# Canon 5DmkIII vs Nikon D800



## dougfrommar (Mar 27, 2012)

I currently own the Canon 5DmkII. When cost is considered - for my next camera I am actually considering switching to Nikon. It seems to me that the D800 is more camera for less cost. Why would Canon charge more for the new version of the 5D then Nikon charges for the D800 when the D800 is a 36MP camera? Someone tell me why I should not abandon Canon and switch to Nikon. Yes I have a lot of money tied up in 3 Canon L lenses however ignore that. I want to know if I am missing something with this picture?


----------



## Gatorsv80 (Mar 27, 2012)

I've owned a Nikon d50, d80, d200, d40, and d300. (At the end of my Nikon bodies, I even owned the 70-200mm 2.8 VR.) Then I switched to a canon 5d classic. I was sold on the image quality. I soon picked up a 40d. Then sold the 40d for a 7d. I now own the 5d mark ii. I prefer the look of canon images, the controls, and the ergonomics over everything Nikon. 

Why pay $500 more? I like canon L lenses, and 36mp doesn't mean anything to me. All other features are close. I've owned 70-200 f4L IS, 24-105mm L, 24L, and 135L. Nikon doesn't have much to compete against these lenses. (They don't even have anything equivalent except the 24mm.)

*update: I see see Nikon came out with a 24-120f4 vr about 2 years ago. They have an old 135f2 DC (no af-s.) Both lenses are much more expensive than the canon lenses.


----------



## Gatorsv80 (Mar 27, 2012)

5d3 also has more fps.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 27, 2012)

dougfrommar said:


> I currently own the Canon 5DmkII. When cost is considered - for my next camera I am actually considering switching to Nikon. It seems to me that the D800 is more camera for less cost. Why would Canon charge more for the new version of the 5D then Nikon charges for the D800 when the D800 is a 36MP camera? Someone tell me why I should not abandon Canon and switch to Nikon. Yes I have a lot of money tied up in 3 Canon L lenses however ignore that. I want to know if I am missing something with this picture?



How big do you normally print? If the largest is A3+ size you don't need a D800 to print that size at 300 ppi. You are looking at only numbers. There are other things to consider. Like lenses. There are diffraction and all sorts of other issues from using so many photosites on a 35mm sensor. You would have to have the most expensive lenses possible to get anything great out of that 36mp sensor. Printed at normal sizes the actual difference would be neglible. The real difference comes when you go for medium format digital where a bigger sensor handles 30+ mp much better (I have the 645D as well as the 5d III. My medium format shots have more definition not merely because they are based on 40mp shooter but because of the larger sensor. 

A Phase One or Mamiya 30mp would blow the D800 from here to next week in IQ. It's not just about numbers.


----------



## drjlo (Mar 27, 2012)

A couple of helpful articles, pro and con, on the issue at hand.

http://frontallobbings.blogspot.ca/2012/03/canon-5dmkiii-vs-nikon-d800-megapixel.html

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d-resolution-tests


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 27, 2012)

Gatorsv80 said:


> *update: I see see Nikon came out with a 24-120f4 vr about 2 years ago. They have an old 135f2 DC (no af-s.) Both lenses are much more expensive than the canon lenses.



Also, if I am not mistaken, 24-120 f/4 is not a good performer compared to Canon 24-105 f/4...


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 27, 2012)

dougfrommar said:


> I currently own the Canon 5DmkII. When cost is considered - for my next camera I am actually considering switching to Nikon. It seems to me that the D800 is more camera for less cost. Why would Canon charge more for the new version of the 5D then Nikon charges for the D800 when the D800 is a 36MP camera? Someone tell me why I should not abandon Canon and switch to Nikon. Yes I have a lot of money tied up in 3 Canon L lenses however ignore that. I want to know if I am missing something with this picture?



Even though you'd like it to be ignored, generally speaking Nikkor lenses are more expensive so while gathering the corresponding "L" class Nikkors you would probably pay more than the price difference between the D800 and the 5D mark III. 

I do think Canon is going to come out with a high MP FF camera around Photokina so before any switch I would wait, at least until the end of the year... More of an economical view anyway...


----------



## traveller (Mar 27, 2012)

If you didn't have the 'L' lenses and were looking to print at A2 size or larger, then the D800 would be an obvious choice. Be honest, how many times do you think you'd print this big? Are you a professional who is printing for gallery exhibitions? Is there a market to sell your prints this large, i.e. are people prepared to pay enough for your work to cover the printing (+ new camera system) costs + your profit margin? If you're not a professional, how much wall space to you have for large prints? My guess is that if you are not currently trying to print larger than A3+ from your 5D MkII, then buying a D800 won't change this (but buying an Epson R4900 or Canon iPF-5100 might  ). 

By and large, I think that people who constantly change systems are chasing pots of gold at the end of rainbows (and spending lots of money in the process). To be honest, you're looking at quite mature technology when it comes to bayer array sensors and I don't think that you're going to get that much real world advantage from the D800 (assuming that it turns out to be measurably superior in other metrics). That's not to say that you won't get better results from a D800 than from a 5D MkIII, just that we are getting diminishing returns from each improvement. 

Perhaps the real decision that you should be making is whether it is worth your while upgrading from your current 5D MkII, or waiting for the next generation. What is it about your 5D MkII that you don't like? The D800 is not the end game when it comes to digital cameras; will you be changing systems again in a few years when another manufacturer makes a leap forwards? I would guess that in ten years time we'll all be laughing about how primitive our cameras and their sensors were back in 2012 (Bayer arrays... ho, ho, ho!).


----------



## JR (Mar 28, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Even though you'd like it to be ignored, generally speaking Nikkor lenses are more expensive so while gathering the corresponding "L" class Nikkors you would probably pay more than the price difference between the D800 and the 5D mark III.
> 
> I do think Canon is going to come out with a high MP FF camera around Photokina so before any switch I would wait, at least until the end of the year... More of an economical view anyway...



Well said. I also beleive a high MP camera is coming from Canon. They will not be able to ignore the interest in this type of camera. That said I also understand why they did not do that with the 5DmkIII, but I think it is coming...


----------



## dougfrommar (Mar 28, 2012)

I doubt I will change to Nikon... too much invested in Canon equipment - however I also doubt I will buy the 5DmkIII. I am quite happy with the mkII right now and not seeing enough of an improvement to warrant moving up yet. Just thinking about what I would do for my next camera and why the Nikon is cheaper then the Canon....


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 28, 2012)

Take a look at that link to lensrentals.com. Their tests show that in spite of having more than 50% more pixels, the difference in resolution is less than 20%...and even then only at apertures f/4 or smaller. Their test doesn't go past f/8 which is about the defraction limit for a 36mp full-frame sensor.

In short, is gaining at most a 20% increase in real-world resolving power between f/2.8 and f/8 when you use really good lenses a compelling reason to switch? Almost certainly not.


----------



## JR (Mar 28, 2012)

OK, this may sound weird to some but to all Canon lovers thinking of switching to Nikon, I have a simple question for you. In these forum we discuss specs at lenght for sure and often perceived performance differential (since no full blown test has been done on either Camenra from DP Review for example) but we never refer to ergononics.

If you have shot with Xanon for a few years, have you ever held a Nikon camera in your hand? Are you sure you would be comfortable with it? I know it sound stupid but for me everytime I hold a Nikon camera, as good as they might be or are, they just dont feel right in my hand. I just prefer the feel of the canon body...ok I will not stay with canon just for a feel, but just a thought anyway!


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 28, 2012)

dougfrommar said:


> I doubt I will change to Nikon... too much invested in Canon equipment - however I also doubt I will buy the 5DmkIII. I am quite happy with the mkII right now and not seeing enough of an improvement to warrant moving up yet. Just thinking about what I would do for my next camera and why the Nikon is cheaper then the Canon....



IMHO, the D800 vs. the 5DIII debate is easy. Do you like the actual IQ of the D800 better than the 5DIII, or are you merely impressed by its stats? If you like the IQ of the D800 better, and need the extra resolution, switch systems. If you prefer the look of the 5DIII's files, and 22 megapixels are sufficient for your needs, stick with Canon. I had both bodies on pre-order, but as the sample images from both bodies started trickling out, I grew less impressed with the D800. So, I cancelled my D800 order and my 5DIII will be here tomorrow 

Furthermore, is there a rule that says you must upgrade bodies whenever a new one comes out ? If I had a 5DII, and didn't need an vastly improved AF system and faster burst rate, I don't know that it would be worth it up upgrade to the 5DIII. I went through the same dilemma with then 5DII came out, and ultimately decided to stick with my 5DC until Canon addressed what I felt were its most glaring weakness: AF and FPS. 

IMHO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with older gear. If anything, older gear amplifies your mistakes, opposed to hiding them, and forces you to improve your technique and become a better photographer. I have several pro buddies of mine that have been using their 1DsII's since 2005, and are still producing phenomenal images with them. The grips on them are worn smooth at this point, the but bodies are still alive and kickin'. It's not like a camera suddenly stops producing great images just because something newer and better has been released. With that in mind, perhaps the 5DIV will have enough of an improved feature set


----------



## dturano (Mar 28, 2012)

The real winner is in the eyes of the beholder, they both are pretty much on par, you can find pros and cons for each. I think we can all admit if we had endless funds to find out and test which individually one may prefer we would. But we dont, we pick the one in the same price point, that either we have enough glass to make the choice for us or just pick.

I work with a studio on the weekends who have nikons, canons, sonys, minolta, etc. I always grab the cannons, just more of a comfort level. The nikon users use nikon and the canon users use canon, i personally use canon but pick up other brands when im just shooting zap shots or something thats not all that critical and i can actually mess around a bit. 

Its hard to ask a board either canonrumors or nikonrumors which wins, especially on two new cameras with little to go on than pre reviews and anticipation. 

Buy both with top class glass and use before the return period, which ever you like for personally reasons thats the winner and you can marry yourself to one brand .


----------



## gmrza (Mar 28, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Take a look at that link to lensrentals.com. Their tests show that in spite of having more than 50% more pixels, the difference in resolution is less than 20%...and even then only at apertures f/4 or smaller. Their test doesn't go past f/8 which is about the defraction limit for a 36mp full-frame sensor.
> 
> In short, is gaining at most a 20% increase in real-world resolving power between f/2.8 and f/8 when you use really good lenses a compelling reason to switch? Almost certainly not.



Although the D800 has 63% more pixels, that translates into about 28% greater linear resolution at the sensor level. (Remember to take the square root.)

Looking at the lensrentals.com comparison, I also guessed that somewhere just less than 20% greater linear resolution was being achieved. Unless I read wrong, that was measured at the centre of the image. I would like to know what the comparison is like at the fringes. Most lenses, unless you have some of the sharpest lenses (like a 70-200 f/2.8 II) tend to become quite a bit softer at the fringes.

I would like to see the guys at photozone.de get hold of a 5DIII and a D800 and post up some reviews.


----------



## JR (Mar 28, 2012)

dilbert said:


> It isn't just the megapixel difference that makes the D800 attractive, it is the difference in DR.
> 
> 14.4 vs 11.
> 
> ...



I would imagine this difference woiuld be more apperent at low ISO correct dilbert? As at higher ISO the D800 will loose that edge I beleive...


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 29, 2012)

dilbert said:


> It isn't just the megapixel difference that makes the D800 attractive, it is the difference in DR.
> 
> 14.4 vs 11.



I'm very curious about how this plays out in real world tests, especially since a 14-bit ADC (which both cameras have) shouldn't be able to exceed a theoretical maximum of 14 stops DR. Even then you'll only have 2 levels represented in your lowest stop (versus 8192 levels in your highest stop).


----------

