# HUGE difference between the 5d Mark 3 and D800 RAWs... I mean... HUUGEE



## tonyp (Mar 15, 2012)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40912195



Can we stop now. It's pretty much a wash....


----------



## SpartanWarrior (Mar 15, 2012)

Huge?? lol hardly download the RAW files and compare, you will see the 5D III beats the D800 at ISO and the detail on the D800 is not that much better.


----------



## tonyp (Mar 15, 2012)

I guess my sarcasm was not noticed... 8)


----------



## SpartanWarrior (Mar 15, 2012)

Sorry, they both will be great though


----------



## jalbfb (Mar 15, 2012)

I'm one of those who pre-ordered the 5D3 and am anxiously awaiting it's arrival. I have invested a lot in good Canon glass and for me there was never a thought of switching to Nikon. I was only hoping the 5d3 would be an improvement over the 5DII which I bought last year when the tragedy hit Japan and I figured it would take a year for them to recover. Also, the higher MP count was a non-issue for me. i actually favored the lower count. It looks like BOTH cameras are going to be great additions for those making a camera selection. They give everyone choices and options to stay with either Nikon or Canon, or switch systems. In the end, it's a choice you have to make based on your individual camera needs/uses, how much you have already invested, can you afford to switch or can you even afford the camera. Competition is great and fuels better equipment for all of us to choose from. I also provide fodder for the various blogs which i find both entertaining and educational to follow. I've learned a lot from just following the various threads about camera/photo technology and capabilities and some of the highly skilled and educated camera buffs and pros. IMO, everyone wins.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 15, 2012)

Correct me if I am wrong, but what exactly does: "*5D3 was upsided to 36 MP via Photoshop Bicubic*" mean???

My interpretation is they took the Canon 22MP file, and in PhotoShop did an Image Resize using bicubic to be equal in size to 36 MP

I have NEVER been able to resize a photo up by 20% or more and not introduce defects, loss of sharpness, etc.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but what exactly does: "*5D3 was upsided to 36 MP via Photoshop Bicubic*" mean???
> 
> My interpretation is they took the Canon 22MP file, and in PhotoShop did an Image Resize using bicubic to be equal in size to 36 MP
> 
> I have NEVER been able to resize a photo up by 20% or more and not introduce defects, loss of sharpness, etc.



That appears to be what happened... Puts the 5d3 at a slight disadvantage but for arguements sake, it shows how well it stands up when compared toe to toe.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 15, 2012)

SpartanWarrior said:


> Huge?? lol hardly download the RAW files and compare, you will see the 5D III beats the D800 at ISO and the detail on the D800 is not that much better.





tonyp said:


> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40912195
> 
> 
> 
> Can we stop now. It's pretty much a wash....


it was posted already but IMO, the much higher detail of the D800 is really noticeable.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/03/14/nikon-d800-test-shots-captured-and-posted



> Huge?? lol hardly download the RAW files and compare, you will see the 5D III beats the D800 at ISO and the detail on the D800 is not that much better.


I'd dissagree. I say it is noticeably better. Off course the 5DIII can go higher on the ISO with less noise. Downsampling the D800 raw to 22MP does but it in 5DIII terrytory though. 

overall I think the D800 remains the better camera by far to its purpose: studio/landscape. I'm not sure high ISO tests really get what the camera is all about.


----------



## Joe J (Mar 15, 2012)

> Huge?? lol hardly download the RAW files and compare, you will see the 5D III beats the D800 at ISO and the detail on the D800 is not that much better.





> I'd dissagree. I say it is noticeably better. Off course the 5DIII can go higher on the ISO with less noise. Downsampling the D800 raw to 22MP does but it in 5DIII terrytory though.
> overall I think the D800 remains the better camera by far to its purpose: studio/landscape. I'm not sure high ISO tests really get what the camera is all about.




+1. 
If you actually look at the photos without Canon-colored glasses, there is a significant difference in detail and clarity, particularly with the 1st, 3rd and 4th ones. Implying that lack of detail in one image compared to another is not much different just makes one's analysis of them have zero credibility. 
I could care less about either camera (1DX is really the only new camera model for professionals to consider anyway), and I'm a rejuvenated Canon supporter thanks to the 1DX announcement, but that doesn't mean one should overlook the facts.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 15, 2012)

What lenses were used? I would imagine the differences in lenses would be as likely a suspect for perceived differences as anything else.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

Joe J said:


> > Huge?? lol hardly download the RAW files and compare, you will see the 5D III beats the D800 at ISO and the detail on the D800 is not that much better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There was plenty of detail in the nikons, maybe even edging canon, but also you have to take into account they enlarged the 5d3 files to match those of the D800, and it is unknown, however doubtful, if they sharpened the file post enlargement or kept the file as is... Assuming they didn't, they basically took the 5d file, englarged it and put the file through a disadvantage, yet, it also shows less noise and details wise, held it's own vs the D800... now lets say you take the D800, reduce it to meet the 5d3, the D800 probably is a lot closer in noise, but details would probably be a lot closer if not the same. This is a lot like when the 5d2 came out and review websites would either enlarge the D700's files to match the 5d2, which came out horrible compared, or took the 5d2 and reduced it to the D700, which looked pretty damn close. Of course there will be hurt feels by one side or the other, but this is the worst case situation for the 5d3 and it holds it's own. Of course, 90% of 5d3 shooters will likely use the files as is and few will take those files, enlarge the files to that of the D800 or larger, unless doing such for print, but then likely they will add print sharpening which will make the files look pretty good. Take the test for what it is and the test looks pretty good no matter what side of the fanclub you belong to.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 15, 2012)

Joe J said:


> > Huge?? lol hardly download the RAW files and compare, you will see the 5D III beats the D800 at ISO and the detail on the D800 is not that much better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really? 

The Canon images were sampled up.

Quick test.

Take an image from a Nikon D4 and Bicubic resample it to 36MP and then compare it to the D800.

Which is sharper at ISO 100?

By this logic the D800 is a vastly sharper/better camera than the D4

You cannot take a 22MP image, resample / increase the image size to 36 MP AND NOT have a loss in quality. 

In fact, you could probably take a D4 16MP image at ISO 100 and Upscale it to 21MP and compare to a 5D MKII and see how the 5DMKII is a SHARPER IMAGE than the D4?

You might as well compare the RAW from one to a JPG from the other. 

Why not shoot the Nikon in Medium instead of Large for the file size which would be more indicative of a comparable resolution???

Ahhh... because maybe that would not show the results the bias was tending to show.

Raw is Raw... You can not take images from 1 that is pretty much from Raw and compared to another that is upsampled by close to 30% and expect to make a true judge of sharpness.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 15, 2012)

I have to say that I was convinced until someone pointed out the upsampling of the image. I wonder why that is necessary. 

It seems that if you wanted to do a fair comparison between two cameras you would take identical sample images, and then examine the images at various magnifications to see at what point, if any, the differences become noticeable. 

Okay, I suppose the person making these tests was trying to show the difference between using the original file and creating an upsampled version at the same resolution. But, doesn't that become as much a test of upsampling software as it does the cameras?

Frankly, all this amateur pixel peeping, followed by flame wars on thread after thread, is getting a bit boring. 

The more I read, the more convinced I become that the differences between comparable models of Canon and Nikon are minor and mainly involved very narrow functional and design nuances. 

Unless you are in that tiny, tiny percentage of photographers for whom these differences actually matter it seems like there are two rational ways to decide. You can count up all your equipment and calculate the cost of switching or you can stick pictures of both cameras on the wall, blindfold yourself and then throw a dart at the wall, picking the camera that the dart comes closest to. 

Either way, it's unlikely to affect your pictures in any meaningful or measurable fashion.


----------



## stve (Mar 15, 2012)

Yeah it's a massive difference in favour of the D800

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1813619.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1331830990&Signature=ny7zRykvg%2fh8vDdLDfv%2fGV5A4k0%3d


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> You can not take images from 1 that is pretty much from Raw and compared to another that is upsampled by close to 30% and expect to make a true judge of sharpness.



Sure you can. All you have to do is decide ahead of time what 'conclusion' you _want_ your 'test' to show, and then design your test accordingly. :


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 15, 2012)

I wonder what would happen if you had to crop away 50% of the photo and then upsample both. I have been known to crop a wide photo tall and vice versa. You lose at least half the photo. Say then after that you wanted to do a 20x30 print (which I do quite frequently), where would we stand? Do you suppose the minor differences would still be minor?

This is an honest question, not a "sez you!"


----------



## tonyp (Mar 15, 2012)

Shoot the scene both ratios... problem solved and keep the true MPs


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > You can not take images from 1 that is pretty much from Raw and compared to another that is upsampled by close to 30% and expect to make a true judge of sharpness.
> ...



Exactly.

I can understand some of the initial premise of the upsizing, i.e. showing the same size crop so the size of an object shown in the crop is the same size, but this just does not work. 

If anything, what it tells me is either:

1) The author is intentionally being deceptive

- or -

2) They really do not understand digital files, resolution and comparison.

To me the proper way of doing this comparison has to be raw to raw with an understanding that the the Nikon image will obviously be blown up a bit, but looking at a 500 x 500 pixel representation of the Canon Raw and then comparing to the Nikon Raw, one can look at the edges, CA, noise, etc. 

By the same token, another poster raised an excellent point that the lenses used will also make a big difference as I expect the quality of say a 70-200 L2.8 IS II will produce a different image than a 24-105 F/4.

By that degree, Camera to Camera comparisons can be very selective between different brands, where as at least within a brand, lens performance and difference can be mitigated.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I wonder what would happen if you had to crop away 50% of the photo and then upsample both. I have been known to crop a wide photo tall and vice versa. You lose at least half the photo. Say then after that you wanted to do a 20x30 print (which I do quite frequently), where would we stand? Do you suppose the minor differences would still be minor?
> 
> This is an honest question, not a "sez you!"



Theoretically, if both are cropped exactly at 50% each, the D800 would still have the bigger file and then when enlarged, the D800 would have the edge, but if you cropped the D800 in similar size to the 5d3 so they are both x pixels by y pixels, and enlarge both to similar sizes, then maybe canon has the edge because it would have less manipulations/artifacts, but would be pretty close


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> To me the proper way of doing this comparison has to be raw to raw with an understanding that the the Nikon image will obviously be blown up a bit, but looking at a 500 x 500 pixel representation of the Canon Raw and then comparing to the Nikon Raw, one can look at the edges, CA, noise, etc.



Alternatively, upsample both to 40 MP using something like Genuine Fractals, where the degree of upscaling has less of an impact than the presence/absence of the manipulation.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 15, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> ... now lets say you take the D800, reduce it to meet the 5d3, the D800 probably is a lot closer in noise, but details would probably be a lot closer if not the same. .



That's how I looked at the IR stills. D800 still looked better at 5D dimensions. 

I'm holding on to my pre order slot, but not ruling out returning the mk3.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Mar 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > You can not take images from 1 that is pretty much from Raw and compared to another that is upsampled by close to 30% and expect to make a true judge of sharpness.
> ...



Exactly. I have a saying when it comes to technology demos......

"Any company presentation of a product's advanced technological feature or performance is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 15, 2012)

Jpeg comparisons are the only way 5d3 even competes. Canon's jpeg engine is applying a lot of NR...and well done overall. One can nitpick about smearing of detail or adjusting Nikon settings to match, blah, blah, blah....but I think Canon's jpegs look good and better than D800.

Comparing raw images shows the iso performance to be almost identical between the two cameras...yet the D800 has 36MP and a "huge" DR advantage. Yes, HUUUUUGE. Like 1.5 to 2 stops more! D800 detail and DR really does bump up against MFD quality. And $500 less than 5d3. Sorry, but this really isn't debatable. 

IMO...why choose 5d3? If one could say it's a choice between the D800's detail and DR vs the 5d3's 1.5 extra stops of useable iso...ok, that would be a legit choice. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. As a raw shooter, I see no advantage to the 5d3..and yet see significant D800 advantages.

By no means do I think the 5d3 sucks. It's a 5d2 with excellent AF...what's not to like? Yet, that's the result of 3.5 years of development?? My perspective is driven by what I see as Canon's falling behind in sensor tech (Sony). Sony makes a 36mp sensor that equals Canon 's 22mp in raw iso performance?! That Canon addressed better iso predominantly through their jpeg engine vs the sensor reinforces this... significantly so. This appears to be true of the 1D X as well. I'm starting to think in 5 years...we may all be jumping ship for Sony.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> I'm starting to think in 5 years...we may all be jumping ship for Sony.



...and using what for lenses? :


----------



## tonyp (Mar 15, 2012)

Why choose it?!!? Umm.. I'm invested in Canon primes...


----------



## CanonLITA (Mar 15, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> By the same token, another poster raised an excellent point that the lenses used will also make a big difference as I expect the quality of say a 70-200 L2.8 IS II will produce a different image than a 24-105 F/4.
> 
> By that degree, Camera to Camera comparisons can be very selective between different brands, where as at least within a brand, lens performance and difference can be mitigated.



IMO the comparison should be done with the same (3rd party, read Zeiss) lens, assuming that the mount itself does not affect the result.


----------



## maxxevv (Mar 15, 2012)

CanonLITA said:


> IMO the comparison should be done with the same (3rd party, read Zeiss) lens, assuming that the mount itself does not affect the result.



That's true. A consistent lens by a third party would create a far fairer/equitable test comparison.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 15, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> Comparing raw images shows the iso performance to be almost identical between the two cameras...yet the D800 has 36MP and a "huge" DR advantage. Yes, HUUUUUGE. Like 2 stops more!



Perhaps my eyes are broken but I am not seeing any DR differences in that set. Looking at the black and white pieces of cloth that are near each other, both cameras show roughly the same amount of variation. The D800 shows more details in the fabric but that's expected due to the resolution.

If I missed something, please correct me.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> jaduffy007 said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing raw images shows the iso performance to be almost identical between the two cameras...yet the D800 has 36MP and a "huge" DR advantage. Yes, HUUUUUGE. Like 2 stops more!
> ...



It's slightly argued that the extra detail is an effect of the extra DR, as well as the fact that the nikon image was as is and not upscaled like the Canon.


----------



## wrack_of_lamb (Mar 15, 2012)

maxxevv said:


> That's true. A consistent lens by a third party would create a far fairer/equitable test comparison.



The exif data indicates that both cameras used the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro EF at f8.0. Now if you want to debate the differences between the Canon mount version and the Nikon mount version...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

wrack_of_lamb said:


> maxxevv said:
> 
> 
> > That's true. A consistent lens by a third party would create a far fairer/equitable test comparison.
> ...



Heck that and sample to sample variations of the same mount type.... Sigma can be good if you get good copies but can be a headache getting that good copy


----------



## JustinTArthur (Mar 15, 2012)

I've been doing some comparison at 25600 ISO, as I'm targeting nightlife photography in my purchase decision. For me, with noise reductions all the way down, and down-scaling the D800 sample, I can barely tell a difference between the two—that's with taking the raws, processing with the Adobe libs and not applying any luminance NR, color NR, sharpening, or tone adjustment. The white wall was a little noisier on the D800, but that could easily be from a slightly darker capture. This comparison is the first two attachments.

Strangely, applying Lightroom 4's color noise reduction at level 25 to either yields significantly better neutral darks for me on the D800 sample. The latter 2 attached examples are taken from the raws processed with LR4, clean/linear settings except for color NR 25. You can see a bit of purple/green separation on the 5D Mark III sample. Do any of you know why LR's NR would be better on the D800's sample? Was there simply less noise to deal with? Maybe related to the extra MP? This comparison is the latter 2 attachments.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

JustinTArthur said:


> I've been doing some comparison at 25600 ISO, as I'm targeting nightlife photography in my purchase decision. For me, with noise reductions all the way down, and down-scaling the D800 sample, I can barely tell a difference between the two—that's with taking the raws, processing with the Adobe libs and not applying any luminance NR, color NR, sharpening, or tone adjustment. The white wall was a little noisier on the D800, but that could easily be from a slightly darker capture. This comparison is the first two attachments.
> 
> Strangely, applying Lightroom 4's color noise reduction at level 25 to either yields significantly better neutral darks for me on the D800 sample. The latter 2 attached examples are taken from the raws processed with LR4, clean/linear settings except for color NR 25. You can see a bit of purple/green separation on the 5D Mark III sample. Do any of you know why LR's NR would be better on the D800's sample? Was there simply less noise to deal with? Maybe related to the extra MP? This comparison is the latter 2 attachments.



Hard to tell, but the D800 looks like it has more magenta in the overall scene, but i can be wrong... i guess it's a subjective thing whether you like that or not...


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 15, 2012)

JustinTArthur said:


> Do any of you know why LR's NR would be better on the D800's sample?



It seems that LR's noise reduction algorithm is more optimized for one sensor type than the other - actually, this fits with the fact that many people seem to get better nr results out of Canon's own software than Adobe's. Let's hope Adobe continues to work on this...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> JustinTArthur said:
> 
> 
> > Do any of you know why LR's NR would be better on the D800's sample?
> ...



Also I dont know if Canon sends out the raw info to adobe and the likes before the camera release but in prior releases adobe had to wait a few weeks before they had ACR's for the new canon cameras... and the current ACR is just a beta so it could be optimized even more to suit better to the new camera.


----------



## vuilang (Mar 15, 2012)

Who is getting tired of all BS of 5d3 vs d800?
you not only buy a camera.. YOU BUY THE SYSTEM.. Which one work better for you? pixel peeping wont help anything.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 15, 2012)

tonyp said:


> Why choose it?!!? Umm.. I'm invested in Canon primes...



Canon owns you :->

I hope there aren't that many people around who are bound to buy any body that Canon releases. The only way to make Canon think again about their strategy "double the price and see what happens" is if they cannot sell their full output of 5d3 at 3500 bucks.



vuilang said:


> Who is getting tired of all BS of 5d3 vs d800? you not only buy a camera.. YOU BUY THE SYSTEM..



The whole D800 vs 5d3 issue wouldn't be that heated if the 5d3 would be a little cheaper than the D800 and people would think Canon is pricing their gear according to technical quality, not just market value generated by a demand of people who are unable to choose.

I'd think more about investing in Canon gear if I'd trust Canon's long term strategy more - but seeing the last lens releases for video or high end, and now the 5d3 update after 3,5 years of development, I'll keep my money for the time being.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 15, 2012)

Yeah, JustinTArthur, that's what I'm seeing too. Posted this on another thread but it's relevant here: I don't seem to come to the same conclusion as people claiming that while the D800 has higher resolution & DR, the 5DIII holds up better at higher ISOs.

Here are my comparisons of 5DIII vs D800 at ISO 25,600:
http://cl.ly/F1ud/5DIII_vs_D800-ISO25600.png
http://cl.ly/F2Ui/5DIII_vs_D800-ISO25600-2.png

I don't see any difference between the two cameras at ISO 25,600. Both RAWs were opened in ACR 6.7, identical settings, then D800 was downsized to 5760px horizontal (same as 5DIII) using 'Bicubic' (not sharper, not smoother).

These are 100% crops.

If anything, the D800 looks a little cleaner to me but, really, it's a wash. Minus the fact that D800 has better resolution & DR.

Honestly I would've expected better ISO performance for the 5DIII given the higher inherent SNR of each pixel, which should decrease shot noise. But maybe read noise (higher for Canon?) has that much of an effect...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> tonyp said:
> 
> 
> > Why choose it?!!? Umm.. I'm invested in Canon primes...
> ...



Well class leading AF, 100% VF, accelerometers, higher sensitive sensors for ISO, digic 5+, 6FPS, in camera HDR, more robust body and weather sealing, faster response times, 2 cards, no sony to shovel extra money into R&D, this doesn't come for free... Let alone damage to facilities, possible insurance claims and or negative effects thereof... all that gets passed on to the consumer in some way shape or form... Sucks but the improvements puts this camera in a whole new class of camera compared to the 5d2.


----------



## meli (Mar 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I hope there aren't that many people around who are bound to buy any body that Canon releases. The only way to make Canon think again about their strategy "double the price and see what happens" is if they cannot sell their full output of 5d3 at 3500 bucks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 15, 2012)

I'm very excited by the prospects of the 5DIII AF, which hopefully means I can focus more accurately with the 85/1.2 in the f/1.2-f/2 range. And nail off-center composition focus better w/ the 35/1.4 where focus & recompose doesn't work due to the large angular shift.

I'm also excited at not having to use E-TTL Pocket Wizards with Canon flashes... b/c they only really work well with the 430EX II.

This means a world of difference to me in terms of people/event photography.

I just wish it were at least comparable to the D800 in terms of low ISO DR & low banding in shadows so that some of my landscapes would benefit without having to resort to HDR. And maybe it will be... we have to wait for real world DR tests, in my opinion.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Yeah, JustinTArthur, that's what I'm seeing too. Posted this on another thread but it's relevant here: I don't seem to come to the same conclusion as people claiming that while the D800 has higher resolution & DR, the 5DIII holds up better at higher ISOs.
> 
> Here are my comparisons of 5DIII vs D800 at ISO 25,600:
> http://cl.ly/F1ud/5DIII_vs_D800-ISO25600.png
> ...



Also dont forget that ACR is just a beta raw, and as I mentioned in the past, it used to take adobe weeks to come up with a raw conversion for the newly released (not announced) canon cameras... and even with that there would be additional patchwork they would send to update the ACR to be cleaner/smoother... For all we know DPP and nikons software could be even cleaner/better at the raw conversions and it will be then that we can see the full potential of these two camera... but as I guess... down-sampling the D800 to the 5d3 would make the ISO's very close to call.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 15, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> no sony to shovel extra money into R&D



... exactly! But why would I want to pay for this if I don't own Canon shares or have heaps of Canon gear lying around?

They should better get their R&D money back from the pro bodies and lenses like they used too, or they risk that the large group of semi-pros or well-off amateurs will switch and won't buy Canon's lenses either. Canon doesn't seem to loose money (yet), btw...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > no sony to shovel extra money into R&D
> ...



Last I heard from Canon, the 5d3, 7D are considered "pro bodies" and were put in the same class as the 1d bodies... Whether they are and who they're geared for are two separate things all together... also see the new 24-70 price... it looks like they are getting their R&D money back from pro bodies and lenses...


----------



## meli (Mar 15, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Well class leading AF, 100% VF, accelerometers, higher sensitive sensors for ISO, digic 5+, 6FPS, in camera HDR, more robust body and weather sealing, faster response times, 2 cards, no sony to shovel extra money into R&D, this doesn't come for free... Let alone damage to facilities, possible insurance claims and or negative effects thereof... all that gets passed on to the consumer in some way shape or form... Sucks but the improvements puts this camera in a whole new class of camera compared to the 5d2.


Your inability to see the discrepancy between price/product and 4yrs R&D/product just amazes me. 

ps. Claiming the Thailand event is counterproductive, the competition had even bigger damages


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

meli said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Well class leading AF, 100% VF, accelerometers, higher sensitive sensors for ISO, digic 5+, 6FPS, in camera HDR, more robust body and weather sealing, faster response times, 2 cards, no sony to shovel extra money into R&D, this doesn't come for free... Let alone damage to facilities, possible insurance claims and or negative effects thereof... all that gets passed on to the consumer in some way shape or form... Sucks but the improvements puts this camera in a whole new class of camera compared to the 5d2.
> ...



I wasn't even referring to thailand but now that you mention it. I'm not saying that Canon has suffered more damage compared to other competitors, but be it as it may, progression is progression any way you slice it... The fact is the price is what it is. I cannot tell you exactly what pricing and research and what percentage of AF R&D went into the 1dx vs the 5d3, I cannot tell you why they priced it what they did, but in the end, it is what it is. Your reaction is pretty similar to what my wife said when I broke the news to her, and I know other semi pro's and pro's who will be holding off on the camera until they have the money to swing the purchase. We all would love a 1dx in a 5d body at a sub $3000 price, but that isn't what we were dealt. I understand your frustration but there's nothing I can do about it other than buy the camera because for my photography, it suits my needs.


----------



## WoodysGamertag (Mar 15, 2012)

tonyp said:


> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40912195
> 
> 
> 
> Can we stop now. It's pretty much a wash....


I preordered my 5D and I've been torturing myself by reading forum posts about how terrible it is ever since. It's made me question my decision. Is a pair of L lenses and three others enough to keep me on this horrible platform?

Seeing this made me feel a lot better. To be honest, it's really going to be about what the picture/video is of and not what you took it with. Thanks.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 15, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Last I heard from Canon, the 5d3, 7D are considered "pro bodies" and were put in the same class as the 1d bodies... Whether they are and who they're geared for are two separate things all together...



Personally, I think this is marketing crap. Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear. After all, this is what the red ring and white lens campaign is for. But except maybe for landscape and semi-pro portrait/wedding, every pro I ever saw at events in Berlin had a 1D body, sometimes an older one. Most of them have Nikon anyway. Maybe some will get the 5d3, but the fps imho might be too slow for events.


----------



## WoodysGamertag (Mar 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Personally, I think this is marketing crap. Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear. After all, this is what the red ring and white lens campaign is for. But except maybe for landscape and semi-pro portrait/wedding, every pro I ever saw at events in Berlin had a 1D body, sometimes an older one. Most of them have Nikon anyway. Maybe some will get the 5d3, but the fps imho might be too slow for events.


Interesting. I met a pro photog at a UFC even and she used a pair of 7Ds with 70-200L and 24-70L lenses. 

I'm sort of a minor league celeb so last week I was in Hollywood on a shoot. The video stuff was all some kind of Panasonic camera (medium format?) and the still work was a Canon 7D with a 24-70L lens. On a related note, it was my first time getting makeup for a shoot with a pro makeup artist. That was super cool. They had a guy who's job it was to clean the bottom of my shoes before I went on stage. That was just awkward. I'm not really special enough for that kind of treatment. 

The only other pro I know does weddings with a 5Dii. So yeah, based on my little bit of exposure I'd say that people make their living with 7D and 5D's.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 15, 2012)

WoodysGamertag said:


> Interesting. I met a pro photog at a UFC even and she used a pair of 7Ds with 70-200L and 24-70L lenses.



Well, that's why I marked my comment "personally" and said the observations were from events "in Berlin" which might be more saturated w/ 1d bodies due to being the capital. If you like, I take it all back - there's really no need for a 7d vs 1d exchange here.

However, I stand by my argument that Canon labeling the 7d and 5d "pro" like the 1d is generated by marketing strategy as is the red ring and big white lens campaign.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Last I heard from Canon, the 5d3, 7D are considered "pro bodies" and were put in the same class as the 1d bodies... Whether they are and who they're geared for are two separate things all together...
> ...



To some extent, you are right, it is marketing, but then again, in CPS, which is geared for pro photographers, in the USA, before they switched to the points system, they had the silver,gold, and platinum membership. Silver had to be pro, xxd bodies or better, plus lenses just to qualify... Gold, same requirements but fee's assessed to get extra goodies... platinum you had higher fee's but needed a 7d, 5d2 or 1d body to even qualify... Take it for what it's worth, but they kinda view the XD and XXD class as the main factor between a pro body and semi pro/ameature body. Right or wrong, marketing or not, it is what it is. Regarding seeing 1d bodys at events... well no crap... that's the ultimate body for most situations... the 5d2 never was built to do sporting events and such... The 7D was but is crop and has it's own stigmas attached to it as well. Many pro's use and only use 5d's and 7D's professionally, me included. 1d's, while awesome cameras, grab a lot of attention, high price points, and unless i'm in a situation where a 7D or 5d3 cannot suffice, I have no need for a 1d body to get me by... When that time comes, I will cross that bridge. But with the 70-200 II, 24-70 II, Canon 5d3, they are making up their losses in R&D... I wouldn't be surprised to see the cheaper priced gear get updated with higher priced gear, if not anything but to catch up to nikons prices... In the end it's all about competition and unless maybe JVC, Samsung, or some other major brand teams up with Canon like Nikon and Sony, Canon will have to work harder to advance beyond nikon. It's all about $$$


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear.



Also, we all know, having pro gear doesn't make anyone a "professional" or even proficient let alone take decent photos. Being professional is about knowing your gear, knowing what gear you need to make the shots you want, and make money doing it at the same time. =)


----------



## AJ (Mar 15, 2012)

I just had a look at the comparison.

The Nikon images shown are contrastier. This could be because of lens or processing. More contrast gives an illusion of more sharpness. A fair comparison would have an equal histogram.

That said, the Nikon samples are just a tad sharper. I think the extra megapixels do help a bit. So, perhaps there's room for a future high megapixel camera.

In all, though, I suspect that on a 18"x24" print you're going to have a very tough time telling these two cameras apart.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 15, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Also, we all know, having pro gear doesn't make anyone a "professional" or even proficient let alone take decent photos.



Indeed: The other category of pros I know take their pictures with a compact camera or completely outdated dslr, then edit them extremely professionally in Photoshop, add good self-marketing and then sell this for a couple of thousand bucks... but in the comment above, I was thinking of tech pros that don't have to give too much thought about getting a 5d or a 1d.



AJ said:


> I think the extra megapixels do help a bit.



Please watch out for sharp or heavy objects flying toward you in the near future :->


----------



## mauro.canon (Mar 15, 2012)

some streets...photo with D800 (full size and raw)

http://nikond4d800.fotopolis.pl/index.php?n=14580

ex
http://files.fotopolis.pl/download/pw-d800-plen12.JPG

400 iso...f16...I see...noise (and dust)

400 iso..must be clean! .

and compare
http://nikond4d800.fotopolis.pl/index.php?n=14565


----------



## stve (Mar 16, 2012)

AJ said:


> I just had a look at the comparison.
> 
> The Nikon images shown are contrastier. This could be because of lens or processing. More contrast gives an illusion of more sharpness. A fair comparison would have an equal histogram.
> 
> ...


You need to look at the raw images to properly judge. The D800 NEF opened in Lightroom 4 shows a huge amount of detail compared to viewing the jpeg in a browser.


----------



## Joe J (Mar 16, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear.
> ...



+1 If you don't even have the ability take similar decent photos with an AE-1 and a roll of Provia as with a 1DX, you shouldn't consider yourself "professional" or proficient at taking photos. Expensive camera equipement has never made anyone a "pro", unless you are using your overblown credit card purchase for status to get a job.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 16, 2012)

WoodysGamertag said:


> I preordered my 5D and I've been torturing myself by reading forum posts about how terrible it is ever since. It's made me question my decision. Is a pair of L lenses and three others enough to keep me on this horrible platform?
> 
> Seeing this made me feel a lot better. To be honest, it's really going to be about what the picture/video is of and not what you took it with. Thanks.



That's because you've been listening to a lot of people who, to be honest, don't really know  36 vs. 22 MP is not going to make the difference between a camera that's usable and one that isn't but people get themselves in a frenzy etc etc... and pour over JPEG files rather than waiting for real tests. It just feeds into the marketing machines, which if I'm honest Nikon is better at.

It's the same with high ISO. I've heard people say the d3s and d700 "destroy" the 5dii. The d3s is 8/10ths of a stop better and the d700 is 1/3rd of a stop better. These are not "destroy" level stats - especially the comparison with the d700. 1/3rd of a stop is not even noticeable yet I've had discussions with "photographers" who claim the d700 is the high ISO king and the 5dii sucks.

I've said it before, but the difference between 22 and 36 MP is about a third extra resolution. So, if you were printing at 300dpi, most people would get an extra few inches on their maximum size print. Scaled, I'm unsure if many people could tell the difference, and by this I mean if you didn't have them side by side and asked which camera they were printed from, they couldn't tell you. Even side by side it's not certain. That means there will be no significantly business advantage to having the d800 (for most photographers). In fact, I'm not even sure most people would notice the difference between a 12mp d700 and a 36mp d800..

Certainly, for me, the difference is less than the difference a great lens will make - who wants more resolution when the lens can't resolve it and you just have greater resolution blurry details?

Canon rule the roost when it comes to lenses (except for the 12-24). I wouldn't consider switching to Nikon for that reason alone.

Photographer > Lenses > Body (for most photographers).


----------



## Positron (Mar 16, 2012)

WoodysGamertag said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I think this is marketing crap. Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear. After all, this is what the red ring and white lens campaign is for. But except maybe for landscape and semi-pro portrait/wedding, every pro I ever saw at events in Berlin had a 1D body, sometimes an older one. Most of them have Nikon anyway. Maybe some will get the 5d3, but the fps imho might be too slow for events.
> ...



When I see galleries of photographers at newsworthy events, sports events, and the like, they're almost all using 1D or D3 series bodies, but I get the impression that the majority of those photographers have that equipment bankrolled by whatever organization they are with; while there are people out there who can afford a 1D Mark IV and a 400mm f/2.8, the reality is that most of us will never be able to afford it unless we do something extreme like taking a downgrade on a car or home. I know a fair number of professional photographers, that run the gamut from fine art landscape, to wedding, to freelance journalism, to full-time journalism, to full-time sports, and one rule holds true for every single one. The ones who are employed as full-time photographers use flagship bodies which were paid for by their company, and the ones who are self-employed use non-flagship bodies which were paid out of their own pockets.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 16, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> WoodysGamertag said:
> 
> 
> > I preordered my 5D and I've been torturing myself by reading forum posts about how terrible it is ever since. It's made me question my decision. Is a pair of L lenses and three others enough to keep me on this horrible platform?
> ...



You make far too much sense and are far too rational for this site...

Please consider yourself officially notified of being on probation.

In the future, please feel free to voice hysterics, complain that Canon does not listen, the prices are too high, the MP too small, the DR non-existant and how ( ) Nikon ( ) Sony (please select one or more) are kicking Canon's butt and that you are switching...

Now back to this regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 16, 2012)

Haha!


----------

