSE. The shot was taken at f11 and 1/160 sec. Again, Image Quality was set to Fine and used the Landscape Picture Style at ISO 200. Knowing that the shot is focused fairly close judging by the foreground sharpness, I can live with the soft foliage in the distance. Evaluative metering as the others but this time no Exposure Compensation was used so the metering hit 1 out of 3.

All in all, it looks like a pretty weak showing for landscape photography. One other interesting thing to note is that they were all taken in October of last year with three different versions of the firmware...


----------



## sanj (Mar 6, 2012)

For me its not just the sharpness but a PERCEPTION of depth and DR which hit me hard. I just loved the Nikon images.
I find it bit weird when we feel that we should wait for 'real' photographers to post their photos and not look at sample images!! I would think that a huge company like Canon would post the best pictures using the best photographers for marketing..!!! Really..
If I did not own such a huge collection of Canon glass I would switch, but as of now I have to do the best with what Canon provides - which is good enough, I should not have looked at the neighbour's plate...


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 6, 2012)

G-dammit... this is really starting to chap my ass, and it's already starting to catch fire...

http://5dmkiii.wordpress.com/

Did I just make a bad decision with my 5D3 preorder? Some of these samples remind me of the 7D melted hay disaster....







WTF is going on here?!?!??!?! 

I want to cry. :[ I hope this is just demo model results and not final shipping versions. If I had to be 100% honest... most of these "official" sample files seem to have less detail than my 5D2 images. I can't read about this anymore.

:'(


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Mar 6, 2012)

That Wordpress site looks dodgy, that's the only article on that site, heck, anyone could have put up that article (read: Nikon marketers or fanbois with an agenda) to bash the camera before production-ready units are released.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 6, 2012)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> That Wordpress site looks dodgy, that's the only article on that site, heck, anyone could have put up that article (read: Nikon marketers or fanbois with an agenda) to bash the camera before production-ready units are released.



That's a good point about that domain - and I'm sure it's just a Canon basher who made that site. But now there's a huge thread on DPreview.com with Canon users up in arms about the same sample photos.

This post in particular is pretty interesting...



> _I agree that, after looking at all the samples on both the Canon Japan site and the Canon Professional CPN site, almost all the 5DIII sample Jpegs are unacceptably soft-looking at 100% viiewing, and substantially more soft than would be shots taken with my 1DsIII. Why this is, is not easily explained, but it is a very bad sign for the fate of the camera in the marketplace. I can't comment on the Nikon D800 images because I have neither looked at them, nor have I much interest in them at the moment.
> 
> Aside from the possible bad judgment and/or low talent of the people Canon chose to shoot their samples, I've come to a preliminary but worrisome conclusion, but I would like to see images from raw, shot by a good photographer and processed in DPP by a good craftsman before I could be sure about it. If, under those conditions, the results from raws look great, then I'd have to say that Canon has rolled up a big fat fail with its 5DIII in-camera Jpg processing.
> 
> ...



I'm getting a little worried.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 6, 2012)

Canon claims in some of their press info that they made the AA filter weaker on the 5D3. The horrendous detail loss and mush whereby even their ISO100 samples sometimes have only like 12MP if information appear due to appallingly heavy NR being applied to almost all of the sample images (and even sample videos, where the 5D2 was much noisier but had FAR more detail and the 5D2 doesn't even have close to 1920x1080 res to begin with). They have really gone out of control with their NR algorithms for in cam processing.
Even at ISO 200 and even 100, areas of modest contrast detail get NR to pure wax.

This shouldn't effect RAW at all but it does mean that you can't look at the samples and be like wow there is no noise at ISO6400 now (when there is like only 5MP of detail left).


----------



## caMARYnon (Mar 6, 2012)

ashe said:


> Video samples: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/05/comparing-video-from-the-canon-5d-mark-ii-and-5d-mark-iii-at-iso-12800/


Less noise but less details too :-\


----------



## CTR (Mar 6, 2012)

The 5D3 must have an aggressive AA filter, high jpeg compression or strong in camera noise reduction even at low ISO. 

The 5D, known for it's per pixel sharpness: 

12.1MP, 9.4MB, ISO 100, 1/500, F8, conversion from RAW:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eos5d/downloads/landscape.jpg

5D3:

22MP, 9MB, ISO 100, 1/160, F11
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/05.jpg

I wonder why Canon decided to go with jpegs instead of RAW conversions as they did with the original 5D1. The RAW conversions looks much more impressive. The difference is striking.


----------



## bycostello (Mar 6, 2012)

just don't believe there is any real world difference.... except maybe for those that like to photograph those target thingys...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Mar 6, 2012)

hyles said:


> Well, if we are talking about the pictures on canon site and the one on the nikon site, i may say they are quite different. Most of the nikon are taken f8 to gain dept of field and increse detail. Nikon maximum ISO setting is 640.
> Most of the canon portrait are wider than 2.8 with iso reaching 3200.
> Nikon pictures are taken in studio, the canon are close to the pictures anyone can take. Don't think there are any pictures really comparable.
> The nikon bride is 640 ISO f4.5, the ones on the canon sites are wider and/or higer ISO.
> ...


I think you're right on the money here.

So far my favorite of the images is the f/11, ISO 100 shot from the TS-E 90 (the still life with cherries and raspberries). It looks about like what I'd expect for that lens, although there is still sharpness lost, which is odd. Should be early for diffraction to be detectable, I think. It is not a new lens design, though.


----------



## Brad Trent (Mar 6, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> G-dammit... this is really starting to chap my ass, and it's already starting to catch fire...Did I just make a bad decision with my 5D3 preorder? I want to cry. :'(



Wow! Nothing like getting buyers remorse ten seconds after you order the thing.

You guys kill me! I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering why anybody would order a new camera without even seeing (let alone test) the damn thing. Especially if there is no compelling reason to do so other than having bragging rights on an online forum. And double that if the buyer doesn't even _make a living_ at photography! For a weekend warrior to kick up the kind of money the new 5D costs based on a spec sheet is baffling, especially considering some of the simply awful first-run issues that have come up in the past with Canon's 'Top Shelf' cameras. Doesn't anybody here remember the focus problems Canon had with the 1D series?!! Or the black dots in the highlights of the 5dmkii?!! Yes...things can get fixed with software upgrades down the road, but why would you wanna take a chance that this new body is gonna be 100% out of the blocks when the downside is that you end up with (possibly) sh¡tty pictures?!!

You want my advice? Take a step back and let some other guy be the crash test dummy. Then, a few months later, after all the kinks have been ironed out and there have been enough real-world tests of the thing, knock yourself out! Oh, why am I bothering? The type of person who throws $3500 bucks after an unseen, untested camera is likely the same kind of guy who will wait for a week in the rain to be the first kid on his block with the latest version of _"Call of Duty"_......


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 6, 2012)

Brad Trent said:


> Wow! Nothing like getting buyers remorse ten seconds after you order the thing.
> 
> You guys kill me! I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering why anybody would order a new camera without even seeing (let alone test) the damn thing. Especially if there is no compelling reason to do so other than having bragging rights on an online forum. And double that if the buyer doesn't even _make a living_ at photography! For a weekend warrior to kick up the kind of money the new 5D costs based on a spec sheet is baffling, especially considering some of the simply awful first-run issues that have come up in the past with Canon's 'Top Shelf' cameras. Doesn't anybody here remember the focus problems Canon had with the 1D series?!! Or the black dots in the highlights of the 5dmkii?!! Yes...things can get fixed with software upgrades down the road, but why would you wanna take a chance that this new body is gonna be 100% out of the blocks when the downside is that you end up with (possibly) sh¡tty pictures?!!
> 
> You want my advice? Take a step back and let some other guy be the crash test dummy. Then, a few months later, after all the kinks have been ironed out and there have been enough real-world tests of the thing, knock yourself out! Oh, why am I bothering? The type of person who throws $3500 bucks after an unseen, untested camera is likely the same kind of guy who will wait for a week in the rain to be the first kid on his block with the latest version of _"Call of Duty"_......



Seriously... What do you care what other people do with THEIR OWN money? You don't know anyone else's financial status so why pretend like you know better than them? If a photographer is that unsatisfied with the AF on the 5D2 (as I am), and has been clamoring for such an improvement for more than 3 years - why knock them if they have the money to spend on a better system?

So now everyone here is a "weekend warrior"? No one on this forum actually "makes a living" from photography? Just because you can't - doesn't mean there aren't plenty of us who are.

You want my advice? Maybe you should stop projecting and try contributing a little more.


----------



## Brad Trent (Mar 6, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> Brad Trent said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! Nothing like getting buyers remorse ten seconds after you order the thing.
> ...



OK...I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings with my reply, but allow me to clear up a few things that you said...

First off, what anybody does with their own money is their own business. I merely suggested that instead of getting caught up in the wave of pre-release publicity and making a rash decision, it might be wise to consider the previous history of similar releases before throwing your money after an untested camera. And honestly, _you were_ the one moaning about whether you made the right decision by pre-ordering! I'm not jumping up and down about the 5DII's focusing either, but I'm not gonna take Canon's word that they've got the new model ready for the Big Show before I can actually see for myself! 

And don't confuse my "weekend warrior" comment to mean that I don't think there are plenty of working pros on this forum. I never said that. If you re-read what I wrote, I meant that unless you were a professional photographer, it would be _especially_ foolish to upgrade to the new camera if your business didn't depend on taking the considerable leap of faith and assume the newer version is going to be better than the current 5D. 

Finally, if we're gonna talk about who's _'projecting'_ here, I'm not the one worried about the money he just spent on a camera that may or may not meet his expectations. If you wanna stick up for the 5DmkIII, fine, but don't get mad at others who might not entirely agree with you...

BT

PS: Oh yeah...almost forgot about that _"...Just because you can't..."_ thing....but I do just fine, thanks for asking.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 6, 2012)

Brad Trent said:


> Finally, if we're gonna talk about who's _'projecting'_ here, I'm not the one worried about the money he just spent on a camera that may or may not meet his expectations. If you wanna stick up for the 5DmkIII, fine, but don't get mad at others who might not entirely agree with you...



I'm not worried - I just like bitching. Hang around here a while... you'll see. 

And for you to have to write that much to explain your rant, it says quite a bit more about your prejudgements of other photographers than it does about me. Just sayin'.

Carry on...


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 6, 2012)

Another set of samples...

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/32165/canon-5d-mark-iii-test/







You be the judge.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 6, 2012)

^That's a good one. I still can't believe in the set of samples Canon choose. How can the Japanese be so good at making cameras, but so bad at photography?


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 6, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> ^That's a good one. I still can't believe in the set of samples Canon choose. How can the Japanese be so good at making cameras, but so bad at photography?



And driving haha 8)


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 6, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> ^That's a good one. I still can't believe in the set of samples Canon choose. How can the Japanese be so good at making cameras, but so bad at photography?



Call me kooky - but I don't see anything in that image that appears to be in proper focus. Maybe his right cheek? Or the bridge of his nose?

I still think Canon has put WAY too much NR on it's in-camera JPGs. Almost to the point of them being unusable. If I gave that photo to a client - they'd demand a refund.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 6, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > ^That's a good one. I still can't believe in the set of samples Canon choose. How can the Japanese be so good at making cameras, but so bad at photography?
> ...



If i'm not mistaken the same thing was said about the Canon 5d Mark 2 when it was first released... Reviewers even said the NR went so far as smearing the details and that along with the black dots issues gave the 5d2 a steep hill to climb but soon enough after real world samples came out the negative noise all but went away and the 5d2 became heralded with having one of the best IQ's out there... That being said, the settings used such as in-camera sharpening, etc is also unknown, and being jpegs, that is very important to know. I wouldn't panic until we see production samples from real world photographer shooting en mass. Then we will see the true capabilities with this camera and the D800 for that matter.


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 6, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> Another set of samples...
> 
> http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/32165/canon-5d-mark-iii-test/
> 
> ...


Another set of soft images


----------



## ippikiokami (Mar 6, 2012)

I have the 5d3 preordered, but I do see the soft-ness people are talking about. But I also believe we haven't seen an image from a final version of the camera. There could be a million and one reasons why the pictures are one way or another. Who really knows but Canon is a large org with millions of dollars in R&D /Marketing / Production etc behind this camera and I doubt they would let something released that really would have this big of a problem.


----------



## iso79 (Mar 6, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> ^That's a good one. I still can't believe in the set of samples Canon choose. How can the Japanese be so good at making cameras, but so bad at photography?



Because engineers and marketing people aren't photographers.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 6, 2012)

ippikiokami said:


> I have the 5d3 preordered, but I do see the soft-ness people are talking about. But I also believe we haven't seen an image from a final version of the camera. There could be a million and one reasons why the pictures are one way or another. Who really knows but Canon is a large org with millions of dollars in R&D /Marketing / Production etc behind this camera and I doubt they would let something released that really would have this big of a problem.



Applying this same reasoning you'd think they'd know how to produce decent samples..

At least that guy from the review above knows how to take a decent shot.


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 6, 2012)

iso79 said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > ^That's a good one. I still can't believe in the set of samples Canon choose. How can the Japanese be so good at making cameras, but so bad at photography?
> ...


Even my 86 years old grandpa can see the softness on those images, they don't have to be photographers to check whether the image is soft or not


----------



## Chewy734 (Mar 6, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> Even my 86 years old grandpa can see the softness on those images, they don't have to be photographers to check whether the image is soft or not



haha... the images are noticeably soft, even when compared to the 5D2.


----------



## Gkaz (Mar 6, 2012)

From what I remember, when I got my Canon Mark II, the jpegs were soft until I increased the sharp setting in camera. It was said at the time that the Mark II images resembled close to raw in jpeg settings and had a soft look. The images needed sharpening and they turned out fine once I sharpened them. I was awfully paranoid at first. I'm guessing the 5D Mark III is no different. unsharpened Raws and normal jpeg settings are going to net softer looking photos until post production corrections are made or high sharpen camera settings are applied.


----------



## etg9 (Mar 6, 2012)

I don't think it would be that hard for them to release softer images and change the default softness vs noise via a firmware update once they've had a couple thousand people pay to beta test it for them (me included). I agree that they look softer than I would like but the JPEG of the fisherman at 12,800 looks very useable for web which is a lot more than I can say for the 5d MKII.


----------



## Orion (Mar 6, 2012)

I'll post here what I posted in another thread:



Orion said:


> I was going to preorder from weither Henrys or Vistek, but I have decided to wait for in store shopping instead . . I figure it is best to do these things like we did in the good ol days of shopping, and NOT let the manufactureers brainwash us with marketing genious and hype . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> My advice for Nikon and Canon shooters: do not rpeorder! wait for an actual release and then decide what's best. See for yourselves what is the best system for you and see if all the negatives you read about in the www are true or misleading or simply, whatever they are, a result of morons reaching conclusions where there need not be one so hastily.
> 
> ...


----------



## ashe (Mar 6, 2012)

A few more samples: http://www.paulward.net/?p=1075


----------



## friedmud (Mar 7, 2012)

Have you guys used the Comparometer at the Imaging Resource yet?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Compare the 5DII to the 5DIII... there is no question that the 5DIII is superior


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 7, 2012)

friedmud said:


> Have you guys used the Comparometer at the Imaging Resource yet?
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
> 
> Compare the 5DII to the 5DIII... there is no question that the 5DIII is superior



Definitely!

Some one posted a comparo earlier from the IR site - but for some reason the thread was pulled. Dunno why. :-\


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

friedmud said:


> Have you guys used the Comparometer at the Imaging Resource yet?
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
> 
> Compare the 5DII to the 5DIII... there is no question that the 5DIII is superior



Yes but only by not more than two-thirds of stop. The comparator there has some issues in that it is comparing the 5D2 and the 5D3 using images that were converted with a different converter using entirely different settings. Download the RAW files and process using identical settings and the results look a lot closer. Nothing between them at lower ISOs, perhaps two-thirds of a stop advantage to the 5D3 at higher ISOs. Hard to say for sure since ACR may not treat the two cameras on an even basis and the ISO ratings may not be a match. So the final result might differ a little bit, perhaps doing a half stop worse or better than that compared to the 5D2.


----------



## RedEye (Mar 12, 2012)

Maybe it's me or my monitor is bias, but the Nikon D800 samples appear rather flat and without contrast compared to the 5Diii samples. The nikon photos almost appear better if I zoom in a bit, and so this is probably the effect of having a 36MP photo on a 23" 1920x1200 monitor.


----------

