# Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 5, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800/"></a></div>
<strong>Another ISO comparison


</strong>The 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 has brought about a ton of discussion in regards to the philosophies of both Canon and Nikon. I’m not sure the cameras can be compared head to head fairly. I have shot with the 5D Mark III and I’m working on my impressions of it, I have yet to get my hands on a Nikon D800 for any length of time. Though I do plan to spend the weekend with a Nikon D4 that was recently acquired and I will compare it to the 5D Mark III, since they’re in the same megapixel range. What’s a guy to do while he waits for a 1D X?</p>
<p><strong>Camera Labs Test </strong>


Gordon Laing from CameraLabs has continued his extensive testing of the 5D Mark III, and has provided a good ISO comparison between it and the Nikon D800. As far as ISO goes, it’s not even close, the Nikon D800 starts to fall apart at about ISO 800. A lot has been said about the 5D Mark III and how much of an improvement it is over the 5D Mark II in the ISO department, and I think it’s clear the 5D Mark III starts to separate around ISO 1600.</p>
<p>Be sure to check out the results at Camera Labs.</p>
<p><strong>ISO Comparison: <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/high_ISO_noise.shtml" target="_blank">5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II</a> | <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml" target="_blank">5D Mark III vs Nikon D800</a></strong></p>
<p>I’m waiting to see some good visual tests in dynamic range between the 5D Mark III and D800.</p>
<p><strong>5D Mark III Stock


</strong>From what I have seen, Amazon & B&H seem to have had the most stock of the 5D Mark III. B&H and Adorama will be observing Passover between April 6 – April 15, so nothing will be shipping. Amazon is expecting new stock on April 7, 2012.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007FGYZFI/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=canorumo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007FGYZFI" target="_blank">5D Mark III at Amazon for $3499</a> also <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847545-REG/Canon_5260A002_EOS_5D_Mark_III.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H</a> and <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICA5DM3.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## psolberg (Apr 5, 2012)

> Gordon Laing from CameraLabs has continued his extensive testing of the 5D Mark III, and has provided a good ISO comparison between it and the Nikon D800. As far as ISO goes, it’s not even close, the Nikon D800 starts to fall apart at about ISO 800. A lot has been said about the 5D Mark III and how much of an improvement it is over the 5D Mark II in the ISO department, and I think it’s clear the 5D Mark III starts to separate around ISO 1600.



sorry but that's not what I'm seeing in dp review. sure the mkIII is better but the D800 is not just close, but when resampled to 22MP is downright identical (if not better).
another interesting comparison against a LOT of other cameras including the mkII and III.
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-review#iso_performance
(hit next at the bottom of the page to see more bodies)

true they are totally different bodies but for 36MP, I have to admit that D800 performs admirably at high ISOs even if it is not really the kind of tool for big ISO/fast shooting.


----------



## friedmud (Apr 5, 2012)

psolberg said:


> > Gordon Laing from CameraLabs has continued his extensive testing of the 5D Mark III, and has provided a good ISO comparison between it and the Nikon D800. As far as ISO goes, it’s not even close, the Nikon D800 starts to fall apart at about ISO 800. A lot has been said about the 5D Mark III and how much of an improvement it is over the 5D Mark II in the ISO department, and I think it’s clear the 5D Mark III starts to separate around ISO 1600.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you click the link? I think the description given here on CR is pretty spot on... and they are not

Now - that is just one result, but it definitely starts to show the ISO limitations of the D800.

That said - The ISO 50 result is _beautiful_ and as a primarily landscape photographer it is VERY tempting ;-)


----------



## lensla (Apr 5, 2012)

Well there's a couple things here that you have to realize. First of all, like mentioned before, you can down sample the 36MP of the D800 to 22MP and get close to the Canon 5D3 in terms of ISO performance. Roughly, it looks like a half stop difference or so, if that. 

Next, these are JPEGs. Nikon has notoriously bad in-camera JPEG rendering. There are numerous Nikon NEF (RAW) samples out there that you can download and load straight into Photoshop/Lightroom and check it out for yourself. At 36MP, you can apply so much noise reduction before downsampling, the real-world, functional difference between the 5D3 and the D800's low light performance is negligible. The D800 JPEG files (when made through proper RAW->down sampled-to-22MP JPEG workflow) rival the 5D3's. 

I would say the more dynamic AF and the faster FPS of the 5D3 are its only real advantages here.


----------



## adamkozlowski (Apr 5, 2012)

In which universe is 5D3 better in terms of ISO than D800? Sorry. We've done very extensive tests here and we sold all our Canon gear to get into a Nikon system based on D800. That's how much better the files are. At pixel-level the noise is almost the same (indiscernible for me), but at print-size the D800 crushes 5D3 badly. What's more - the D800 files have much better dynamic range and withstand even the harshest postprocessing, while the 5D3 files disintegrate totally. The ugly vertical banding was the deal-breaker for us. If you can read Polish or you can use Google translate - try my friends review with samples http://www.fatman73.fotolog.pl/canon-5d-mk-iii-vs-nikon-d800-vs-panasonic-gh2,2303580,link.html

But 5D3 is obviously a great camera, with much much MUCH better AF than 5D2. I can't even express how much better and how essential this is. Too bad Canon cheaped out on metering - it's still not RGB metering (reserved to 1DX). Anyway - it's a great improvement over 5D2 in handling, not so much in IQ. And thanks to that rendering engine it's unbelievably good for movies. Sure, D800 has more details, but has moire and aliasing artifacts and has worse noise reduction and a worse codec. So really 5D3 is a video winner (no matter how much ppl whine about it not being detailed).


----------



## SandyP (Apr 5, 2012)

Yawn. 


I appreciate the comparisons, especially more balanced ones, but it's starting to wear very thin... both cameras are amazing, both are top class, both are more than enough for 90% of the people who will own them. No one has excuses anymore. I'm going to be very happy in a few months after the newness of this all has worn off and we can just get back to actually taking photos in the real world, as real photographers. 

My favorite portrait camera right now for natural light, which is half of what I do.... my Mamiya 645 Pro TL film camera. Manual focus, film, heavy, clunky, only goes up to 1/1000 and only syncs at 1/60, but the way it handles, the way it feels, the amazing lenses. It's glorious.  Somewhere, there is a lesson in there. 

I find it funny that people switched over any of this, from Canon or TO Canon. People did. The wedding photographers over on Flickr have quite a few that jumped ship. 

In any case, everyone that switched is going to find it pretty glaringly obvious when they realize that their photography hasn't gotten any better because of a switch. Vision, creativity and skill have nothing to do with the camera, especially when you're at this level of body. 

Your photos are still gonna be your photos. 


Vision>Lighting>Lenses>Camera


----------



## adamkozlowski (Apr 5, 2012)

I disagree Sandy. If you have a camera that makes you feel confident, you can focus on the job more easily than with a dud. And honestly, the 5D2 and 7D has failed us more times than i care to count (poor AF, poor metering, banding in 5D2) and we almost jumped ship last year but I held my breath until the D800 came out.

When i look back at my photos from all the ten years I think the best ones i took were shot with 1-series Canon bodies, especially 1Ds and 1Ds2. These were probably the last true photographic digital cameras, without any bells & whistles. The confidence it gave us was amazing, the handling was superb. The "1" series cameras have that little genie inside that tells you - "relax, trust me, i'll do everything you tell me, in any conditions".

So having the D800 now gives me similar confidence. I've done two studio sessions with that camera now and the files are just mindblowingly good and withstand all sorts of processing which would make files from 5D2 and even 5D3 disintegrate completely. In high ISO situations it's also just great. In a way it reminds me of 1Ds2 files. I've been a fool to sell that camera in order to get into the HD-DSLR video hype. I would still buy it today, out of sentiment.


----------



## thefixisin (Apr 5, 2012)

adamkozlowski said:


> ...and withstand all sorts of processing which would make files from 5D2 and even 5D3 disintegrate completely.



Easy on the hyperbole friend. You are aware there is a nikon rumors website too right?


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 5, 2012)

adamkozlowski said:


> I disagree Sandy. If you have a camera that makes you feel confident, you can focus on the job more easily than with a dud. And honestly, the 5D2 and 7D has failed us more times than i care to count (poor AF, poor metering, banding in 5D2) and we almost jumped ship last year but I held my breath until the D800 came out.
> 
> When i look back at my photos from all the ten years I think the best ones i took were shot with 1-series Canon bodies, especially 1Ds and 1Ds2. These were probably the last true photographic digital cameras, without any bells & whistles. The confidence it gave us was amazing, the handling was superb. The "1" series cameras have that little genie inside that tells you - "relax, trust me, i'll do everything you tell me, in any conditions".
> 
> So having the D800 now gives me similar confidence. I've done two studio sessions with that camera now and the files are just mindblowingly good and withstand all sorts of processing which would make files from 5D2 and even 5D3 disintegrate completely. In high ISO situations it's also just great. In a way it reminds me of 1Ds2 files. I've been a fool to sell that camera in order to get into the HD-DSLR video hype. I would still buy it today, out of sentiment.



Wow, I'm happy that you're happy with the D800, but calling the 5D3 or 5D2 a dud? Really? And only because it doesn't have 36 MPs? And when Canon releases a 45MPs camera, what will you do with your dud of D800?


----------



## Alker (Apr 5, 2012)

adamkozlowski said:


> I disagree Sandy. If you have a camera that makes you feel confident, you can focus on the job more easily than with a dud. And honestly, the 5D2 and 7D has failed us more times than i care to count (poor AF, poor metering, banding in 5D2) and we almost jumped ship last year but I held my breath until the D800 came out.
> 
> When i look back at my photos from all the ten years I think the best ones i took were shot with 1-series Canon bodies, especially 1Ds and 1Ds2. These were probably the last true photographic digital cameras, without any bells & whistles. The confidence it gave us was amazing, the handling was superb. The "1" series cameras have that little genie inside that tells you - "relax, trust me, i'll do everything you tell me, in any conditions".
> 
> So having the D800 now gives me similar confidence. I've done two studio sessions with that camera now and the files are just mindblowingly good and withstand all sorts of processing which would make files from 5D2 and even 5D3 disintegrate completely. In high ISO situations it's also just great. In a way it reminds me of 1Ds2 files. I've been a fool to sell that camera in order to get into the HD-DSLR video hype. I would still buy it today, out of sentiment.



It's all in the mind. 
Banding or no banding. 

Many top pro photographers used their 5d mark II without any issues. 
There results were mind blowing. 
It's a tool together with skills which will give you the result. 
Skills is more important then the tool. 

Jumping ship is really really the new word. 
There is NO limitation when you use Canon. 
If you say there is then it's the lack of your skills. 

Both Canon and Nikon equipment can do the job. 
This jumping ship is really a new hype. 

No other brand is going to save you. 
This jumping ship is BS. 

When you have invested in Nikon stay with Nikon. 
When you have invested in Canon stay with canon. 

The switch is not going to give you better results. 
Both superb.


----------



## CanonHK (Apr 5, 2012)

Is there any truth to the old adage, "A bad artist blames his brushes"?
I on the other hand switched from Nikon to Canon in the early days of digital photography because I found that I could handle the digical cameras from Canon so much better than Nikon's early efforts. I think they are mroe or less head to head now, but I still prefer the selection of prime lenses that Canon has. 
I have the Canon 5D MKIII and love it. And will respect the Nikon D800 until I get my hands on one, and then perhaps I too might call it a dud. Ok I'm kidding. I would never do that. ;-) Almost never.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 5, 2012)

adamkozlowski said:


> When i look back at my photos from all the ten years I think the best ones i took were shot with 1-series Canon bodies, especially 1Ds and 1Ds2. These were probably the last true photographic digital cameras, without any bells & whistles. The confidence it gave us was amazing, the handling was superb. The "1" series cameras have that little genie inside that tells you - "relax, trust me, i'll do everything you tell me, in any conditions".



Just a small point - the 1Ds3 continued the no bells and whistles approach - so I would put it forward as the last.

And it still produces first class images.

I hear about metering and dr and print from the D800 fanboys - but I defy any of them to be able to distinguish between the 21/22mp Canons and the D800 prints up to 20 x 16.


----------



## Alker (Apr 5, 2012)

CanonHK said:


> Is there any truth to the old adage, "A bad artist blames his brushes"?
> I on the other hand switched from Nikon to Canon in the early days of digital photography because I found that I could handle the digical cameras from Canon so much better than Nikon's early efforts. I think they are mroe or less head to head now, but I still prefer the selection of prime lenses that Canon has.
> I have the Canon 5D MKIII and love it. And will respect the Nikon D800 until I get my hands on one, and then perhaps I too might call it a dud. Ok I'm kidding. I would never do that. ;-) Almost never.



What triggered me the most was his sentence "held my breath until the D800 came out" !!
Like in the meantime Canon equipment was not good enough , SURE !!!


----------



## Stuart (Apr 5, 2012)

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml
I'm not saying the mk3 is not better than the 800 on noise etc. but the crop on the 800 is noticably tighter and this will make the noise look worse.
I'm a canon shooter with a 60D, and not looking to move to nikon. but if i was a big scene shooter the D800 would be a contender - LOL funds permitting.


----------



## SandyP (Apr 5, 2012)

adamkozlowski said:


> I disagree Sandy. If you have a camera that makes you feel confident, you can focus on the job more easily than with a dud. And honestly, the 5D2 and 7D has failed us more times than i care to count (poor AF, poor metering, banding in 5D2) and we almost jumped ship last year but I held my breath until the D800 came out.
> 
> When i look back at my photos from all the ten years I think the best ones i took were shot with 1-series Canon bodies, especially 1Ds and 1Ds2. These were probably the last true photographic digital cameras, without any bells & whistles. The confidence it gave us was amazing, the handling was superb. The "1" series cameras have that little genie inside that tells you - "relax, trust me, i'll do everything you tell me, in any conditions".
> 
> So having the D800 now gives me similar confidence. I've done two studio sessions with that camera now and the files are just mindblowingly good and withstand all sorts of processing which would make files from 5D2 and even 5D3 disintegrate completely. In high ISO situations it's also just great. In a way it reminds me of 1Ds2 files. I've been a fool to sell that camera in order to get into the HD-DSLR video hype. I would still buy it today, out of sentiment.





That's ridiculous, haha. If you really believe that a different piece of plastic and metal in your hands is going to make your photos more creative, make your vision come to life most vibrantly, then you're only joking yourself. 

Calling a camera like the 5D3 a "dud", is non-sense. I shot weddings, with my 5D2, sure it was struggling in some areas with AF, I manually focused. I wasn't happy about it, but I did it. But I loved my Canon lenses, and didn't feel like switching would ultimately make my photos better, because photography isn't about all that extra stuff, it really isn't. Now that the 5D3 is out, I feel like the tool I have to shoot with is indeed improved, but even I do not kid myself; the photos I take, my vision, my creativity, will not improve. 

Just because I love my Mamiya cameras, because I love the images, doesn't mean they're better than my Canon ones. What's in your head is in your head, and sure it's important, but the rest, what bleeds into the imagery, is all that truly matters in the end. 

Your photos are not going to be more creative, they're not going to be more visionary or complete as an artistic expression. They're going to be the same photos you took before, with a different camera. Technically speaking, they'll have a bit extra of this, and a bit less of that, but they're still going to be coming from you. 

You're a shining example of someone who blames the tools they use for their lack of whatever. I chose to do the opposite. 

I don't care if I was shooting a damn Pentax, hell, there are some folks getting world wide attention over the past few years, getting spreads in major magazines, shooting action, fashion, portraits, photojouranlism, fine art, abstract, whatever.... AND USING 400Ds from 2003, using 50mm f/1.8 lenses. 

And yet, here we have people complaining about the 5D3 vs. the D800, trying to make themselves believe that by switching to Canon, or to Nikon, that their photos are going to get better. 


_Good luck with that! _


----------



## pepazz (Apr 5, 2012)

LOL, comparing iso performance of a jpeg proves nothing about sensor noise ability, good jpeg processing without a question, but who buys 3,500$ camera to shoot jpeg??

i find this veri interesting, raw at iso 100
5D 3
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2598/filllight5d3crop1.jpg
Nikon 800
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/2416/filllightd3crop1.jpg


----------



## Alker (Apr 5, 2012)

pepazz said:


> LOL, comparing iso performance of a jpeg proves nothing about sensor noise ability, good jpeg processing without a question, but who buys 3,500$ camera to shoot jpeg??
> 
> i find this veri interesting, raw at iso 100
> 5D 3
> ...



OH NO !!
Another fill light post. 

Come on don't start this again. 
Until now I have never needed such a fill light correction. 

Gearheads vs Real World !!


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 5, 2012)

adamkozlowski said:


> In which universe is 5D3 better in terms of ISO than D800?



In that universe that you don't adjust the results in such a way to justify your preference. 
I'm sorry, but I still haven't seen an example of what the D800 can do that the 5D3 cannot in a real life example (as in NOT black frames with the lens cap on).


----------



## KeithR (Apr 5, 2012)

adamkozlowski said:


> 7D has failed us more times than i care to count (poor AF, poor metering...)



That right there is a bad workman blaming his tools: both the AF and the metering on the 7D are _impeccable_.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 5, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> In that universe that you don't adjust the results in such a way to justify your preference.



True enough - in reality the supposed "pliability" of recent Nikon cameras' files only has value _as an excuse to shoot badly and fix everything in post_.


----------



## logaandm (Apr 5, 2012)

The in-camera JPG comparison is a valid test if you shoot JPG. I don't, I use Lightroom and RAW so I downloaded the samples from Imaging Resources and DP review and processed the RAW files. I then processed all the files identically and up sampled them to the same size as the Pentax 645D. I then printed some of the files at 13X19" to see what actually mattered. (lots of ink and paper so I didn't print all ISOs)

Resolution:

5D Mark II and 5D Mark III are virtually identical.
D800 is slightly better than the 5D.
P645D is better than the D800. The difference with the D800 is more noticeable than the difference between the D800 and the 5D.

The above results are visible both on the screen at 100% and visible on prints at 100 ISO. The sharpness results wouldn't matter if you had even minor focus error or a narrow depth of field.
Dynamic Range:

Hard to see in a well processed image or on a print, but the Pentax 645D first, then D800 then 5D Mark III at 100 ISO. At higher ISO very hard to see the differences although noise is related to dynamic range especially at higher ISO.

Noise.

5D Mark II has about 1 stop more noise than the 5D Mark III
D800 has between 1 stop and 1/2 stop more noise than the 5D Mark II

High ISO 13X19" print limit

5D Mark II ISO 6400 and ISO 12,600 in a pinch.
5D Mark II ISO 12,600 and ISO 25,200 in a pinch.
D800 ISO 6400, and ISO 12,600 isn't too bad but ISO 25,200 is pretty ugly at 13X19"

Your tolerance for noise may vary, but the relative position will probably be the same. It really doesn't matter to compare the noise up sampling or downsampling since Lightroom does a really good job of colour noise reduction. Rankings stay the same.

None of these results are surprising to me as sensor efficiency is so high almost all differences between cameras can be explained by pixel, sensor size and photon noise. It is disappointing in a way because it also means there is little room for improvement is raw pixel sensitivity left. Most advances are likely to some from processing. Another good reason to shoot RAW.

My opinion, 36 mpx probably isn't worth the extra file size and effort but it doesn't hurt all that much either. For the landscape guy the extra pixels may show up but they would be better off with medium format for more resolution. There are other improvements in IQ with Medium Format due to less enlargement needed. For Nikon users I have noticed the D4 and the D800 are a significant improvement in resolution. Canon users have had that resolution since the 1Ds Mark III.

Lower noise probably isn't worth the 5D Mark II upgrade but my opinion is that the 5D Mark III is worth the upgrade for the improved focus, better body and other stuff which Canon probably could have improved with a firmware upgrade, like better ISO features. The 5D Mark III now has all the features I really like about the Pentax K-5, except the smaller body size. The 5D Mark III is a great camera to use.


Bottom line. The 5D Mark III and the D800 have great IQ and the 5D Mark II isn't too bad. The D800 resolution can be noticed, but it isn't the same as Medium Format.


----------



## gecko (Apr 5, 2012)

logaandm said:


> The in-camera JPG comparison is a valid test if ...



Thanks, nice summary. Very helpful.


----------



## cpsico (Apr 5, 2012)

Careful raw processing can always yield better results at high iso's , what's done in camera can always be topped by a little photoshop talent. I always set sharpening to zero, use a good noise program, then once the image is cleaned up use a light unsharp mask. I still feel my 1d mark III pushes a little better than the 5d mark II in the shadows


----------



## JR (Apr 5, 2012)

I had seen those test before when the article was not complete. While it looks nice for the mkIII ISO performance I dont like the fact they use in-camera JPEG for both camera tested. We need RAW test!

:-[


----------



## dstppy (Apr 5, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> What’s a guy to do while he waits for a 1D X?



Well heck Craig, that's simple: start a bunch of unfounded rumors about a mirrorless camera or a $1500 FF 

Or you can just do what adamkozlowski is doing and troll on the forums ;D


----------



## Noink Fanb0i (Apr 5, 2012)

Ah, I knew a topic like this would attract more replies from Nikon fans than Canon, just like what happens in the Canon forum at DPR, which has now become unusable because more Nikon fanboys post on the Canon forums than Canon owners . I'm especially wary of member #s here higher than my own (read: recent registrants ).

First of all, what is the point of 36MP if you have to downsize it to 22MP to get so-called "equivalent" high ISO noise IQ? This is why even DPR, rightly or wrongly, tests 100% crops from different MP cameras at its native resolution, and if you ask DPR they say that this is because "they don't do printer tests" (IOW, for them, it is silly to normalize to a common output). Most ironically, they actually now do printer tests . And thus, as early as now, I would say that the eventual DPR review would also show the same result as that on the article cited in the 1st post of this thread. 

So again, those justifying the argument that "it's equivalent when downsized" should be called out, because then what about that other ability those other defenders claim 36MP allows them to do: crop and resize. Really, all their shots need to be downsized and cropped after* it has been downsized to 22MP to make it look good against its closest perceived competitor? I find that funny as a Nikon owner.


----------



## DzPhotography (Apr 5, 2012)

Alker said:


> pepazz said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, comparing iso performance of a jpeg proves nothing about sensor noise ability, good jpeg processing without a question, but who buys 3,500$ camera to shoot jpeg??
> ...


And the Nikon is a D3 not a D800 :


----------



## meli (Apr 5, 2012)

Asking whats the point of 36mp is kinda absurd;

So u're saying that If they can provide great high iso performance when downsized to their main competitor size AND still retain greater detail & DR fullsized at anything below 1600 -plus- offering them 500$ cheaper doesnt make sense. Seriously?

Actually thats whats wrong with DPR forums, its not the nikon trolls & the pissed Canon users, its the thickheaded cheerleaders that are pathetic...



Noink Fanb0i said:


> Ah, I knew a topic like this would attract more replies from Nikon fans than Canon, just like what happens in the Canon forum at DPR, which has now become unusable because more Nikon fanboys post on the Canon forums than Canon owners . I'm especially wary of member #s here higher than my own (read: recent registrants ).
> 
> First of all, what is the point of 36MP if you have to downsize it to 22MP to get so-called "equivalent" high ISO noise IQ? This is why even DPR, rightly or wrongly, tests 100% crops from different MP cameras at its native resolution, and if you ask DPR they say that this is because "they don't do printer tests" (IOW, for them, it is silly to normalize to a common output). Most ironically, they actually now do printer tests . And thus, as early as now, I would say that the eventual DPR review would also show the same result as that on the article cited in the 1st post of this thread.
> 
> So again, those justifying the argument that "it's equivalent when downsized" should be called out, because then what about that other ability those other defenders claim 36MP allows them to do: crop and resize. Really, all their shots need to be downsized and cropped after* it has been downsized to 22MP to make it look good against its closest perceived competitor? I find that funny as a Nikon owner.


----------



## sweetcancer (Apr 5, 2012)

I still like the unedited raws from 5d3 far better than those from d800. D800 has more room for pp, but the 5d3 doesn't need that much pp.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 5, 2012)

meli said:


> offering them 500$ cheaper doesnt make sense.



Nikon is raising the price, there's going to be no difference.


----------



## Maui5150 (Apr 5, 2012)

I think you are missing the real point which is the Nikon D4 versus the Canon 5D MKIII.

When I upsize images from the D4 to equal the 22MP of the 5DMKIII I notice that the D4 images are softer and have more noise. I also notice the D4 is crap for detail when compared to the 5DMKIII at 22 MP...

Go figure... 

The question is not D800 versus 5DMKIII, it is 5DMKIII versus the D4 and why when you upsize the D4 images to match the resolution of the 5DMKIII, the little camera that is almost half the price of the D4 has sharper and much more detailed pictures.

Go figure.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 5, 2012)

I'm officially bored of the 5DIII and Nikon D800 stuff. I never thought I could get bored of cameras but congratulations 'internet', you did it.

I think everyone should take a 24 hour break from Canon Rumors and Iswitchedtonikonorcanon.com and go shooting. That's where I'll be.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 5, 2012)

Stuart said:


> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml
> I'm not saying the mk3 is not better than the 800 on noise etc. but the crop on the 800 is noticably tighter and this will make the noise look worse.
> I'm a canon shooter with a 60D, and not looking to move to nikon. but if i was a big scene shooter the D800 would be a contender - LOL funds permitting.



Crop is tighter because it's at 100% view and the D800 has more resolution, hence tighter... They aren't doesnscaling to meet the 5d3... they are going head to head at native resolution.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 5, 2012)

Adam, i know you're getting crushed right now, and i frankly dont think you care, and rightfully so. As others said, no one camera is going to make you a better photographer, but confidence is key... For instnace, shooting a 7D over the 5d2, I know I'm going to get the shot... I got the confidence the AF can keep up whereas with the 5d2, I chimped more to check focus. Likewise how many of us got that new suit, or new dress, or new car and instantly felt more spontaneous, more in control, more solid. It's the same thing with the camera... right or wrong, mind trick or not, if you feel that you can get something with a certain key element, you will naturally be more aggressive, more daring, more on your game, whereas if that element is missing you tend to be more conservative, more nuts and bolts... Canon isn't for everybody and I applaud you for being brave enough to find a camera that will suit your needs. If that is the one element that makes you instantly better, great. With that said, I doubt any client will be able to distinguish PRINTS coming from a 5d3 and a D800 in the end.


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 5, 2012)

KeithR said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > In that universe that you don't adjust the results in such a way to justify your preference.
> ...




True. But it is an important feature when you like to spend your time reading specs, not developing in-camera capture skills, and then doing a lot of PP to get what you want. 

I think photoshop is neat and I like some of the capabilties, but I don't like spending more time working on my photos than I do taking them. If you take the time to get properly exposed pictures in the camera, the need for PP is much less and the differences in theoretical performances of RAW files becomes much less important. 
Not everyone feels this way, but I do. 

-Brian


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 5, 2012)

bbasiaga said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > DavidRiesenberg said:
> ...



You'd be surprised how often i hear this sentiment from my college professional photogs... The fun is in the creative process, not in the post. Many pro's outsource the post just so they dont have to deal with it. I'm a photoshop guy but I also was trained in the film era where we HAD to get it right in camera cause if you didn't, you were screwed and film only had so much latitude in post with contrast/dodge/burn/etc... I can appreciate what some can do with photoshop but I've found that I'm getting less and less photoshop oriented and more using photoshop as a tool to fine tune the photos such as blemish removal, contrast. To me, ignoring photoshop/lightroom/post production is a big mistake, but depending on it to fix your mess ups is just as bad.


----------



## Invertalon (Apr 5, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> I'm officially bored of the 5DIII and Nikon D800 stuff. I never thought I could get bored of cameras but congratulations 'internet', you did it



+1

It is already so old... One can not mention one without the other, it is ridiculous. 

I can't wait for the day it ends. I bought and love my 5D3 and care less about the D800. It is an amazing camera just like the 5D3, end of discussion. I guess the peepers have been extremely bored though, I mean, pushing files +5 EV and then making their decision based off that... Awesome. I think out of 30K+ images I have taken, if not more, none have needed that much shadow push or exposure compensation. I mean really... But I am sure I am pissing off the peepers now by saying that : Common sense is hard for them to understand I suppose... Getting your exposure right the first time and doing minor tweaking in post to bring up detail, not underexpose the hell out of it and save it by bringing it up 5 stops and complain about banding.


----------



## lensla (Apr 5, 2012)

logaandm said:


> The in-camera JPG comparison is a valid test if you shoot JPG. I don't, I use Lightroom and RAW so I downloaded the samples from Imaging Resources and DP review and processed the RAW files. I then processed all the files identically and up sampled them to the same size as the Pentax 645D. I then printed some of the files at 13X19" to see what actually mattered. (lots of ink and paper so I didn't print all ISOs)
> 
> Resolution:
> 
> ...



Well you sorta contradict yourself there. You say the D800 works well up to 6400, the same as the 5D2, but previously mention that it has 0.5-1 stop worse noise than the 5D2. 

In the real world, with downsampling and noise correction, which most any pro would do, the difference between the 5D3 and D800 is maybe a half stop. Look at the downsampled images yourself. It's as clear as day to anyone without an agenda. 

I know it's difficult to swallow the idea that a sensor with that much resolution can close in on the performance of a camera like the 5D3 that has photosites the size of parking lots, but in the real world, it's just the way that Nikon chose to get performance out of its camera. 

That's why it's not a 24 or a 27 megapixel camera. They weren't looking for a 10% premium in MP. The reason its resolution is so vast is because it gives you the advantage of incredible detail, cropping ability, pixel binning ability, as well as the ability to downsample to very usable print sizes while reducing noise by a large amount. Canon chose a different strategy. What's the big deal? 

By the way, I have a 5D3 on order, I'm not some Nikon fanboy. The 5D3 with the new 24-70 2.8 (assuming the lens' ability follows its impressive MTF curves) is going to be a knockout combo. But pouting about how good the new D800 is isn't going to make my camera any better. It has the specs and performance that I want and need for what I do, so now I have nothing to complain about. Trying to diminish the ability of the D800 is childishness.


----------



## DzPhotography (Apr 5, 2012)

KeithR said:


> adamkozlowski said:
> 
> 
> > 7D has failed us more times than i care to count (poor AF, poor metering...)
> ...


second that


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 5, 2012)

Ultimately, Its the Canon Primes that keep me here...


----------



## JR (Apr 5, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Ultimately, Its the Canon Primes that keep me here...



+1


----------



## Noink Fanb0i (Apr 5, 2012)

Ah, I just knew meli would post on this thread eventually. Just proved my observation about certain recent registrants . Reminds me of certain DPR posters that bash Canon no end and yet claim they are actually Canon owners to justify why they post on the Canon forums instead of on the proper forum. Just wondering why they continue to use Canon cameras (purportedly) if they are so convinced the company is producing inferior and overpriced products? 



meli said:


> Asking whats the point of 36mp is kinda absurd;
> 
> So u're saying that If they can provide great high iso performance when downsized to their main competitor size AND still retain greater detail & DR fullsized at anything below 1600 -plus- offering them 500$ cheaper doesnt make sense. Seriously?
> 
> ...



So please explain to this Nikon owner (and to DPR/Cameralabs/etc. reviewers) why it is absurd? Last I've read, you bash Canon AF while demonstrating a profoundly pathetic lack of knowledge of how it actually works. You just seem to regurgitate what you've read from polluted sources.

I fail to see who's cheerleading when legitimate Canon owners complain to forum moderators that their section of the forum on DPR is inundated with D800 threads trumpeting it's supposed superiority. And DPR actually sided with them and removed those numerous threads and banned some clearly partisan members. I have a feeling it's still that latent inferiority complex from the pre-2007 era that motivates those insecure people. After all, nobody is fanatical about the sun rising tomorrow; people become irrational about an issue when they know deep in their psyche that their chosen position is somehow not 100% clear-cut. This applies to politics, religion, etc. (see: Apple) .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2012)

Noink Fanb0i said:


> ...nobody is fanatical about the sun rising tomorrow; people become irrational about an issue when they know deep in their psyche that their chosen position is somehow not 100% clear-cut. This applies to politics, religion, etc. (*see: Apple*)



How _*DARE*_ you... ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 5, 2012)

I just uodated the firmware of my 1Ds3 to relieve the tedium of hearing the Noink Fanboys repeat the same old street myths about the supremacy of the D800


----------



## KeithR (Apr 5, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> To me, ignoring photoshop/lightroom/post production is a big mistake, but depending on it to fix your mess ups is just as bad.



Yep, nicely put.

I use Photoshop as much as the next guy - in fact, ironically, _I've_ been accused of "reliance" on PP simply because I use and recommend selective sharpening (applied on a duplicate layer, and erased from where it's not needed) on 7D files in order to maximise the detail/noise trade-off (this incidentally is why I insist that the 7D _isn't_ a noisy camera, despite all the whining to the contrary from some quarters - but it does need "smart" post processing to get the best out of it), but the fact remains that it's ridiculous not to do everything you can to start with the best file possible out of camera.

Let's face it, the metering and AF in and IQ from most cameras these days makes that pretty easy, really. 

It has been true for quite a while now that _there are no *bad* cameras any more_, and (unless we're talking about a particularly demanding niche user requirement or a particular specialism like say, high speed motor sport) if a photographer can't do a great job with pretty much any camera out there these days, _the problem isn't with the camera_.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 5, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> I applaud you for being brave enough to find a camera that will suit your needs.



Personally I don't object to that - who would? What I object to is personal opinion presented as definitive fact, when the vast majority of the useful evidence out there directly contradicts that opinion.

I know I may be in a minority here, but I see the internet as a valuable source of _useful_ information, and I think its incumbent upon all of us to do what we can to ensure that it contains _information_ - so when I see an unsupported (and frankly unsupportable) dig at something, I'm inclined to challenge it.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 5, 2012)

Noink Fanb0i said:


> First of all, what is the point of 36MP if you have to downsize it to 22MP to get so-called "equivalent" high ISO noise IQ?



The point is to compare both cameras at an equivalent image size - whether you downsize one or upsize the other (logically, downsizing is fairer from an IQ point of view) - _because 100% crops are not what we look at in the Real World_.

IQ _at the image level_ is what counts, and you can only make that assessment by levelling the playing field and looking at output from both cameras at the same image size.


----------



## iso79 (Apr 6, 2012)

LOLz..

Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800


----------



## cpsico (Apr 6, 2012)

What kills me is the Nikon fan boys loved there low megapixel cameras and slammed canons high megapixel cameras and that downsized images didn't really equal there superior low light cameras abilitys


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 6, 2012)

cpsico said:


> What kills me is the Nikon fan boys loved there low megapixel cameras and slammed canons high megapixel cameras and that downsized images didn't really equal there superior low light cameras abilitys



To be fair, both sides have switched ideologies. All of the sudden the Nikon guys are all about the megapixels, and the Canon guys are all about low-light performance.


----------



## SandyP (Apr 6, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > What kills me is the Nikon fan boys loved there low megapixel cameras and slammed canons high megapixel cameras and that downsized images didn't really equal there superior low light cameras abilitys
> ...




I guess if people are stupid enough to take sides with material possessions, sure! I mean, clearly most people CHOOSE a side, technically, by owning one camera system. Yes, but beyond that, it's only the ridiculous fanboys who parade around these ideologies. It's also mostly these people who get caught up in it, and think that switching camera systems will make their actual photography better, at this level, that's pretty much crap. Pretty much. 

I'm about photography, do I like having a few mega-pixels? Ok. Do I like being able to shoot low light? Ok. What of it? While it's true, it hardly means the actual content, what makes a photo a good photo, will get any better. OF COURSE - back to the ridiculous people again - there are those who deem part of a photo being good, having 12% more or less grain, and being able to zoom in a certain % more on a monitor. Bravo! Haha.

While these wanna-be lab rats scurry around pointing at charts and banging their heads against keyboards, there are a bunch of us shooting every day, doing what we love, and never making excuses because of our equipment.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 6, 2012)

SandyP said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > cpsico said:
> ...



+1 Especially now where the digital technology is starting to mature so there will be little improvement for your average shooter in the immediate future - just gentle improvements


----------



## birtembuk (Apr 6, 2012)

These rants re 5d3 vs d800 look more and more like those heated "don't-touch-my-baby" battles between iPhoners and Gallaxiers. Only these are fought mostly by teenagers while the DSLR world is supposed to be an adult one ... Mankind is a strange species.


----------



## JTC (Apr 6, 2012)

Review

http://www.crisislab.com/index.php?section=1


----------



## dlleno (Apr 6, 2012)

> ... beyond that, it's only the ridiculous fanboys who parade around these ideologies. It's also mostly these people who get caught up in it, and think that switching camera systems will make their actual photography better, at this level, that's pretty much crap. Pretty much.
> 
> ... there are those who deem part of a photo being good, having 12% more or less grain, and being able to zoom in a certain % more on a monitor. Bravo! Haha.
> 
> While these wanna-be lab rats scurry around pointing at charts and banging their heads against keyboards, there are a bunch of us shooting every day, doing what we love, and never making excuses because of our equipment.





> +1 Especially now where the digital technology is starting to mature so there will be little improvement for your average shooter in the immediate future - just gentle improvements



It would be helpful if those folks would follow with comments such as "I will frequently depend on <this feature> because..." or, "I sold everything switched brands , and I make so much more money now that I can pay for my new investment in less than 50 years."


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 6, 2012)

SandyP said:


> While these wanna-be lab rats scurry around pointing at charts and banging their heads against keyboards, there are a bunch of us shooting every day, doing what we love, and never making excuses because of our equipment.



This is a tough point to get across. I think part of the appeal of photography for certain people is the technology behind it. Others purchase new gear begrudgingly, only when they have to. The difference between the two camps is quite staggering. Many pros that I know aren't even aware when a new model comes out, and continue producing exceptional work with old gear. They're just now learning that there's a new 5D on the market. I have two buddies that have been using their 1DsII's professionally for 7 years now. These are extreme examples, but it does happen.

The 5DIII is the first new camera I've purchased since 2005. It's been all used stuff since then. Honestly, part of the reason why is because I don't like spending the money, and secondly, with many of my colleagues creating incredible images with old gear, I don't want to be the guy with superior equipment that comes home with inferior results  Now that I have the newer equipment, the pressure is on to up my game and justify my purchase


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 6, 2012)

JTC said:


> Review
> 
> http://www.crisislab.com/index.php?section=1



Fail to get the point he's trying what he's trying to figure out on the last 2 tests... lost me there and lost my respect.


----------



## cpsico (Apr 6, 2012)

I still love my 5d mark II,What I am dying to have is the revised 24-70L II ! I do like the versatility of the updated 5d but I need to see more real world images before that purchase


----------



## Vamp898 (Apr 7, 2012)

The test is completely useless because you compare 36MP to 24MP.

If you downscale the 36MP to 24MP, the D800 have less noise than the 5D Mark III

I tested this a very lot of times and in RAW and in JPEG the D800 have visible less noise if you downscale the image to the 5D Mark III size.

So you have the choose, better noise than the 5D Mark III or higher resolution than the 5D Mark III. Whatever you choose, you are better than with a 5D Mark III

and dont forget the lower price. In the end (and after _very_ lot of tests) im very lucky that i sold all my Canon stuff.

If you dont believe it, just go to dpreview, download the RAW Images at ISO 25´000 for 5D Mark III and D800 (studio samples made at same conditions)

than compare both at 100% (D800 have more noise but _much_ higher resolution and so even with the higher noise, much more details)

than downscale the D800 to the 5D Mark III size and again you have less noise an much more details.

So just get it yourself, happy downscaling

I really didnt found _any_ reason to ""upgrade"" to the 5D Mark III

If you have a 5D Mark II, the difference never worth the price, if you dont have the camera, you get much more for a lower price at Nikon.


----------



## Dylan (Apr 7, 2012)

Have fun taking your 75mb file and downsizing it to reach the noise level of another camera. When I see people like Ken Rockwell stating that "if Canon could make a 36mp camera, they would have" It makes me wonder how they could state such a thing. Canon was the first to make a 120 megapixel 29.2 x 20.2mm APS-H CMOS sensor and also the first to make the worlds largest CMOS sensor at 202 x 205. I think that proves that Canon is more than capable of putting out a FF 36mp sensor. They chose the balance of the 5D3 because it was a versatile (and more practical) camera. I'm impressed with the D800 and especially at the price point, but I would bet that 90% of the people buying it don't need that much resolution. So you have to choose, do I really need that much resolution or do take 36mp pictures that aren't necessary and be forced to use them to get good low light performance.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 8, 2012)

This all about our priorities not "what canon/nikon could do" and about our personal standards in of image quality. It is funny that we'd call 36MP unpractical and then turn and pretend ISO51K is practical and suddently everybody is shooting at night. Practical for who?. Low light is often, crappy light and I'd much rather have GOOD controlled beautiful soft light than crappy light whenever I can get it. As many have said, this isn't "dark-tography" it is photography. Therefore as admirable as the 5DmkIII, or even teh superior D4 and 1DX look on paper, the reality is that just as you question the need for 36 or 50MP, one may question the need to shoot at ISO 52K. The number of people that NEED that high ISO is likely as many as those that NEED 36MP. I think both cameras have different people in mind but just as focusing on resolution is not the best way to evaluate a camera, focusing on low light isn't any better. This post by Canon+Nikon shooter Scott Bourne puts it very elegantly

http://photofocus.com/2012/03/27/photographic-religions-the-religion-of-low-light/

However, I do see many that desire to have that safely net of being able to shoot at really high ISOs regardless and those that wish for that unparalleled resolution of the D800. Who's to say they are wrong?. But the point of versatility isn't as black and white as you paint it. The fact you have the option to resample down to 22MP is in fact versatility and practicality at work. Many argued the 5DmII was more versatile and practical than the D700 because it could:
-downscale to control noise
-when noise wasn't a problem, you got 21MP worth of detail. 
-increased cropping flexibility.
-4 fps was plenty for most people (vs 8fps on the D800)

Were they wrong? I don't think so and I think this applies to the D800 today. So I just don't see 36MP being an issue in any way and in fact IS a plus for versatility and practicality given the image quality so far has been praised even by pixel peepers: http://diglloyd.com/

Ultimately, as much as I'd have like to see canon have the best overall camera, I think for the majority of people, it really isn't any better than the D800 and in fact image quality wise, it will often be behind. HOWEVER, I'll 100% agree with those that have said that SPEED is their priority and why they justify the 5DIII that way. How many people actually NEED 6fps or even 8fps (D700) or even upwards of 10fps with the D4/1DX? I think that minority crowd is already well served. 

Let's not kid ourselves. I think once canon makes their own 30-40MP body (and it WILL HAPPEN), big resolution will once again magically become "practical" and all the arguments for the D800 will apply equally. Thank Nikon for showing how much a 36MP sensor could kick ass and all but made the naysayers eat crow in large quantities. Daring steps like these that distrupt the market is good for everybody and Nikon should be praised since it means others, including Canon, will follow.



> To be fair, both sides have switched ideologies. All of the sudden the Nikon guys are all about the megapixels, and the Canon guys are all about low-light performance



Exactly. I've said it before, 36MP in 2012 is the "21MP of 2008". 21MP was the state of the art a few years ago. that has changed. Technology simply advanced and we're flying higher now. But to be fair, it could have been really crappy 36MP. I think what has caused the resurgence of BIG MP = win is simply the fact the sensor is really really good.


----------



## gecko (Apr 8, 2012)

Lloyd Chambers is saying the D800 is as good as the Leica S2 for IQ.


----------



## Dylan (Apr 8, 2012)

First off, if you were a landscape/fashion photographer (or anyone that would consistantly need 36mp) then I wouldn't be arguing with you because you would be shooting at realtively low ISO numbers in the first place. You were the one bragging about the low light capability of this camera which is what most wedding photographers/average shoots would benefit from. You prefer to have good controlled light? Join the club! I'm fully aware that Nikon stated this is a new line geared towards a specific market, but most peole are buying the D800 with the intention of resizing their images to get equal low light performance of the 5D3. You lost me when you said "the reality is that just as you question the need for 36 or 50MP, one may question the need to shoot at ISO 52K". My initial argument was that there is a price to pay for getting equal or similar low light performance, and that's HDD storage. If storage wasn't a concern for me then I would much rather have more mp! Why would someone care to have a sensor that can achieve super high ISO's? Because a better sensor doesn't do anything but make your images look better (not at 52k) and certainly doesn't effect the amount of pictures I can take on a card. Also, I don't know where you're hearing 52k ISO is practical, because all I've heard is to use it in an emergency. Point is, I personally feel that 22mp is more than enough for practically everyone's needs. It's overall a better choice unless you choose to waste 14mp to achieve similar performance of the 5D3 or need the mp.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Apr 8, 2012)

Sigh. I guess running a site doesn't require you to be accurate or objective. D800 "falls apart" at iso800? Absurd comment. CameraLabs comparing jpegs, not RAW images merely reveals Canon's new internal jpeg engine attributes more than anything else. Decent argument of the pros and cons can be made. Downsample D800 to 20MP and compare like dpreview and DxoMark to get a fair comparison. Or read Lloyd Chamber's latest reviews of the cameras. Then again, ANYONE who would state that the D800 "falls apart at iso800" clearly isn't interested in fairness or accuracy...CR is a waste of bandwidth unless you need a dosage of brand war cheerleading. Integrity is a rare commodity these days.






Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800/"></glusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800/"></a></div>
> <strong>Another ISO comparison
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## psolberg (Apr 8, 2012)

gecko said:


> Lloyd Chambers is saying the D800 is as good as the Leica S2 for IQ.



I know! and all for a mere $3000 USD! I was really expecting the Leica to be quite ahead but it seems the gap has closed.

I have a LOT of respect for the man's shooting technique and after reading his public articles, he was simply blown away by the D800 to a point that I have never seen him do for any other camera. If anybody can get every pixel out of a camera, it is that guy.


----------



## Barnie (Apr 10, 2012)

Hi folks,

could anybody tell me why this test is done with 24-105 against 24-70?

I would expect a test 24-70 (I / II) vs. 24-70.


----------



## anthony11 (Apr 10, 2012)

bbasiaga said:


> If you *have* the time to get properly exposed pictures in the camera
> 
> 
> > There, fixed that for you.
> ...


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 10, 2012)

Do we need a large hammer to nail exposure 

;D


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 10, 2012)

anthony11 said:


> bbasiaga said:
> 
> 
> > If you *have* the time to get properly exposed pictures in the camera
> ...


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 16, 2012)

Ok. I have been out shooting with the D800 and the 5D3 for the last 4 days. Primarily I've been shooting sports, but I've also been shooting social shots on the sidelines, some random scenes on the beach, and some street stuff. Here are my impressions.

First, they are both fantastic cameras and you really can't go wrong choosing one or the other. All the fanboys on one side or another really need to just shut up and stop hurling feces just because they have a certain brand allegiance. They both work great. They both produce fantastic shots. There are a couple of key differences, though.

First, if you really need to crop, the d800 crushes. I set the camera to 1.2 crop mode and this gave me 25MP files with a "free" 1.2x teleconverter equivalent with no degradation in light or image quality. This is HUGE. I love it. I really really love it. I am seriously thinking of keeping the camera in this mode 99% of the time and only taking it off when I want to take extra wide angle shots... which isn't often. And though it shoots only 5 fps in this mode, the camera does not feel sluggish. It's actually quite responsive. I shot mostly with a 200-400/f4 lens handheld and I was in love with my results.

But. Personally I find the image quality of the files produced by the 5D3 superior. I actually liked the look of the shots produced with a vastly inferior 100-400L better. And it just goes without saying that the files I produce with the 5D3 + 70-200/f2.8 @ 200mm just demolishes those with the d800 + 200-400/f4 @ 200mm. Mind you, the lens comparison isn't really fair given that the Nikon is a super tele, but it's what I had to compare.

In summary, love BOTH cameras. Love them. Both are great. For weddings/events I really do think the 5D3 has the d800 beat. On the other hand, if you're looking to shoot really long or really wide, I'd take the d800 for sure. That cropping power is killer.

Just my 2 pesos.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 16, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Ok. I have been out shooting with the D800 and the 5D3 for the last 4 days. Primarily I've been shooting sports, but I've also been shooting social shots on the sidelines, some random scenes on the beach, and some street stuff. Here are my impressions.
> 
> First, they are both fantastic cameras and you really can't go wrong choosing one or the other. All the fanboys on one side or another really need to just shut up and stop hurling feces just because they have a certain brand allegiance. They both work great. They both produce fantastic shots. There are a couple of key differences, though.
> 
> ...



Thanks for a sensible review. I agree with your overriding point - both cameras are fantastic!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> All the fanboys on one side or another really need to just shut up and stop hurling feces just because they have a certain brand allegiance. ...
> 
> ...I'd take the d800 for sure. That cropping power is killer.



Canon rulz and Nikon droolz. Seriously, if you need to crop that much, you're either a cheapskate or lazy - so get more money for a longer lens or get off your @$$ and move closer to your subject. 

Ok, I'm not serious at all. 

Seriously (and I mean it, this time), thanks for the comparative impressions!


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon rulz and Nikon droolz. Seriously, if you need to crop that much, you're either a cheapskate or lazy - so get more money for a longer lens or get off your @$$ and move closer to your subject.
> 
> Ok, I'm not serious at all.
> 
> Seriously (and I mean it, this time), thanks for the comparative impressions!



I was hauling $15,000 worth of gear between my Nikon & Canon!!! The Nikon 200-400 f4 is the hugest thing that I can handhold and I will never not handhold. I used it through 4 matches of the US Open of Polo yesterday. My arms hurt today!

As far as moving closer... and what, get run over by a 2000 pound beast? I already have the rent-a-cops hassling me all the time for not standing next to all of the other photographers with their 400/2.8s on a pole. A fellow tog shot this of me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2012)

Smirkypants, clearly you have no problem getting off your @$$.  I have one question - how the heck do you keep your white pants so clean under those conditions? 

EDIT: Nevermind, the pants must be totally blown out in the shot, probably was a Canon tog that shot it, right? That horrible lack of DR always leads to blown highlights, you know...


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Smirkypants, clearly you have no problem getting off your @$$.  I have one question - how the heck do you keep your white pants so clean under those conditions?


Photoshop. Highlight green areas. Select the color in photoshop. Desaturate and lighten slightly. Better than Clorox.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 16, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> But. Personally I find the image quality of the files produced by the 5D3 superior. I actually liked the look of the shots produced with a vastly inferior 100-400L better. And it just goes without saying that the files I produce with the 5D3 + 70-200/f2.8 @ 200mm just demolishes those with the d800 + 200-400/f4 @ 200mm. Mind you, the lens comparison isn't really fair given that the Nikon is a super tele, but it's what I had to compare.



Fanboy! In all seriousness, no me gusta the D800's files either. They just look flat, and color is yucky. Thanks for the review


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 16, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Fanboy! In all seriousness, no me gusta the D800's files either. They just look flat, and color is yucky. Thanks for the review


I wouldn't say that the colors of the d800 were yucky and that the images looked flat. In fact, I would have to say that I prefer the way the Nikon renders reds. I shot this of a hottie on the sidelines with the d800. Nothing flat about her!


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 16, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Fanboy! In all seriousness, no me gusta the D800's files either. They just look flat, and color is yucky. Thanks for the review
> ...



This image shows promise. Please post some more pics, preferably without the mallet in the way


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 16, 2012)

Just slightly off topic - the 1Ds3 renders reds better than any other Canon I have seen. I would say that images dont look flat here either


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Just slightly off topic - the 1Ds3 renders reds better than any other Canon I have seen. I would say that images dont look flat here either



I demand more evidence. If I wanted to be teased, I'd find me a girl that's "waiting until marriage." The wife probably wouldn't approve of that plan, though.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 16, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Just slightly off topic - the 1Ds3 renders reds better than any other Canon I have seen. I would say that images dont look flat here either
> ...


----------



## JR (Apr 17, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Fanboy! In all seriousness, no me gusta the D800's files either. They just look flat, and color is yucky. Thanks for the review
> ...



Oh i love this red, that's it i am getting the D800!


----------



## JR (Apr 17, 2012)

briansquibb said:


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



Well, i like this red too! That's it i am getting a 1ds3!



As you guys can see, all this wait for the 1DX has made me very fragile!


----------

