# After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?



## KKCFamilyman (May 9, 2012)

I purchased the 5d3 a month ago and love it but sometimes the images can be soft and the focus system tricky. I was curious how dpreview can still say that the noise is even better controlled than the 5d3. Basically they do not say in anyway the 5d3 is better except the focus system and fps but really thats not much. Any thoughts?


----------



## smithy (May 9, 2012)

We'll just have to wait and see how the review for the 5D3 turns out, won't we? 

IMHO, FPS and AF performance are *big* things - the two things that made me decide to never purchase a 5D2. They are the difference between getting the shot, and not getting the shot. 36MP is a lot of blurry pixels if your image is out of focus or you've missed that critical moment...

Which cameras have you used before the 5D3, KKCFamilyman? And which lenses are you using on it?


----------



## bernardovaghi (May 9, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I purchased the 5d3 a month ago and love it but sometimes the images can be soft and the focus system tricky. I was curious how dpreview can still say that the noise is even better controlled than the 5d3. Basically they do not say in anyway the 5d3 is better except the focus system and fps but really thats not much. Any thoughts?



Tell you dude, i will stick with the Mark III for some reasons. I shot Nikon for the last 4 years, D700, D7000, D300, D90, D70s, superb cameras. I already owned a lot of glass: 85mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 12-24, 80-200 (sold). The main motivation to switch brands at this point is for the lack of compromise from Nikon with the costumers. They don't deliver the products. Enter now on the BH site and see how many products out of stock, from lenses to bodys. This make the market overpriced, lens that costs $500,00 be sold for $1.000,00. D800 bodys sold by $5.000,00, but no, the price is not the "Aquiles Ankle". If your D800 body breaks, how many time you will wait to replace it? And the replace parts, how much will cost? Same for the lenses. Another reason: Video Mode. Canon upgraded the sensor for video: moire, aliasing and noise are dramatically improved (also resolution lost :-X ). Nikon produces more moire than my iPhone. This are multimedia days, this type of fail on video mode is deal breaker. Set of lenses: Nikon don't have an intermediate set of zoom lenses with great quality and price. 70-200 f4 (IS) , 17-40, 24-105, 300mm f/4 (IS) are superb lenses at affordable price. I shoot both systems side by side. When you buy a body, you must pay attention to the system you are buying, not just the body. For my needs, i can produce great images with canon or nikon bodys, but i prefer the multimedia spirit of Canon. If i get a client for a big campaign, only studio work, models, i rent a D800 on demand for that. If you pixel-peep, don't know nothing of pos production, and can't live with the fact that the sony sensor is better and sharper, take the D800. (sorry for my english not my native language)

Cheers,

Bernardo Vaghi
www.bernardovaghi.com.br


----------



## iso79 (May 9, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I purchased the 5d3 a month ago and love it but sometimes the images can be soft and the focus system tricky. I was curious how dpreview can still say that the noise is even better controlled than the 5d3. Basically they do not say in anyway the 5d3 is better except the focus system and fps but really thats not much. Any thoughts?



How about you shoot more and learn your camera better instead of relying on dpreview's reviews that take 2 years to be published?


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 9, 2012)

> After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?


No, I will not.
But then I didn't think the 5DMkIII was worth the price before the review either.


----------



## cliffwang (May 9, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> No, I will not.
> But then I didn't think the 5DMkIII was worth the price before the review either.


I guess I won't either because I have too many Canon lenses. I might just wait for 5D3 price drop or keep using my 5D2 till 5D4 release.
However, I told many my friend switch to D800 if they don't have many EF mount lenses.


----------



## RuneL (May 9, 2012)

smithy said:


> We'll just have to wait and see how the review for the 5D3 turns out, won't we?
> 
> IMHO, FPS and AF performance are *big* things - the two things that made me decide to never purchase a 5D2. They are the difference between getting the shot, and not getting the shot. 36MP is a lot of blurry pixels if your image is out of focus or you've missed that critical moment...
> 
> Which cameras have you used before the 5D3, KKCFamilyman? And which lenses are you using on it?



I absolutely agree. I borrowed a 5D II just as it came out meaning to replace a 1D II with it, but the AF and speed of it were just deal breakers for me. But now I'd probably get the 5D III instead of upgrading my 1D IV to the 1D X


----------



## SuperCrazySamurai (May 9, 2012)

iso79 said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I purchased the 5d3 a month ago and love it but sometimes the images can be soft and the focus system tricky. I was curious how dpreview can still say that the noise is even better controlled than the 5d3. Basically they do not say in anyway the 5d3 is better except the focus system and fps but really thats not much. Any thoughts?
> ...



Very well said, the camera is just a hammer, its up to you on how you use it. IMHO, Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Cheers!


----------



## Otter (May 9, 2012)

The D800 is a better camera. I'm a Canon guy and I always have been. I'm not going to switch because Nikon wins one round. I am also not interested in 36 MP's. But based on most of the reviews that I have read and watched when the two cameras are put head to head, whether it's low ISO performance, Dynamic Range ect, it seems the D800 ends up on top.
However that does not mean the MKIII is not a great camera and it does do a lot of things great. I am going to pick one up when I get the money and it doesn't bother me that the D800 is rated higher. Do I wish the MKIII had a higher rating when I'm spending $500 more on the MKIII over the D800. Most definitely but it won't affect me purchasing the MKIII.


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 9, 2012)

You mean the D800 has a good review? Damn, better sell all my L glass and jump to Nikon based one one guy's opinion. My friend with his iPhone can pwn my images more times that I'd like to admit.


----------



## RuneL (May 9, 2012)

Otter said:


> The D800 is a better camera. I'm a Canon guy and I always have been. I'm not going to switch because Nikon wins one round. I am also not interested in 36 MP's. But based on most of the reviews that I have read and watched when the two cameras are put head to head, whether it's low ISO performance, Dynamic Range ect, it seems the D800 ends up on top.
> However that does not mean the MKIII is not a great camera and it does do a lot of things great. I am going to pick one up when I get the money and it doesn't bother me that the D800 is rated higher. Do I wish the MKIII had a higher rating when I'm spending $500 more on the MKIII over the D800. Most definitely but it won't affect me purchasing the MKIII.



The things you mention aren't always the most important factors in a camera. Why not use a IQ180 if you want the best? Answer that and you'll see why parts of your post are downright stupid.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 9, 2012)

Now I am certain that I will switch. My e-peen and internet respetz are too important to sacrifice by using the 5DIII.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (May 9, 2012)

smithy said:


> We'll just have to wait and see how the review for the 5D3 turns out, won't we?
> 
> IMHO, FPS and AF performance are *big* things - the two things that made me decide to never purchase a 5D2. They are the difference between getting the shot, and not getting the shot. 36MP is a lot of blurry pixels if your image is out of focus or you've missed that critical moment...
> 
> Which cameras have you used before the 5D3, KKCFamilyman? And which lenses are you using on it?



canon 60d
17-55 2.8
15-85 usm
18-200mm
18-135
18-55
50 1.8
24-105l 

I think its great and wonder if its sharpness might be better served with a different lens. I was considering the 50 1.4 or 70-200 f4is to add reach. I am keeping it since due to a mistake with my local dealer i only paid $3570 out the door for the kit. Even any upcoming 70d ff option will not beat that deal. I don't have anymore ef mount lenses so i was just curious if anyone else felt the nikon was better if you were no longer invested in glass.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (May 9, 2012)

Ohh and a lot of review sites a saying the nikon d800 is better so I just did not consider dpreviews opinion.


----------



## Jakontil (May 9, 2012)

lol not a chance....


----------



## awinphoto (May 9, 2012)

In a heartbeat... Not to start a holy war between the two but a lot a review sites concede that the nikon bests the 5d3 from ISO 50-800... It also has a pop up flash, clean HDMI out, more mega pixels. Everything else from ISO 800 onwards, to AF, HDR, video (canon pounds the crap out of the D800 here), battery, battery life, ergonomics, handling, custom settings, on and on and on... If i was a landscape or MF shooter, then I may be tempted, and only *tempted*, in the D800, but in the end, it's not enough of a IQ edge below 800 to get worried about. But for me, how I shoot, and what my clients needs and wants are, it is what it is...


----------



## awinphoto (May 9, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Ohh and a lot of review sites a saying the nikon d800 is better so I just did not consider dpreviews opinion.



Plus a lot of review sites, from digital rev to learning dslr videos, to many other youtube videos comparing the two, it seems that a good chunk of them give their nod to canon in the end... Most also say the differences are so minor in the end it isn't worth while for either camp to jump sides, of course they all have to say that, but it is what it is...


----------



## Viggo (May 9, 2012)

I will never buy a nikon as long as they let a blind drunk, deaf, dumb and even more blind man control how the buttons are placed and how the menus are set up and the general operation of the camera.

Here's a scenario for you that think they're equal in noise. When you increase pixels you also need to shorten your shutter speed to not show motion blur. I tried the D800 and I had to have at least 1/2500s to freeze a bike messenger I tried outside the shop where I work, that means going to 3200 iso whereas with the 5d3 I had iso 1250 and around 1/1000s, no motion blur on either, but I was over a full stop higher in iso , making the image, of course, more noisy and less DR (that some of you are EXTREMELY conserned about).

And to give up on the wonderful wonderful Canon primes I own is not an option at all. In fact, the 5d3 is soo good I can't blame anything but me if the images suck now...


----------



## well_dunno (May 9, 2012)

Had a good laugh reading the comments at DPR on D800 review...  anyways...

I was not going to get the mark III, neither the D800 so the review has had no effect. I think we will be seeing a very active market within the coming 12-24 months with more pressure on Canon (yep, that probably means 24-48 months when talking of Canon). I am not a pro, neither in need of an urgent update so I am planning to wait and see how things develop...

Cheers!


----------



## Otter (May 9, 2012)

RuneL said:


> Otter said:
> 
> 
> > The D800 is a better camera. I'm a Canon guy and I always have been. I'm not going to switch because Nikon wins one round. I am also not interested in 36 MP's. But based on most of the reviews that I have read and watched when the two cameras are put head to head, whether it's low ISO performance, Dynamic Range ect, it seems the D800 ends up on top.
> ...



I would say in a lot of cases, people DO care about dynamic range and low light performance(Just look around the forums). Is that the part that is stupid? Is it the fact that most head to head comparisons between the two cameras, the D800 comes out with a better score. Is that part stupid? 
Can you refrain from being a jackass and actually say something more meaningful then a general sentence that offers zero insite and perhaps elaborate on the stupidity of my post?
Most reviewers and people that review cameras for a living do give the D800 a better OVERALL score. That was my point...stupid...


----------



## Ivar (May 9, 2012)

They are different options.

Not everybody needs high FPS and extremely fast AF.

Not everybody needs 36MP and high DR.

What is your compromise? And set of lenses you already have?


------------------------------------------------------
This is personal and completely subjective:

While Canon has undoubtedly a good camera, I feel their camera development attitude 1) is too carefully weighted (crippled if you wish) and 2) is lacking a clear lead in the competition and 3) priced relatively high 
Add on that the mystery of releases: 1Dx delays, lenses delays, printer delay (Pro 1), missing high MP sensor ..

It is not that the 5D3 wouldn't do all the things I need, but rather I'd support somebody who has the heart for photography, so that one could not sense things being left out for marketing reasons.


----------



## Axilrod (May 9, 2012)

It's strange how people can be totally happy with a camera and as soon as they hear there is something slightly better out there it immediately becomes a useless piece of junk that's incapable of taking good images. Just because the D800 has slightly better resolution doesn't make the 5DIII a bad camera. It's like when the 5DIII got announced. Up until then, most had nothing but good things to say about the 5DII, but all of a sudden people were acting like it was some ancient piece of crap camera and questioned whether it was "good enough" (even though it's plenty of camera for most).
Relativity is a bitch.


----------



## kbmelb (May 9, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I will never buy a nikon as long as they let a blind drunk, deaf, dumb and even more blind man control how the buttons are placed and how the menus are set up and the general operation of the camera.
> 
> Here's a scenario for you that think they're equal in noise. When you increase pixels you also need to shorten your shutter speed to not show motion blur. I tried the D800 and I had to have at least 1/2500s to freeze a bike messenger I tried outside the shop where I work, that means going to 3200 iso whereas with the 5d3 I had iso 1250 and around 1/1000s, no motion blur on either, but I was over a full stop higher in iso , making the image, of course, more noisy and less DR (that some of you are EXTREMELY conserned about).
> 
> And to give up on the wonderful wonderful Canon primes I own is not an option at all. In fact, the 5d3 is soo good I can't blame anything but me if the images suck now...



This brought a tear to my eye.

I think both companies made concessions and I think Canon erred the way of practicality. Nikon went guns slinging for the exotic and more niche. Not saying one is better than the other but the 5D3 comes highly recommended by me. I love how people said the the mkII's IQ is incredible and now they are upset the mkIII is only marginally improved. The mkIII's IQ is phenomenal and I can retrieve a *LOT* of shadow detail. Could I retrieve more with the D800? That's what I'm told. The day I am trying to retrieve more shadow detail (on the bulk of my shots) than the 5D3 offers is the day I really need to question my photographic abilities. Then I'll give the D800 a try before I throw in the towel.


----------



## Ivar (May 9, 2012)

At the same shutter speed, the same sized print (or downsize of a bigger image) would NOT be different no matter the density (22MP vs 36MP).

True, in order to benefit even more from a higher density sensor, it is advisable to use higher shutter speeds in such fast action situations. 

Again, a 36MP sensor is no worse recording image than a 22MP at the same shutter speed, it can only be better.



Viggo said:


> Here's a scenario for you that think they're equal in noise. When you increase pixels you also need to shorten your shutter speed to not show motion blur. I tried the D800 and I had to have at least 1/2500s to freeze a bike messenger I tried outside the shop where I work, that means going to 3200 iso whereas with the 5d3 I had iso 1250 and around 1/1000s, no motion blur on either, but I was over a full stop higher in iso , making the image, of course, more noisy and less DR (that some of you are EXTREMELY conserned about).


----------



## Viggo (May 9, 2012)

Ivar said:


> At the same shutter speed, the same sized print (or downsize of a bigger image) would NOT be different no matter the density (22MP vs 36MP).
> 
> True, in order to benefit even more from a higher density sensor, it is advisable to use higher shutter speeds in such fast action situations.
> 
> ...



Not worse, it just shows the motion blur more than lower res. And if you crop, which I assume is one of two reasons why people want 36 mp, you still can see it better, that's a fact.

Zoom them both in to 100% crop at the same settings and it becomes obvious. It's not that 36 mp is more prone to motion blur, it's just that the higher level of detail reveals it. 

And to say the 36 image is no worse than 22 at 22 is a pointless point, why would you buy a 36 to use it at 22?

Normalize res and all this, what a waste. 

"oh look, the 5d3 is no better at focusing than the 5d2 when I use an f5,6 lens and aim at a completely white surface, man, Canon has failed and left it all in the hands of nikon"


----------



## pdirestajr (May 9, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> It's strange how people can be totally happy with a camera and as soon as they hear there is something slightly better out there it immediately becomes a useless piece of junk that's incapable of taking good images. Just because the D800 has slightly better resolution doesn't make the 5DIII a bad camera. It's like when the 5DIII got announced. Up until then, most had nothing but good things to say about the 5DII, but all of a sudden people were acting like it was some ancient piece of crap camera and questioned whether it was "good enough" (even though it's plenty of camera for most).
> Relativity is a bitch.



+100

I like to stay a generation behind the technology wave so I never have buyer's remorse, get an amazing price and all the quirks (firmware updates/ mass hysteria of recalls) have been fully worked out!


----------



## smithy (May 9, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> canon 60d
> 17-55 2.8
> 15-85 usm
> 18-200mm
> ...


Yes, I'd say that getting a nice prime lens or two will help your sharpness issues. You also might want to see if microadjusting the focus for your 24-105mm lens would help with softness.

Going from a 60D, (which is purely a consumer-level camera with a basic AF system), to the 5D's pro-level AF system will be a huge learning curve. Have patience with it and spend some time immersed in the manual. You'll either find that it's not for you, or you love it. I'm guessing the latter.


----------



## Invertalon (May 9, 2012)

It does not make me want to change it all. I am extremely happy with my 5D3 and at this point, care less about the D800. It was fun at first to compare them, but now it is just getting old.

For those who go with the D800, awesome. For those with the 5D3, awesome. It does not bother me in the least. I don't get why people care so much about others though. Go with what you really want. The D800 and 5D3 are different target audiences and I fall into what the 5D3 offers. I simply believe it is the superior camera for me.

I won't have any second thoughts on my decision either. The 5D3 is the best body I have ever used. So I am happy!


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 9, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> > After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?
> 
> 
> No, I will not.
> But then I didn't think the 5DMkIII was worth the price before the review either.




+1


----------



## winoheel (May 9, 2012)

I am totally committed to Canon with lens and other Canon cameras; 50D, 5DII, 1DIV along with the 5DIII. It is inconceiveable to me to change to another format. It seems to me to be some knee jerk reaction to tech advances in competiting cameras that Canon competes very well against. You are either Canon or you are not. I do understand that some people have both which is just not for me personally.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 9, 2012)

Or of my fb friends quipped the other day something along the lines that next time he'll take the d3x to a wedding since the d800 was just uncomfortable to use. 

I think the problem is that people see a camera and just see tech. However, a camera is way more than that. It's a body. Its how it feels. It's the colour and tone that are produced. It's a system of lenses. Its a system of repairing and replacing. Its being able to deliver the product and keeping your customers informed. 

Will I switch to nikon? When I first saw the dr of the d800 I was impressed, but poor comfort would kill me. So would 70mb files (there's no mraw option). And most of all you'd have to prise my 50mm 1.2 out of my dead hands...

Will I buy a 5d3? I just did  and I'm delighted! In fact I just discovered you can use the set button with the front dial to set iso. That's just made my day cos I change iso a lot at weddings. 

The single genuine disappointment for me is the viewfinder issues with the red not being visible in good light and the dark points not being visible in poor light. That's nearly at the point of inexcusable. But I'm so happy with the camera that I'll put up with it


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 9, 2012)

RuneL said:


> Otter said:
> 
> 
> > The D800 is a better camera. I'm a Canon guy and I always have been. I'm not going to switch because Nikon wins one round. I am also not interested in 36 MP's. But based on most of the reviews that I have read and watched when the two cameras are put head to head, whether it's low ISO performance, Dynamic Range ect, it seems the D800 ends up on top.
> ...




Actually Rune, Otter's post was objective and fair-minded...unlike yours which introduces a $44,000 body into the discussion as a comparative option to the 5d3 or D800. THAT is what I would call "stupid".


----------



## markko (May 9, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> The single genuine disappointment for me is the viewfinder issues with the red not being visible in good light and the dark points not being visible in poor light. That's nearly at the point of inexcusable. But I'm so happy with the camera that I'll put up with it



Exactly the same here  That's why I was pleased to hear/see Chuck Westfall mention that they might address the issue in a future firmware. Check out his quote in this video (at 8m20s):

Canon's Chuck Westfall speaks with planet5D at NAB 2012


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 9, 2012)

Oh Ivar, like Otter you're being so logical and reasonable...it reveals you speak from experience ...but that isn't of value to in a discussion regarding the 5d3 vs D800....don't you get it? 




Ivar said:


> At the same shutter speed, the same sized print (or downsize of a bigger image) would NOT be different no matter the density (22MP vs 36MP).
> 
> True, in order to benefit even more from a higher density sensor, it is advisable to use higher shutter speeds in such fast action situations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jason Beiko (May 9, 2012)

I won't switch yet....Basically I'm a Canon guy, but have been very impressed with the D800 images and think the "E" version will be an absolute stunner. I will say that right now I am in a holding pattern WRT purchases (i.e. I will not be purchasing anymore Canon gear) until I review and see how Canon responds. If they produce a "D800e type" camera then I will likely stay with Canon as I primarily shoot landscapes (95% of my pics are ISO 100). If not.... then I maybe tempted to try the dark side.


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 9, 2012)

Sorry Viggo, but Ivar is right. You are mistaken. Canon loyalists keep trying to say resolution=bad. Wrong. Believe what you wish, by all means.




Viggo said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > At the same shutter speed, the same sized print (or downsize of a bigger image) would NOT be different no matter the density (22MP vs 36MP).
> ...


----------



## AmbientLight (May 9, 2012)

I felt compelled by this thread to visit DPREVIEW and actually read the D800 review. It makes a nice read and gives a good impression of a reasonably fair test procedure.

I don't see this as a completely positive test. If you use their comparison tool, it actually shows the much beloved, but already well aged 7D to come out ahead of the D800 in the overall score profiting from its rich feature set, its good speed and autofocus system. If as I expect the 5D Mark III should get a higher overall score compared to the 7D, it should beat the D800 with a still higher rating.

Regarding the resolution debate I believe we are having too many visitors from the Nikon camp. Having for years been limited mostly to 12 MP people may have a hard time accepting higher resolutions, but I think this discussion is nonsensical for Canon shooters. To me resolutions in about the 18-22 MP range are quite fine, but the option for more is certainly nothing bad. What is a real problem with the D800 is the slow frame rate. That is at least an issue for me.


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 9, 2012)

Jason Beiko said:


> I won't switch yet....Basically I'm a Canon guy, but have been very impressed with the D800 images and think the "E" version will be an absolute stunner. I will say that right now I am in a holding pattern WRT purchases (i.e. I will not be purchasing anymore Canon gear) until I review and see how Canon responds. If they produce a "D800e type" camera then I will likely stay with Canon as I primarily shoot landscapes (95% of my pics are ISO 100). If not.... then I maybe tempted to try the dark side.



95% landscape?? IMO, the D800 E is an obvious choice if you're willing to switch systems. I can't see how Canon markets a high MP, AA filterless camera against the $3500 5d3. $4500? No thank you.


----------



## V8Beast (May 9, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> I think the problem is that people see a camera and just see tech. However, a camera is way more than that. It's a body. Its how it feels. It's the colour and tone that are produced. It's a system of lenses. Its a system of repairing and replacing. Its being able to deliver the product and keeping your customers informed.
> 
> Will I buy a 5d3? I just did  and I'm delighted! In fact I just discovered you can use the set button with the front dial to set iso. That's just made my day cos I change iso a lot at weddings.



It's funny how it's the little things that make a big difference in the field. I just realized that the ISO button on the 5DIII is indented with a raised spot in the center. That makes it very easy to located by feel, since the surrounding buttons are rounded smooth. Not having to take my eye out of the viewfinder to locate the ISO button, thereby eliminating the need to recompose and re-check focus after adjusting the ISO, is a great convenience. That's not something that will show up on a spec sheet, but the benefit of fewer missed shots and lower stress level is priceless when the action is happening "right now."


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 9, 2012)

You need higher fps? That's cool. But if you think the 7D compares to the D800, which you imply...you're smoking crack.




AmbientLight said:


> I felt compelled by this thread to visit DPREVIEW and actually read the D800 review. It makes a nice read and gives a good impression of a reasonably fair test procedure.
> 
> I don't see this as a completely positive test. If you use their comparison tool, it actually shows the much beloved, but already well aged 7D to come out ahead of the D800 in the overall score profiting from its rich feature set, its good speed and autofocus system. If as I expect the 5D Mark III should get a higher overall score compared to the 7D, it should beat the D800 with a still higher rating.
> 
> Regarding the resolution debate I believe we are having too many visitors from the Nikon camp. Having for years been limited mostly to 12 MP people may have a hard time accepting higher resolutions, but I think this discussion is nonsensical for Canon shooters. To me resolutions in about the 18-22 MP range are quite fine, but the option for more is certainly nothing bad. What is a real problem with the D800 is the slow frame rate. That is at least an issue for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2012)

Ivar said:


> At the same shutter speed, the same sized print (or downsize of a bigger image) would NOT be different no matter the density (22MP vs 36MP).
> 
> True, in order to benefit even more from a higher density sensor, it is advisable to use higher shutter speeds in such fast action situations.
> 
> Again, a 36MP sensor is no worse recording image than a 22MP at the same shutter speed, it can only be better.



I must disagree. Subject motion blur results from a subject's projection of light onto the sensor passing over multiple sensels during the exposure time. For a given combination of foal length, subject distance, and shutter speed, the subject will pass a fixed distance across the image circle projected by the lens onto the sensor. If the pixel density is higher, that fixed distance will cover more pixels, resulting in greater blur.



jaduffy007 said:


> Canon loyalists keep trying to say resolution=bad. Wrong. Believe what you wish, by all means.



Canon loyalists saying resolution is bad?!? Heresy. The Canon party line is that more megapixels are good...or at least, that was the party line until Canon changed their strategy. Regardless, the fact is that more - or less - megapixels aren't inherently bad or good. Increased resolution has consequences, IMO mostly good, but some less so.


----------



## AmbientLight (May 9, 2012)

I didn't say that IQ is the same. I am talking only about the comparison end result. Even here the JPG quality is rated as not much better. Traditionally using a Nikon you should better shoot RAW, so that may be an effect, but I am still surprised. I expected a much higher rating given all the hype.


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 9, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> I didn't say that IQ is the same. I am talking only about the comparison end result. Even here the JPG quality is rated as not much better. Traditionally using a Nikon you should better shoot RAW, so that may be an effect, but I am still surprised. I expected a much higher rating given all the hype.



Ambient....c'mon. Did you notice the handling rating? iso charts? DR chart? Resolution rating? Did you notice how well the D800 compared to the Pentax medium format cam???!! And you want to say the 7D is in the same league? All confirmed by dxo mark as well. One of us is way, waaaay off in our reasoning.

Why is it soooo hard for people to *simply* accept that the D800 kicks ass? Our current cameras didn't stop working, the earth still turns. These brand identity crises that arise freak me out! 

PS: I removed "IQ" from my previous response to your post.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 9, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem is that people see a camera and just see tech. However, a camera is way more than that. It's a body. Its how it feels. It's the colour and tone that are produced. It's a system of lenses. Its a system of repairing and replacing. Its being able to deliver the product and keeping your customers informed.
> ...



Yes I spotted that too  you're right - the little things can make a big difference in the field - especially if you need to shoot fast.... you need all the help you can get!


----------



## gmrza (May 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon loyalists saying resolution is bad?!? Heresy. The Canon party line is that more megapixels are good...or at least, that was the party line until Canon changed their strategy. Regardless, the fact is that more - or less - megapixels aren't inherently bad or good. Increased resolution has consequences, IMO mostly good, but some less so.



what is getting glossed over is that as resolutions rise, we are getting into the territory of diminishing returns. I think the DPReview review was very careful to clear about the lengths you need to go to in order to reap the full benefit of the resolution of the D800. for those who are making a living out of landscapes, that is not an issue, as they will have the lenses and tripods and understand the technique required to get it all to come together.

For those who are not prepared to invest in good glass, the resolution starts to become academic.

The argument about whether a 5D3 is better or a D800 is better is a little like arguing about whether a Range Rover is better than a Porsche 911. Granted, either will get you from A to B, but each has its own strengths and weaknesses which make it more appropriate for a particular task. Thus the 5D3 may well be a better wedding shooter's camera, while the D800 may be better for landscapes. Those in the market for a camera need to decide what their requirement is, and buy accordingly.
I am sure to take some flames for this, but for a broad section of the market, the differences between the 5D3 and the D800 are probably academic, and there will be no appreciable benefit going either way - provided you have some degree of skill, you will still take great photos.

For me, the decision is mainly driven by my wife's needs - for events, she really only starts shooting at ISO800. For large jobs that involve lots of images and little to no chance of large prints, SRAW is a must have. Realistically, given our investment in Canon glass, we are unlikely to buy a Nikon. For events, more fps is better. On a balance, the 5D3 will be the "easier" choice. There is no religion in it however. If you can't produce great images with either camera, then probably photography is not your thing.


----------



## AmbientLight (May 9, 2012)

That is simply not true. Just take an honest look at the 5D Mark II and Mark III. If you cannot notice the improvements in autofocus performance and even in camera build quality you are missing something for sure. That is not a minor upgrade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Look at the evolution from the D700 to the D800. Compare that to the 5D to 5D2 to 5D3. In one jump, Nikon has done more than Canon to advance their camera than Canon has in two.



"More" as defined by megapixels alone?

How are the D700 to D800 vs. 5D to 5DII different? Ok, the 5DII nearly doubled the MP of it's predecessor, whereas the D800 triples it. But those two 'evolutions' are primarily a change to one - and only one - aspect of the camera. Both updates add video. 

I'm pretty familiar with the 5D to 5DII changes, and other than the I admit that I am less familiar with other D700 to D800 changes - can you list some of them that would be significant?

IMO, the D700 to D800 vs. 5D to 5DII are pretty much equivalent updates, whereas the 5DII to 5DIII is more of a revolution, at least compared to most Canon updates.


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon loyalists saying resolution is bad?!? Heresy. The Canon party line is that more megapixels are good...or at least, that was the party line until Canon changed their strategy. Regardless, the fact is that more - or less - megapixels aren't inherently bad or good. Increased resolution has consequences, IMO mostly good, but some less so.



Yep. "Party line". Canon vs Nikon...it's religion. It's politics. Sadly, it's merely about cameras. For Canon shooters resolution was why the 5d2 was sooo superior to the D700. Now that the D800 is out, resolution (and I paraphrase) "may have some minor benefits for a select group of shooters, but 22MP is better overall".
Utter non-sense. Just like when Nikon shooters said full frame sensors didn't have any significant benefits...until the D3 came out! Then suddenly Nikon FX was the must have and crop sensors sucked.

And next year or whenever Canon releases a 40+ MP cam, overnight these forums will be filled with posts about how amazing the resolution is...and 22MP is such old tech. It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

I'm tired of this brand war silliness. It makes me crumpy.


----------



## Admin US West (May 10, 2012)

I've a D800 on its way, but, I don't expect miracles. It is going to be much more difficult to get pixel sharp images than the 5D MK II or III, so if you can't get sharp images with the 5D MK III, you are going to be really frustrated with a D800. 

I have a 7D, picked up a 1D MK IV yesterday, sold my 5D MK II and MK III, I'll likely buy a 1Dx, but thought I[d try a D800 along the way. (I can always resell it without losing anything.)

Meanwhile, I'll play with my new toy and get it ready for a low light job next week. i hope to be able top compare the D800 if it arrives as promised, and I can get some more capable Nikon lenses.


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 10, 2012)

I've shot a lot with a 5d2...and after 3 weeks with the D800, it isn't one iota more difficult to get sharp images. Btw, I print LARGE.

Try a Zeiss 100 f2, 85mm 1.4G or Nikon 200mm f2 and you will be able to fool 99% into thinking it's medium format.

It's that impressive.




scalesusa said:


> I've a D800 on its way, but, I don't expect miracles. It is going to be much more difficult to get pixel sharp images than the 5D MK II or III, so if you can't get sharp images with the 5D MK III, you are going to be really frustrated with a D800.
> 
> I have a 7D, picked up a 1D MK IV yesterday, sold my 5D MK II and MK III, I'll likely buy a 1Dx, but thought I[d try a D800 along the way. (I can always resell it without losing anything.)
> 
> Meanwhile, I'll play with my new toy and get it ready for a low light job next week. i hope to be able top compare the D800 if it arrives as promised, and I can get some more capable Nikon lenses.


----------



## jaduffy007 (May 10, 2012)

dilbert said:


> AmbientLight said:
> 
> 
> > That is simply not true. Just take an honest look at the 5D Mark II and Mark III. If you cannot notice the improvements in autofocus performance and even in camera build quality you are missing something for sure. That is not a minor upgrade.
> ...



Minimum required...Yep. Canon has been milking customers with minor upgrades for a while now. Especially the prosumer models. Quite annoying. 

"Minor" may be the wrong word because I don't consider the new AF a minor update, just waaay overdue...so you feel like you're simply getting what you already deserved. And the price being charged for this overdue performance is very disappointing. Canon shooters are being "milked" imo. Value comes into play. Sensors are the expensive component in a camera. After many complaints about the AF in the original 5D, the 5d2 was announced at $2700 with the same prosumer AF (and "prosumer" is being kind). I and many felt a mark II, $2700 camera should have much better AF included.

I think this gets to the heart of this D800 vs 5d3 "debate". Canon should have "fixed' the AF with 5d2, they didn't. So when Nikon consistently puts Pro AF in their prosumer model cams (since D300 & up), it caused me to raise an eyebrow or two. So Canon finally provides excellent AF in a non-pro body with the 5d3...but then charges $500 more than Nikon's cam while leaving the rest of the 5d3 in more ways than not, pretty much the same as the 5d2. Again,"milking". I guess the 5d4 in 2015 will have great resolution (50MP), DR, etc with the same AF as 5d3. That's the pattern. Nikon doesn't take this approach.


----------



## JR (May 10, 2012)

To the original post question, no I will not get the mkIII finally. But not because of some dpreview test, instead simply based on my testing of the mkIII for a few days I concluded that_ for me_, it was not worth the upgrade and that the 1DX might better suited. While I love the new AF system, I was expecting more improvement in IQ over my mkII.

@scalesusa, I did try the D800 last week for the whole week-end and was very impressed with it. My main focus was on ISO 100-400 so i did not even try the high ISO much, but decided to get one for some landscape stuff. I am a Canon guy at hearth, but now I can very weel a scenario where I will end up with the D800 and the 1DX. I feel they are both very complementary, more so then the 5DmkIII and the 1DX...anyway if I dont like it in the edn I can always sell back the D800 and stick with the 1dx and my 5DmkII...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > AmbientLight said:
> ...



Given past history, Canon could have put a 7D-like AF system (or even a 60D-like one) and it would have been an upgrade. Instead, they gave it 1-series AF, something they haven't done in a lesser body since film cameras. Plus a 50% increase in fps, dual card slots, better weather sealing, etc. 

Minimum? No, not even close. 



jaduffy007 said:


> Canon shooters are being "milked" imo. Value comes into play. Sensors are the expensive component in a camera.



I really don't get why people get hung up on this. It's not very relevant. Of the many factors that go into setting a price, cost of materials is one of the least important. Revenue needed to recoup R&D based on estimated sales volume, marketing estimates of the cost the market will bear, etc., are far more important. Consider - the D800E is the same camera as the D800, except that something has been _removed_ from the D800E...so, why is it more expensive?


----------



## YellowJersey (May 10, 2012)

You know what? I think the D800 sensor outperforms the 5D3. But, I'm not going to let that ruin my enjoyment of using the camera. Sure, its sensor isn't as good as the D800, but it's still a hell of a camera (a vast improvement from my 5D1) and I don't regret buying it. Just because the 5D3's sensor isn't as good doesn't mean the 5D3 is a shitty camera. So I tip my hat in congratulations to Nikon for their success and for raising the bar.


----------



## woodymirag (May 10, 2012)

After reading many of the posts here, I get the feeling that most of you didn't actually sit down and read through the 25 sections of dpreview.com's very detailed analysis. It seemed very objective, and after reading nearly every word (as opposed to skipping to the conclusion), I came away with a different take: the reviewers like both the 5DIII and the D800 a lot. They haven't posted their formal review of the 5DIII, but it's obvious that it's going to be well received. I bet it will be within a couple points of the D800 when all is said and done.

You all should take a look at this one particular section of their review (particularly Overall Image Quality, paragraphs 2 and 3):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/23

They specifically point out a few things about the resolution:

1. To get the most out of the sensor, you need impecable technique, an excellent tripod, a cable release, shoot with mirror lockup, and generally plan on higher shutter speeds. Honestly, I'm not good enough at photography (nor do I want to use a tripod or high shutter speeds all the time) to attain medium format results. I bet most of the strident posters on this forum are equally mediocre with their technique as I am. Sure, the D800 does well without perfect equipment and form, but not at the incredible resolutions people seem to think they will get. That means you often have 70MB files that aren't really getting you the sharpness you pretend will magically appear.

2. High end glass matters significantly with the D800. I don't have the cash to have all my lenses be multi-thousands of dollars each.

It's the Internet, folks. Anyone can say anything, but I think dpreview's reviews are pretty credible (more thorough and unbiased than any other site I have found). I think if you actually read through the whole thing and analyze the comparison images on resolution, noise, high ISO, etc., you will come away thinking, "Huh. Both of those cameras are pretty darn good, and not really that different."

Woody


----------



## KKCFamilyman (May 10, 2012)

woodymirag said:


> After reading many of the posts here, I get the feeling that most of you didn't actually sit down and read through the 25 sections of dpreview.com's very detailed analysis. It seemed very objective, and after reading nearly every word (as opposed to skipping to the conclusion), I came away with a different take: the reviewers like both the 5DIII and the D800 a lot. They haven't posted their formal review of the 5DIII, but it's obvious that it's going to be well received. I bet it will be within a couple points of the D800 when all is said and done.
> 
> You all should take a look at this one particular section of their review (particularly Overall Image Quality, paragraphs 2 and 3):
> 
> ...



Yeah I was just curious other opinions. I got my 5d3 for a steal and it works well. I'm sure the sharpness is just technique. I just need to figure out where to add from the kit lens. 50mm 1.4 or 70-200 f4 is and wait to see what primes are announced?


----------



## llcanon (May 10, 2012)

I used to make purchase decisions based on these academic type reviews or comparisons, but not any more. Just look at the photos we took and honestly tell ourselves how many pictures were bad due to lack of skills vs not using the top-of-the-line equipment: out of focus, poor lighting, bad composition, camera shake, lack of content, etc. you can have the world's best sensor and best lens, but you are not the best photographer because of these but because your images have captured others' heart and mind. Please don't be agonized by these comparisons. Spend more time using what you have. If you really feel being a D800 shooter can make you a better photographer than being a 5D3 shooter, then by all means, get the D800.


----------



## Radiating (May 10, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I purchased the 5d3 a month ago and love it but sometimes the images can be soft and the focus system tricky. I was curious how dpreview can still say that the noise is even better controlled than the 5d3. Basically they do not say in anyway the 5d3 is better except the focus system and fps but really thats not much. Any thoughts?



The images are absolutaly not soft in any way shape or form. The 5D3 is sharper than the 5D2 due to a better AA filter. This info has been confirmed by Canon.

Here's a comparison between the 5D3 and 5D2, the 5D3 is clearly sharper (5D2 on botton).









The noise of the D800, at least at high ISO is not better than the 5D3. Here is a comparison between the 5D3 and D800 both at camera 6400 ISO, but at difference shutter speeds to acheive the same exposure (due to an error in the third party lens reporting the wrong aperture the D800 is shot at less then f/5.6 while the 5D3 at f/8.0, also there is an iso sensetivity difference that I'll cover later) when both are adjusted to the same percentage of noise and rendered at 36 megapixels .







(click link to view full size)

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7911181/img/Picture-Box/6400-ISO-crops.jpg

The 5D3 is on top, it clearly shows more detail.

Here is what the 18% gray card looks like (same image sharpened 500% to show detail):






The 5D3 has a finer more uniform grain of noise than the D800, which as a result means the 5D3 responds better to noise reduction, this finer more uniform grain noise has been confirmed as an intentional design decision by Canon reps, which along with an upgraded jpg processing engine deliver the cleanest possible out of camera images you'll find.

On top of all this the 5D3's ISO is actually under rated by an very substantial margin compared to the D800. At ISO 6400 the D800 is actually at ISO 4200 while the 5D3 is actually at ISO 5200. That's a 24% difference which is extreme to say the least. This is why the review is saying that the noise is less well controlled, because because before noise reduction the cameras perform similarly, yet have ISO rated differently.

Hopefully that helps clear things up.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 10, 2012)

I disagree, when i tested the mk3 and mk2 side by side at ISO 100 the 5Dmk2 was ever so slightly sharper than the 5dmk3 and the mk3 clearly had a little less moire. however that said this was only really noticable at 200% crop anyway so for all intents and purposes they are near enough to being equal in real world use


----------



## stevenrrmanir (May 10, 2012)

Radiating - the fanboyism and ignorance you illustrate is beyond sad. No matter how much you want to convince yourself that MKIII is worth the money... it is NOT!


----------



## revup67 (May 10, 2012)

All in all, no matter ..it still sounds more proper to tell people you "shoot out of a Canon". Whoever heard of shooting out of a Nikon..what's that anyway?? sounds like a pea shooter.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 10, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> Radiating - the fanboyism and ignorance you illustrate is beyond sad. No matter how much you want to convince yourself that MKIII is worth the money... it is NOT!


It may not be for you but you can't tell someone else that it's not for them.

Value for money is subjective. I wouldn't expect everyone to see the value in a $100 meal compared to a $5 one. That's because it is personal. 

I consider the 5d3 to have been good value for money. It solves nearly all of my problems. It could be £200-£300 cheaper maybe but at that level I don't care. That is my personal view. I respect that your personal view is different.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 10, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> No matter how much you want to convince yourself that MKIII is worth the money... it is NOT!



Maybe not YOUR money.


----------



## briansquibb (May 10, 2012)

I believe 95% of people will be happy

Of the remaining 5% 95% will be unhappy because of the misinformation clouding their judgement - and they would not be able to distinguish between d800 and 5DIII pictures

The IQ of modern cameras is getting so good that it is getting to the point where the human eye can't note significant differences in the final images

It is getting harder and harder for the manufacturers to produce new products with significant improvements so that even minimal improvements such as on board HDR will cost more and more


----------



## weixing (May 10, 2012)

Hi,
IMHO, Nikon D800 and Canon 5DIII are design for different usage... Nikon D800 sacrifice high iso performance for high resolution while Canon 5DIII sacrifice resolution for high iso performance.

So, what is your most importance requirement? If the answer is high resolution, go for Nikon D800. If the answer is good high iso performance, go for Canon 5DMIII. If you need both, wait or may be you can check with the military equipment supplier... ha ha ha 

For me, I'll wait for 7DII, 70D or whatever it's called. If that model doesn't meet my expectation, I'll save the money and get the EF 300mm F2.8L IS II USM.

Have a nice day.


----------



## WarStreet (May 10, 2012)

If I would buy it again ? YES !! ;D First of all, I have bought a 5D III due to it's strong points and has nothing to do with the D800. It was from day one that I knew that the D800 is a fantastic camera, but comparing strong and weak points overall they are really on the same level, but the 5DIII strong points are much more important to me. Dpreview shows that the 5DIII is even better than I thought compared to the D800.

After reading the comparisons with the 5DIII and comparing the graphs which already include the 5DIII measurements, confirms that the D800 is a great camera, but the review also shows how impressive the 5DIII is. It will be interesting to read the 5DIII review when ready. 

Two days ago I was processing with ACR 7.1 a 5DIII ISO 25600 image of an Aztec statue in a low lit museum handheld, and was really impressed at how easy it was to clean up the image without much detail loss. Yes, the detail starting point of the image was lower compared to an ISO 100, but the noise reduction managed to remove the noise easily without any extra detail sacrifice. 

This made me think, the DXO measurements of RAW data shows that the 5DIII, D800 and D4 have similar noise capability, with a near negligible edge for the D4 at some ISO's. When we look camera JPG images, the 5DIII shows that it manage to perform even better compared to the competition and we always used to think that Canon JPG engine is just better. I was going to open a new thread about this, but after seeing Radiating post, I think it is good to mention it here because it is exactly what I was thinking about. Is it really the characteristics of the noise of the 5DIII which makes it easier to clean it up that well with software, rather than just the Canon JPG engine being good ?

In short, I am really impressed with this camera and I am still at early stages with it. It is true that there are some stupid omissions, of which I hope some will be fixed with a firmware update. Also, I think that the 5DIII should be priced similar as the D800.


----------



## docsmith (May 10, 2012)

How has no one pointed out that the 7D scored an 84% and the D800 scored an 82%. The 7D wins!!!! It must be the best camera.

Oh wait, you mean total scores are oversimplifications.....and I should look at the feature set of a camera against my intended use and then use the review to see how well the camera does what I need it to do? 

Oops...my bad... ;D

I've been couped up due to bad weather reading a lot of threads beginning to get worked up about the "best" camera and even thinking about switches brands....then, I went outside and took a few pictures. 

I feel much better now. 8)


----------



## vbi (May 10, 2012)

Yes. I have Canon lenses, flashes and PW radio triggers that all together cost way more than a new body. No way I can dump that investment.

On top of that I see no compelling reason to upgrade my 5D2 to either the D800 or the 5D3.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 10, 2012)

docsmith said:


> How has no one pointed out that the 7D scored an 84% and the D800 scored an 82%. The 7D wins!!!! It must be the best camera.


Yeah, there is something strange going on with their scores. I wonder if the bar keeps moving higher - if the 7D would score a 65% if reviewed today vs the 2012 cameras.


----------



## caMARYnon (May 10, 2012)

vbi said:


> Yes. I have Canon lenses, flashes and PW radio triggers that all together cost way more than a new body. No way I can dump that investment.
> 
> On top of that I see no compelling reason to upgrade my 5D2 to either the D800 or the 5D3.


Agreed


----------



## WarStreet (May 10, 2012)

Scores are relative to their respective category, and time. It is very difficult to describe something so vast with just a magic number. I don't care about personal opinion weighted numbers. The real review and comparisons are far more revealing. The same goes for DXO, their weighted indexes are not of much help, but they do it to generate traffic since it attracts more people.


----------



## superotaku78 (May 10, 2012)

I'm a 5D Mark II shooter and love the IQ of Canon full-frame. I've looked through countless real world shots of the 5D Mark III and D800 and for me the Canon provides a more pleasing image almost everytime. Of course this is completely subjective, but I haven't been impressed with the "Nikon look" since my beloved D50. I really wanted to like the D800 and considered switching based on specs and the fact that I'm not that invested in the Canon system; however, just can't get past Nikon colour and the different ergonomics.


----------



## psolberg (May 10, 2012)

Well, I switched to a brand new D800 before the review, but clearly I'm not surprised they liked the camera. 
Surely if resolution isn't as important as frame rate for anybody, the D700 or 5DmkIII are better options instead of the 5DmkII/D800 by far which are aimed at a different market.



kraats said:


> Yes i have ordered the 5d III because there is not a single thing the d800 is better at. At least not a visible thing. The 5dIII is by far the more versatile camera.



Well it all depends. if you don't find the cleaner shadows at in the D800 better: see 
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
or if you don't find the still images having less moire on the D800 better: see
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
Or if you don't find the broader dynamic range (14 stops) of the D800 better
or if you don't find the 4:2:2 uncompressed HDMI out option, in addition to better detailed output which is closer to true 1080p than the 5DmkIII, and crop video modes of the D800 better
or you don't find the higher level of detail found in 36MP, higher crop versatility, and option to sample down to control noise when needed better.
or if you don't find the ability to focus with f/8 lenses on the D800 better.
or if you don't find the face detection, full color 91K zone metering/AF system (similar to the 1DX) system better.
or if you don't find Nikon's translucent out of the way viewfinder focus point that let you see what you're shooting better.

If you neglect all those things at which is better, then yeah, it has not a single thing which is better at : : : Yet there are plenty of things the D800 is better at even if you don't think they are. That's just a fact.

Versatility depends on what you shoot for not everybody shoots the same just because they call themselves a photographer. The needs of versatility for a studio/landscape/portrait photographer are totally different than the needs of versatility for a sports/journalist photographer. For me, for all the things the 5DIII does better, it doesn't do them THAT much better to offset the things it DOESN'T do better. I'm sure some are in the exact opposite side of the fence. And that's fine. If we all shot the same thing, it would make for a boring world. 

Choice is great and I'm glad I can choose the D800 as it is the most versatile for me. If the 5Dmk4 is better and the D900 dissapoints, I'll switch. What's the big deal. It's just a tool, not a wife. 8)


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 10, 2012)

dilbert said:


> If you had read dpreview's commentary on how they score a camera, you'd know how they score cameras.
> 
> Given that it seems you haven't, I thoroughly recommend that you do.


I did. It didn't quite answer my question of whether the 7D would still score a 84% today as it did 3 years ago. I will take up the question in their forums, where it is more appropriate.


----------



## psolberg (May 10, 2012)

> Not worse, it just shows the motion blur more than lower res. And if you crop, which I assume is one of two reasons why people want 36 mp, you still can see it better, that's a fact.
> 
> Zoom them both in to 100% crop at the same settings and it becomes obvious. It's not that 36 mp is more prone to motion blur, it's just that the higher level of detail reveals it.
> 
> ...



you're not getting the point. First of all, he is talking about the same image cropped the SAME WAY. aka composition wise and ratio wise. It is nonsense to compare two different crops because it isn't the same composition. Let's take the crop nonsense out of the equation. If you print an 8x10 from both full size, or similarly cropped files, the print process will normalize the image ANYWAYS. Motion blur will be recorded the same on both sensors, and print identical on both prints. Yes if you zoom 100% on your PC, you see more blur. But do you sell 100% crops of your screen? Who gives a crap how they look. Ok let's say you do such trivial thing. So in order to compare the two, you'd have to UPSCALE the 22MP image which will guess what? amplify the motion blur. So you see, in the end, MP doesn't matter whatsoever in motion blur in the sense that it can NEVER get worse. HOWEVER if you have proper technique, you can get BETTER results than with the 22MP sensor. Same goes for diffraction. In order to compare the two images you have to normalize it, which equalizes the level of diffraction.

Here are some pluses of downscaling which aren't lost:
-tonal graduation. Because the 36MP has smaller sensels, it is able to capture more tones in a tone graduation over the same area. That is a plus at normal resolution. If you downscale it for comparison purposes (or print), then the algorithms will smooth out that tonal graduation far better than the tonal staircase you'll get with a lower 22MP sensor.
-aliasing/moire. The aliasing staircase will be more visible at native resolutions always. comparing the images at normalized resolutions (or print) will show the 36MP to be less aliased because the normalization process will smooth out the aliasing. This is similar to how video games do 2X AA. They render and a higher output and then resize down.
-detail. Because of the bayer pattern, final pixel values are derived. This creates softness. The higher resolution 36MP image normalized to the same resolution (or printed) will retain more detail since the affects of the de-bayering will be have less impact on detail since the sensels are finer. This is why the D800 images comparisons of detail look better downscaled than those of cameras at native resolution. Particularly the E version.

The bottom line is that if you print anything, the higher resolution sensor wins and it has nothing to do with cropping. If Nikon would produce a D4x with the 24MP D3200 sensor scaled up to 54MP, it would enjoy the same benefits. 

Downscaling is FAR from a waste. It is a means to superb image quality. If you love image quality. You love megapixels
see:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120509_3-Nikon-WildSpeculation.html

Its a subscription site but some articles and comments are free. Like the D3 in 2007 started the low light race. The D800 in 2012 is starting (or re-igniting) the MP race.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 10, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I purchased the 5d3 a month ago and love it but sometimes the images can be soft and the focus system tricky. I was curious how dpreview can still say that the noise is even better controlled than the 5d3. Basically they do not say in anyway the 5d3 is better except the focus system and fps but really thats not much. Any thoughts?



I don't buy 5D III or lenses because of DPREVIEW. 

My theory is simple. Buy it & test it - if *YOU* like it then keep it. If you *DON'T* like it....then return it within 30days.

If you trust DPREVIEW that much, than buy D800 and try it yourself. DPREVIEW is NOT the only site doing review on 5d III Vs D800.


----------



## smithy (May 10, 2012)

There's no way I'm giving up my lenses and digital and film bodies to switch to a Nikon. I feel 'at one' with my Canon bodies, being able to intuitively know where the buttons are located. So instead of having to fiddle around with strange buttons and dials, I can starting shooting immediately with an EOS. When I tried a 5D3 at my camera store, it was simple to operate coming from a 40D and 1V.

Anyway, if I had enough money to switch systems entirely, I probably would just buy a completely separate Nikon setup and keep my EOS gear as well. That way I'd get to enjoy the best of both worlds. When Sony and Nikon's relationship eventually sours and they start suing each other, there will be a shift in the digital camera ecosystem. Competitors working together often end up this way. Like Apple and Microsoft, Apple and Samsung, Apple and....


----------



## EvilTed (May 10, 2012)

Get the 5DMK3 because Ken Rockwell has both the 5DMK3 and the D800.
He doesn't always shoot with a DSLR, but when he does, he prefers the 5DMK3.

Stay thirsty my friends 

ET


----------



## RuneL (May 10, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> I've shot a lot with a 5d2...and after 3 weeks with the D800, it isn't one iota more difficult to get sharp images. Btw, I print LARGE.
> 
> Try a Zeiss 100 f2, 85mm 1.4G or Nikon 200mm f2 and you will be able to fool 99% into thinking it's medium format.
> 
> ...



99% of idiots, maybe, not your customers, they will notice the lack of detail in your product, modeling, landscape shots or whatever you are doing.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 10, 2012)

Not to mention that 99% of people don't even know what a Medium Format is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> No matter how much you want to convince yourself that MKIII is worth the money... it is NOT!



I'll thank you to speak for yourself only - fine to say it's not worth the money to YOU. To say it's not worth the money to anyone but you is presumptuous and frankly, not your call.


----------



## RuneL (May 10, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Not to mention that 99% of people don't even know what a Medium Format is.



Well, if they don't know what medium format is, how can you boast the amazing DR the Sony sensor offers?! 

The weird thing is that DR and MP's has just completely take over this whole discussion. 
AF-Speed - will you have your subject in focus or not? Pretty important 
FPS Will you capture that particular moment? (INB4 HURR DURR REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS ONLY SHOOT ONE FRAME EVERY 400 YEARS AND THEN IT SEELS FOR 4.3 MILLION USD)
Buffer Will I run out of FPS before the action is over? And mind you, the other guys shooting next to you have got 10-14 fps, extremely fast af, etc etc etc, you need to compete with that. 

File sizes are incredibly important to some photographers. It's not funny messing about with giant file sizes you need to upload from crappy internet connections at arenas or your WFT married to a 4G-dongle or some S___ty unstable connection in Absurdistan. Also the file size means your processing take longer time. 
News? Not really, no, crappy resolution. Sports? Most is uploaded as jpeg straight out of the camera during the game or at half time to meet the deadlines, then a few raws are selected and polished. Newspaper print? That's probably the worst print quality in the univers. Online? Low res too.

I'm not saying it is unimportant having a lot of megapixels and lots of DR, it's perfect and frankly Canons sensors should probably be better than they are right now. But those things just aren't always the deciding factors. 

But for products, modeling etc the D800 is superior. Then we have the MF-thing again, is it sufficient? I doubt it. 

The above reasons are why _*I thought*_ that the D700 was the superior camera to the 5D II.


----------



## Pieter Oosthuysen (May 10, 2012)

Well to be honest!!!!

I bought a Canon 50D 2 years ago, and Canon was very silent about it, taken off the market in 6 months, and a month ago I bought the 5d mark III, with all it's problems, none of these two cameras seems to made it.....so maybe it is time to change to another "political party", I just cant believe that Canon is so ignorant about it, my 5d Mark III didn't even came with a manual or DPP program...sorry Canon, I am very disappointed after 40 years!!!!! so can I exchange it!!!! for a Nikon, it made me shiver just thinking about it...but sorry....Canon... you dont look after your customers>>>>


----------



## RuneL (May 10, 2012)

Pieter Oosthuysen said:


> Well to be honest!!!!
> 
> I bought a Canon 50D 2 years ago, and Canon was very silent about it, taken off the market in 6 months, and a month ago I bought the 5d mark III, with all it's problems, none of these two cameras seems to made it.....so maybe it is time to change to another "political party", I just cant believe that Canon is so ignorant about it, my 5d Mark III didn't even came with a manual or DPP program...sorry Canon, I am very disappointed after 40 years!!!!! so can I exchange it!!!! for a Nikon, it made me shiver just thinking about it...but sorry....Canon... you dont look after your customers>>>>



? I didn't come with a manual? Or DPP? Wat... I'm satisfied with Canons customer service. They changed the whole top assembly on my 1D IV in two hours. That's service.


----------



## awinphoto (May 10, 2012)

Pieter Oosthuysen said:


> Well to be honest!!!!
> 
> I bought a Canon 50D 2 years ago, and Canon was very silent about it, taken off the market in 6 months, and a month ago I bought the 5d mark III, with all it's problems, none of these two cameras seems to made it.....so maybe it is time to change to another "political party", I just cant believe that Canon is so ignorant about it, my 5d Mark III didn't even came with a manual or DPP program...sorry Canon, I am very disappointed after 40 years!!!!! so can I exchange it!!!! for a Nikon, it made me shiver just thinking about it...but sorry....Canon... you dont look after your customers>>>>



Those are 2 things that come with every camera.... I would take it back to the retailer as it sounds like they may have took it out/tampered with it.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 10, 2012)

Pieter Oosthuysen said:


> Well to be honest!!!!
> 
> I bought a Canon 50D 2 years ago, and Canon was very silent about it, taken off the market in 6 months, and a month ago I bought the 5d mark III, with all it's problems, none of these two cameras seems to made it.....so maybe it is time to change to another "political party", I just cant believe that Canon is so ignorant about it, my 5d Mark III didn't even came with a manual or DPP program...sorry Canon, I am very disappointed after 40 years!!!!! so can I exchange it!!!! for a Nikon, it made me shiver just thinking about it...but sorry....Canon... you dont look after your customers>>>>



I would think very carefully before doing that. Do some research: the grass is NOT greener on the other side..


----------



## Viggo (May 10, 2012)

Well, it's pretty strange then that, for example the 1d4 AF-guide, shows specifically that you need a higher shutterspeed when increasing the pixel density on the same size sensor, and has been my very clear experience. Things didn't suddenly start to move faster. 

Are you saying the level of detail on the same size prints is the same? Then what the hell is the point of 36mp in your opinion? That you must print 100% res in order to see more detail than 22mp?


----------



## sovietdoc (May 10, 2012)

I upgraded from a Rebel t1i to 5D 3, here is my personal view.

Is it worth 3.5 large? No.

I am not going to bother comparing it to my rebel because that is just a waste of time, 5d3 is targeted at different people. But I might as well compare it to D800 since that camera is meant to go head to head against the 5d3.

While D800 and 5D3 go neck to neck in DR and features as the most reviewers are finding out, I don't see why one costs $500 more than the other, while not being better.

So simple as that, it's not worth 3.5 large, but if it had the same price as D800, yes it would be worth it.

With that said, I definitely don't regret buying a 5D3 over D800, because for me, the primary deal breaker was the glass, not the body. Having shot with Canon's 70-200 II and Nikon's 70-20 VR II, I definitely prefer Canon's version for IQ. And although my preordered 24-70 II isn't going to be available until July, I have a feeling it will have better IQ than nikon's current 24-70.


----------



## m3tek44 (May 10, 2012)

After DPREVIEW of D800, YES I went ahead and trigger buying Canon 5D Mark III. I am very one happy customer!!!


----------



## well_dunno (May 10, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> I would think very carefully before doing that. Do some research: the grass is NOT greener on the other side..



+1, it looks greener but it never is... Anyone is welcome to go over to nikonrumors forum and see the actual color of the grass there ;D


----------



## bdeutsch (May 10, 2012)

I'm still in the undecided category, but I'm swaying dangerously close to switching to Nikon. Of course, at the rate I'm making up my mind, I'll be deciding between the 5d Mark IV and the d900.


Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photos


----------



## cliffwang (May 10, 2012)

bdeutsch said:


> I'm still in the undecided category, but I'm swaying dangerously close to switching to Nikon. Of course, at the rate I'm making up my mind, I'll be deciding between the 5d Mark IV and the d900.
> 
> 
> Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photos



Me too. I will wait for the next generation. If 5D3 had 36MP or D800 had 6FPS/high ISO, I would buy them for 3K+.


----------



## RuneL (May 11, 2012)

dilbert said:


> RuneL said:
> 
> 
> > FPS Will you capture that particular moment?
> ...



Yes, I'm aware. Don't know anything about weddings, never done one, but I could imagine that you know what happens when and you just have to be on the look out for anything interesting and be good with the focus. 

Only place I've ever needed my fps is sports and magazine shots of race cars and some news stuff.


----------



## iso79 (May 11, 2012)

It's so sad so many people are obsessed with megapixels.


----------



## GDub (May 11, 2012)

"After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?"

YES! And I did it AFTER the DPReview of the D800. IMHO, you're either with us or against us.


----------



## jeprox (May 11, 2012)

I sold my D700 2 years ago for the 5D2 and really wanted to like the whole Canon system but after a while I really could not kid myself any longer and sold my piece of crap Canon system - 5DM2, 24-70 and 70-200 IS II. Got myself the D800 with the 2.8 lenses and could not be happier. I think this kind of thread is a gathering of Canon users that is very insecure with the current Canon offering - which isn't much and everybody is trying to get reassurance from somebody else that Canon, especially the 5DM3 is a great product. Read the reviews from reputable sites people....5DM3 is hardly any better than the 5DM2 and DXO Mark confirms this with their test. Just look at the top ten list at DXO Mark and as always Canon is at the bottom of the list. They are just great at suckering people with their camera & lens offering.I wonder who these people are....hmmm..


----------



## sovietdoc (May 11, 2012)

jeprox said:


> I sold my D700 2 years ago for the 5D2 and really wanted to like the whole Canon system but after a while I really could not kid myself any longer and sold my piece of crap Canon system - 5DM2, 24-70 and 70-200 IS II. Got myself the D800 with the 2.8 lenses and could not be happier. I think this kind of thread is a gathering of Canon users that is very insecure with the current Canon offering - which isn't much and everybody is trying to get reassurance from somebody else that Canon, especially the 5DM3 is a great product. Read the reviews from reputable sites people....5DM3 is hardly any better than the 5DM2 and DXO Mark confirms this with their test. Just look at the top ten list at DXO Mark and as always Canon is at the bottom of the list. They are just great at suckering people with their camera & lens offering.I wonder who these people are....hmmm..



Not sure if trolling or...





I would have taken your post seriously, except when you start bringing DXO Mark I really can't.


----------



## jeprox (May 11, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> jeprox said:
> 
> 
> > I sold my D700 2 years ago for the 5D2 and really wanted to like the whole Canon system but after a while I really could not kid myself any longer and sold my piece of crap Canon system - 5DM2, 24-70 and 70-200 IS II. Got myself the D800 with the 2.8 lenses and could not be happier. I think this kind of thread is a gathering of Canon users that is very insecure with the current Canon offering - which isn't much and everybody is trying to get reassurance from somebody else that Canon, especially the 5DM3 is a great product. Read the reviews from reputable sites people....5DM3 is hardly any better than the 5DM2 and DXO Mark confirms this with their test. Just look at the top ten list at DXO Mark and as always Canon is at the bottom of the list. They are just great at suckering people with their camera & lens offering.I wonder who these people are....hmmm..
> ...


----------



## briansquibb (May 11, 2012)

I still maintain that the 5DIII and the D800 have different uses and therefore comparing the two is a bit meaningless.

Rather like comparing the D700 and the D800 or a 7D and a 5DII.

It is all down to what the buyer wants from their camera. Both cameras give excellent results, probably in excess of what the average user needs. It could be down to which lens suits best rather than the body - such as a TSE


----------



## ssrdd (May 11, 2012)

nope..
not at all.


----------



## seekn (May 11, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> I upgraded from a Rebel t1i to 5D 3, here is my personal view.
> 
> Is it worth 3.5 large? No.
> 
> ...


Funny because I upgraded from T1i as well and I think it was worth the investment. Yes, it is VERY pricey however there is a huge difference in just the overall quality of the camera as a whole. Yes, maybe Canon could have improved with some things - the Ai sevo points, the relocation of the magnification button, the DR, the uncompressed video, the mp etc etc.. however taking the camera as a whole it is an impressive machine. I have been shooting pretty much non stop with it since I got it about 4 weeks ago and the pictures are fabulous. I wish sometimes the resolution was just a tad better - but the color and the "look" of the pictures SOOC can be breathtaking at times. The AF is just amazing. I shoot everything I can. Sports, portraits, landscape, events and commercial and I find that I get so many more keepers with the mark iii. I think that is really a understated strength of the mark iii, the ability to actually capture the image.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 11, 2012)

I used a pair of 5DII's from the day of launch for my professional wedding and landscape business. Previously I used a pair of 5D's. My lens list is very specific, for weddings I use either the f2.8 zoom trinity (16-35IIL/24-70L/70-200IIL) if the light is good or I run with primes if the light is low (24IIL/35L/50L/85IIL/135L) and these lenses are usually shot wide open and close to MFD to create a pleasing background blur. I used the single centre point and re-compose technique, AI one-shot and I had the fine focus screen fitted (EG-S). This technique is tricky to use but once mastered gave me faultless results. I've shot a lot of weddings in tricky light and this approach nailed the focus every time. 
Now that I've migrated over to a pair of 5DIII's, I can still use that technique...in fact I'm finding those central 5 AF points are simply amazing. I'm shooting sharp and in focus images during 1st dances, which are so dark, it's all black to my eye. The camera is nailing the focus in light levels which I can't even see in and the high iso ability of this camera is nailing the exposure beautifully too. 
What I gain with the 5DIII model isn't the image quality, but it's the plain and simple truth that every other aspect of this camera is massively improved over the 5DII. The build quality of the 5DIII is way way better than the 5DII or 7D. It's not far off a 1DsIII. The dual cards is a massive bonus, the 100% viewfinder is a delight to use. The built in level is great as is the 1x1 aspect crop mode. The silent mode is spookily quiet...from about 1 ft away it's effectively silent. The extra stop or so high iso ability is very nice too. My 5DIII's show practically no pattern or colour iso noise, it's remarkable. 
For photojournalism / weddings there is in my opinion, the 5DIII is the best camera currently available. Bar none. Nothing else comes close, it's perfect for that role. The other great point is that it's currently the most versatile camera on the market and it nails pretty much every photographic genre in a very capable manner. I recently photographed wild red grouse who are very shy creatures. The 5DIII's AF was spectacular in AI servo.
It's fast 6fps came in very handy too.
As to the DXO marks....well, I can only guess that someone in that particualr lab is on the payroll of Nikon and their recent changes to their testing methodology now favours Nikon sensors over Canon. 
The new D800 Nikon is a fantastic machine, but it is no where near the Canon 5DIII in terms of versatility and for photojournalism it's not a very good fit any more....which is bizarre considering that was the D700's strongest suit


----------



## seekn (May 11, 2012)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Now that I've migrated over to a pair of 5DIII's, I can still use that technique...in fact I'm finding those central 5 AF points are simply amazing. I'm shooting sharp and in focus images during 1st dances, which are so dark, it's all black to my eye. The camera is nailing the focus in light levels which I can't even see in and the high iso ability of this camera is nailing the exposure beautifully too.



Totally agree. I do venture out into some of the lateral focal points but intuitively the 5 centers just feel so much quicker and accurate. I usually end up changing back to one of the centers and recomposing after awhile. +1 with the rest of your post too - my feelings exactly.


----------



## symmar22 (May 11, 2012)

Hello everyone, I am new to this forum, and I would gladly like to share a bit...Please forgive my English as I am not a native speaker. Here is the story: I started photography 28 years ago, with a good part of professional activity in it (mainly as architecture, decoration, studio photography). I made the switch from Nikon to Canon with the 5DMk2, since my experience with Nikon sensor was not very satisfying, I had a D70 that was OK for a digital beginner, but had very basic features though the pictures were quite good, I then switched to a D200 that had all the features I needed but a crappy sensor..... very disappointing. I then decided to go for the Canon 5D2 (I am no brand addict, I just use what I think is the best for my needs, but once you have a decent amount of glass, the change is not easy), since I needed the TS-E lenses to work, and Nikon Glass had some gaps at this time. Sorry for the long intro, but I think the background has some importance to explain my point of view.

The Mk2 is a good camera, since I shoot with a tripod, focus manually and know how to expose, but the AF is dating from the Jurassic era, the light metering is way behind Nikon as well as the flash exposure. I knew it since a long time, but I needed a sensor, and for this purpose it was the best for the money. I am quite happy with Canon glass as well, mainly the TS-E lenses, and the 24-105 is the perfect all around lens. But let's be honest here, the 5D3 is a disappointment; Canon just catched up with Nikon AF system and improved a bit the light and flash metering system, but Nikon is and was always master in these categories. My point is Nikon made the best cameras with not so good sensors, and Canon made the best sensors in not so good cameras. BUT it it fair to admit that things have changed, Nikon-Sony has beaten Canon on the sensor while Canon has been a bit overconfident. The 5D3 is a big improvement on the 5D2 features, but the sensor is a failure, sorry to say it, it might hurt some, but going to 21 to 22 MPX in 4 years is a shame, and aside from the high ISO, that not everyone is using, it delivers images barely better than it's predecessor. I was expecting some drawbacks from the 36MPX Nikon sensor, but the figures are here, it beats Canon everywhere. The good point with the 5D3 is that we Canon users finally have a camera with an AF system an light meter that works, it was more than time.... Nikon has it since the F801. 

My guess is that Canon has seen a commercial opportunity with the video part of the 5D2, that was an unexpected success, and they declared themselves a cinema camera company. They have spend their energy in too many directions, with all the "C" cameras, without any guarantee of success since the market did not wait for them (Arri and Red are here since a long time), and doing so they lost their ability to design the best photo sensors. Nikon is leaving the problem to Sony, who did a very good job here, and can concentrate on improving PHOTO cameras.

About resolution, sorry folks but it matters for a LOT of people, do you think Hasselblad would sell cameras worth the price of a luxury car otherwise ? If people are ready to put this amount of money to get 60+MPX there is a reason. Nikon has been clever in making the D4 a "combat camera" for reporters who need speed and reliability, and the D800 for the people who don't need the speed or built features, but need resolution (landscape, architecture, studio), for the people who don't need either of these features, the D600 is coming... Marketing speaking that sounds quite reasonable, Canon has a competitor to the D4, but none to the D800. The 5D3 is a sub-1D, it worked when Nikon had nothing to compete, but it's not the case any more.

Nikon got it, the D800e is the perfect studio camera for professionals who cannot afford a Hasselblad, who need high resolution for landscape, architecture without being able to buy a digital view camera. The 5D3 is good, but is clearly more oriented for sport and action, and in my sense is more a cheaper alternative to the D4 or 1D. Since we talk money, Canon has always been a slightly cheaper alternative to Nikon that was a bit overpriced, this has changed too; the recent price increase in lenses and the ridiculous pricing of the 5D3 vs the D800 has changed the trend. The Mk3 should cost 500$ LESS than the Nikon. I was shocked as well when they released the new 24 and 28mm f2.8 fixed lenses, they kept these crappy non USM lenses for 25 years and now the new ones are worth 800$, they should cost half that amount!!! If they think they are Leica, they still have a bit of homework to do.

Putting 3.5K in the new Canon won't improve my pictures at 100 ISO, I'll just wait a few more month since I still have hope they will release a better sensor to catch up; if they don't within a year, I'll go to Nikon, the only thing preventing me to do so immediately is the money I will lose on my lenses. For now I've stopped investing in any new glass, let's wait and see.....

I'd love to have the AF, viewfinder and integrated level of the 5D3, but for me it's just not worth the price they ask for it.

Sorry guys if I am hurting you, that is not my intention, I try to be honest, I use Canon now, I used Nikon a lot in the past, my favourite toy is still my Linhof Technika; but I am a bit in trouble now, since I need more resolution and Canon doesn't seem to be able to deliver it. I have the impression they have sacrificed photography for their new cinema passion, and we customers are paying the price for it. Let's just hope they are ready to release an EOS 3DMk1 with a high resolution sensor soon, but my feeling is they have shot themselves in both feet here.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 11, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> I have the impression they have sacrificed photography for their new cinema passion, and we customers are paying the price for it. Let's just hope they are ready to release an EOS 3DMk1 with a high resolution sensor soon, but my feeling is they have shot themselves in both feet here.


This is a questionable point. I agree that it could be true, but we've actually no idea how Canons budgeting and R&D works. Did they divert money and resources away from stills ... it's a "who knows"  They might have. And they might not have. Don't forget Canon is already invested in video and were before the 5d2...

On the high resolution point, there's no doubt that some people need it and some people want it (different to needing it) but the amount of people who need/want it is a lot less than the mass of photographers that *don't* need/want it. 

This was proven by a nikonrumours poll where they asked their users what resolution they wanted for the d800 - 60% wanted a 16mp sensor compared to the 36mp sensor. It was shown again by a user on this site asking everyone if they wanted a high res camera and whether they'd sign a petition - again, there was a mass of people who just weren't bothered by higher res - especially when given 22MP. For me personally 22 is actually a bit much. I'd prefer 18-20.

I know it can be hard when you want something that others don't, but in the case of resolution, everything I've seen says that 16-24MP is enough for the majority. 

That's not to take away that some people DO need/want higher res. I know some do, but Canon have done their research and clearly found that AF and handling is more important than resolution to the bulk of it's users. That's what they spent their R&D budget on...

I'm sure a high MP camera is coming from them though.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 11, 2012)

GMCPhotographics said:


> For photojournalism / weddings there is in my opinion, the 5DIII is the best camera currently available. Bar none.



That was my view too, especially when you took price into account: http://www.phildweddingphotography.co.uk/index.php/2012/05/canon-5diii-for-weddings/


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2012)

jeprox said:


> 5DM3 is hardly any better than the 5DM2 and DXO Mark confirms this with their test



*DxOMark is scoring the sensor only*, that scoring is based on reducing the image to 8 MP, and it's based on criteria and weightings that they feel are important, but not everyone may have the same needs.

While there are only minor improvements in the sensor, the 5DIII is a much better *camera* than the 5DII. Last time I checked, it takes more than a sensor to take a picture.


----------



## Ivar (May 11, 2012)

> After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?

I think no (single) review should force you to change systems or upgrade cameras. 

That said, the D800 was exactly specs-wise what I was looking for in order to replace my dutily served 5D2. I can't say how happy I'm currently, got it just today, the battery is charging.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jeprox said:
> 
> 
> > 5DM3 is hardly any better than the 5DM2 and DXO Mark confirms this with their test
> ...



I was going to say the same, but I've become bored saying it recently...

Lenses, bodies, ergonomics, service, accessories - these are all irrelevant. It's all about the sensor apparently... :


----------



## symmar22 (May 11, 2012)

All about sensor ? Yes and no, I do fully agree that the 5D3 is a much better camera, than the 5D2, but isn't it logic considering the 5D2 is 4 years old ? The camera mechanics has much improved, in the same proportions the 5D2 improved over the 5D1, but I am sorry to say the sensor did not. More ISO for sure but that's about it. I am not saying it's a bad camera, but Canon seems to have given up on what made them stand out since the beginning of the digital EOS : the sensor. In good old times, my Nikon F5 had a better AF, better light metering and better TTL metering than nowadays Canons, Nikon still has the edge on all these features. The 5D3 has a good AF ? I agree, but it was more than time. I won't discuss the ergonomics, as this is a matter of preference, as are aesthetics.

Now about the sensors: in film camera days, the main difference in image quality (from a technical point of view), was decided by optics and film quality ONLY. Now film has almost disappeared, and been replaced by sensors. The struggle that before belonged to Kodak and Fuji, depends now on camera manufacturers.

Considering that lens quality is not an issue any more, since Canon and Nikon both have excellent optics, some better here or there, the major factor of image quality is the sensor. I do not deny than AF, light metering and other electronics are an added comfort, but photography resumed to it's basics is about framing and light. Lots of these improvements have led to a lowering of the technical involvement of the photographers. 

Some of my best picture are made with a view camera, that doesn't even have a light meter, simply because it forces me to think about what I am doing. The only technical concern is to use the best film available as well as the best optics possible. Transposed to digital it means the best sensor possible.

I know that all the modern refinements make the camera easier and faster to use, but in lots of cases they are merely a compensation for lack of technique. I prefer a simpler camera with the best sensor than a full featured one with a bad sensor (I did not say the 5D3 had a bad sensor). This is exactly the reason that pushed me away from Nikon after more than 20 years, the D200 was the best featured camera I ever had, but the results were poor.
We are not exactly in the same situation nowadays, since Canon results are far from poor, but on the other hand if did not have a camera yet the choice would be easy.

Now if we put together the technical characteristics that matter (you can make a picture without having a dual slot card or an HDMI output), Nikon has better AF, better light metering, better flash TTL, and from now on a better sensor. Considering it's 500$ less expensive than the Canon, it's difficult to recommend the 5D3 over the D800 to someone who wants to buy his first DSLR. For the ones who are already engaged with a brand (I am with Canon), it's a more difficult choice that will depend mainly on the type of photography.

For the rest it's all about aesthetics (I prefer Canon), ergonomics (it took me some time to get used to Canon and it's not bad at all), and the force of habits (this is something not to underestimate, since it take some time to fully master such a tool).

I will leave aside the brand religion, I do not want to enter this arena, since a lot of people seems to be so hurt when they hear their brand is not always the best. I've worked with a lots of brands, but I always try to keep honest, since this is just a piece of equipment; I loved my Hasselblad 503CX, but I am the first one to admit the lenses were not as good as most Mamiya's ones, and the ergonomics were from the 19th century, but I loved the feeling of it. This is the part were passion takes over reason, since the people who worked with Mamiyas at that time had better results than me.


----------



## photosites (May 11, 2012)

There are all these claims that the D800 is better than the 5D3, most attribute this to DR and resolution. So far, the DR claims have mostly been a bunch of numbers or graphs. I have yet seen any photos showing what difference that XX ev has resulted in. Not even lab photos.

As to resolution - yes, it is clearly visible in the photos. However, this statement from dpreview illustrates just how difficult it is to get that kind of resolution advantage (even in a highly controlled lab environment).

"We should note, however, that we had to work quite hard to get this amount of resolution. We used flash to eliminate any risk of blurring due to vibration, we focus-bracketed in extremely fine increments, and we used an excellent lens (the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G) at an aperture optimal for central sharpness of F4.5."

Moreover, this resolution advantage - achieved through considerable efforts - carries a price. Larger files mean less space for photos on your memory card, lower frames per second, longer upload time, longer processing time, more hard drive space required, etc...

On the other hand, the 5D3 has a faster frame per second, less moire and aliasing in video, more advanced in camera movie functions (although some professional had to remove the AA filter to achieve an acceptable resolving power), an advanced AF system from the 1D series and a free bundled RAW conversion software.

Looking at the two cameras from this perspective makes one wonder which is really the better one...


----------



## Hesham (May 11, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I purchased the 5d3 a month ago and love it but sometimes the images can be soft and the focus system tricky. I was curious how dpreview can still say that the noise is even better controlled than the 5d3. Basically they do not say in anyway the 5d3 is better except the focus system and fps but really thats not much. Any thoughts?



After returning my 5DM3, I almost changed camps due to all the fuzz about resolution & DR (which are true & amazing with the D800). But while waiting for 5DM3 (and D800) to show-up in-stock anywhere, I used the time to do more research and my conclusion is exactly like this one:
Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 Comparison


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Yes and no, I do fully agree that the 5D3 is a much better camera, than the 5D2, but isn't it logic considering the 5D2 is 4 years old ? The camera mechanics has much improved, in the same proportions the 5D2 improved over the 5D1



I disagree. The 5D to 5DII update was almost entirely about the sensor, in terms of the 'technical characteristics that matter' - both cameras have the same metering, same AF, 0.9 more fps (30% increase), and a major increase in MP. The 5DIII significantly improves metering, massively improves AF, there's a 54% increase in frame rate, and basically no change in the sensor.



symmar22 said:


> Nikon has better AF



It does? How so?


----------



## JR (May 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon has better AF
> ...



Having shot with a 5dmkiii, the D800 and the D4 in the last few weeks, i would say the new 61 point af from Canon is the better and faster af system. The nikon a system is also very amasing and works well, but the new canon one is just better ...

I both cases, they are light years ahaid of the 5d mkii !!!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 11, 2012)

Yes, Because of those lovely canon primes.


----------



## symmar22 (May 11, 2012)

Well, I agree the AF of the 5D3 might be better than the Nikon, but don't forget that Canon was way behind in this domain till now, the 5D2 AF is simply a shame, it was time to correct it. 

The same way Nikon was late with sensors, they improved dramatically here.

Don't misunderstand me here, the 5D3 would have had a sensor in the 28-32MP range, I would have bought it immediately, I'm glad Canon has finally developed a decent AF (though of little concern for me, since I focus manually most of the time), I am just disappointed they could not release such a sensor after 4 years, I don't care too much about high ISO so for me the 5D2 will do the job a bit longer.

What is more bothering me is the metering system, with or without flash that allows Nikon owners to use auto modes without even thinking about it (since the F801), Canon still has some work to do here. Once again, little concern for me since I use manual mode and studio flashes, but still a useful feature for quick outdoor shots.

The features I rave the most about the 5D is the 100% viewfinder and the integrated level, but still 3.5k is a bit too much for these features alone.

What I am just saying is that everyone is drooling when a smartphone has more pixels on it's screen, or that compact cameras are in the 18mpx range nowadays, but no one seems to find funny that a brand like Canon could not improve the resolution of its pro cameras in 4 years.

I am not complaining about the improvements on the 5D3, I am honestly criticizing the lack of novelty about the sensor, that barely evolved in 4 years, when Canon was the absolute leader in full frame sensors till now, it just seems they stopped on their way. One could have expected a camera not only with a better AF and light metering but AS WELL a better sensor.

Let them release the same camera with a 30+ mpx sensor, I'll be first to buy it, my personal opinion is the 5D3 offers little image quality improvement (aside from the high ISO) and it's a bit overpriced for what it has to offer.

I would gladly stay with Canon, just for the TS-E lenses that are irreplaceable for me; speaking of lenses and accessories, a little effort on the prices would be welcome as well, price increase has been a bit surrealistic these last years.

Once again I am not a fanboy of any brand, I just try to keep an honest critical point of view, even about the tools I use, since perfection is not part of this world.

I am just hoping that this healthy competition will lead Canon to release the big mpx sensor a lot of people are waiting for...


----------



## V8Beast (May 11, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> I am just hoping that this healthy competition will lead Canon to release the big mpx sensor a lot of people are waiting for...



What are you shooting that requires so much resolution? If resolution an DR are that important to you, the choice is clear: get a D800. If resolution and DR are important enough to complain about Canon's sensors, but not important enough to you to buy a D800, then it's not as important as all the whiners are making it out to be


----------



## symmar22 (May 11, 2012)

If only it was just a camera.... when you own about 10 lenses, making the switch is not that easy. It costs me an arm switching from Nikon to Canon years ago, you can understand I am a bit reluctant to try the adventure again...

Is it so unreasonable to wish Canon had put a few more pixels on its sensor over 4 years ?

Every brand goes the same direction, why should Canon be so wise they go the other way ? 

What subject needs the resolution of a 50mpx Hasselblad ?

Why is everyone so satisfied with this sensor resolution when a few years ago they were all joking about the resolution of the D700 compared to the 5D2 ?

The fact that Canon marketing has decided 22mpx is enough doesn't mean everyone must agree.

The point to high mpx sensors is they get closer to medium format quality at a fraction of the cost, a lot of studio professionals are very happy with this kind of improvements; everyone is not shooting sports, weddings or hand held low light photography, I mean, there is room for still photography with more resolution. Nikon understood the idea, I am just sorry Canon doesn't.

That doesn't make the 5D3 a bad camera, just not exactly the one some people were expecting....


----------



## V8Beast (May 11, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Is it so unreasonable to wish Canon had put a few more pixels on its sensor over 4 years ?



My guess would be that Canon's market research indicated that most 5D3 buyers were content with the 5D2's resolution. The glass might have something to do with it to. I defer to the more tech savvy folks to comment on this, but a sensor can only resolve as much as the lens in front of it, and the current L-series lineup may be inadequate in this regard. 



> Every brand goes the same direction, why should Canon be so wise they go the other way ?



Truthfully, the D800 is the first full-frame body to really push the megapixel limit. The megapixel war is most prevalent in the entry-level crop market, where it's more of a marketing tool than anything else. 



> What subject needs the resolution of a 50mpx Hasselblad ?



Lots of subjects can benefit from a 50 mp Hasselblad, but very few pro photographers make enough money with their images to justify purchasing medium format gear in order to take images of those subjects. Surely, if you make enough money with your images to own medium format gear, switching 35mm systems isn't a big deal. Plus, if you have a client that requires shooting at the resolution required from medium format, they're probably accustomed to footing the bill to rent that gear. 



> Why is everyone so satisfied with this sensor resolution when a few years ago they were all joking about the resolution of the D700 compared to the 5D2 ?



I wasn't. I liked the D700 better. At the time, I thought the perfect camera would be a D700 with a tad more resolution, and that's pretty much what Canon built in the 5D3 



> The point to high mpx sensors is they get closer to medium format quality at a fraction of the cost, a lot of studio professionals are very happy with this kind of improvements; everyone is not shooting sports, weddings or hand held low light photography, I mean, there is room for still photography with more resolution. Nikon understood the idea, I am just sorry Canon doesn't.



IMHO, a D800 is akin to medium format like speedlites are to studio strobes. The lesser, cheaper gear can get the job done in a pinch given proper technique, with surprisingly good results at times, but to say a 35mm sensor is a legitimate replacement for medium format is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## symmar22 (May 11, 2012)

Thanks V8 for what I call a constructive answer an a positive debate. I admit I have no absolute knowledge, and I am always pleased when people criticize positively... the main thing being to keep an open mind 

1- I agree Canon's has carefully decided the 20mpx range was the sweet spot for most of his customers, and I can understand that. For the glass, are you sure this is an absolute limiting factor here ? Do you think the current lens range can not handle more pixels ?

2 - I don't fully agree about the megapixel race; we saw the Nikon D1 as a marvel with 2 mpx, the 5D1 one as a wonder with 12 mpx, the 5D2 with 21mpx and so on. I am not saying 36mpx is so wonderful, I just think there is a bit of room ahead and the trend should continue to add resolution in the future, though at a slower pace. My guess is that few people would have complained if the mk3 would have been around 28mpx.

3/5 - I fully agree with the problematic of the medium format and the relationship with the clients budget, what I am just saying is the high res sensors can provide a quality closer (not equal) to the medium format for a much lower cost. The trend being to cut on every budget, it might be a decent alternative for some medium end work. The same way film makers were so happy with the video capacity of the 5D2 to provide high end movies for a low budget, although it doesn't play in the same category as an Arriflex...
My guess is this is what Nikon is trying to do with the D800E.

4 - I agree as well the D700 was almost the perfect camera, but lacked a bit of resolution, in this sense, the 5D3 is probably a much better all around camera. Nevertheless I am curious to see if they'll release something else....


----------



## V8Beast (May 12, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Thanks V8 for what I call a constructive answer an a positive debate. I admit I have no absolute knowledge, and I am always pleased when people criticize positively... the main thing being to keep an open mind



Likewise. Keeping things positive isn't always the case online!



> 1- I agree Canon's has carefully decided the 20mpx range was the sweet spot for most of his customers, and I can understand that. For the glass, are you sure this is an absolute limiting factor here ? Do you think the current lens range can not handle more pixels ?



No I'm not, which is why I welcome someone that's more knowledge than myself to chime in  Someone posed a theory that the reason why the 24-70II costs a small fortune, and why Canon has filed so many patents for lenses lately, is that they're preparing their lens lineup for a mega resolution sensor. Obviously it's just a theory, but I've heard far crazier theories online before 



> 2 - I don't fully agree about the megapixel race; we saw the Nikon D1 as a marvel with 2 mpx, the 5D1 one as a wonder with 12 mpx, the 5D2 with 21mpx and so on. I am not saying 36mpx is so wonderful, I just think there is a bit of room ahead and the trend should continue to add resolution in the future, though at a slower pace. My guess is that few people would have complained if the mk3 would have been around 28mpx.



I agree that 28 megapixels looks better on paper, but what does that translate to in terms of usable resolution? In other words, how much larger can you print 28 mp image compared to a 22 mp image? Someone smarter than I will have to answer that, but this is a pretty interesting read:

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



> The trend being to cut on every budget, it might be a decent alternative for some medium end work.
> My guess is this is what Nikon is trying to do with the D800E.



That's a good point. A buddy of mine used to work for an agency in Chicago that did product shots for many mid-tier and several high-end clients. According to him, many mid-tier clients are now taking product shots with their iPhones to save money  With dwindling budgets, I can see how the D800 would be appealing for projects that might have once been deemed medium format territory. 



> 4 - I agree as well the D700 was almost the perfect camera, but lacked a bit of resolution, in this sense, the 5D3 is probably a much better all around camera. Nevertheless I am curious to see if they'll release something else....



Me too. If the D800 poses a threat to Canon's market share, they'll have to respond.


----------



## moreorless (May 12, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> 2 - I don't fully agree about the megapixel race; we saw the Nikon D1 as a marvel with 2 mpx, the 5D1 one as a wonder with 12 mpx, the 5D2 with 21mpx and so on. I am not saying 36mpx is so wonderful, I just think there is a bit of room ahead and the trend should continue to add resolution in the future, though at a slower pace. My guess is that few people would have complained if the mk3 would have been around 28mpx.



I'd guess the problem is that 28 MP would have come at the cost of FPS and lower video quality.

To me it seems like Canon are focused on making sure each FF body addresses a market very specifically, the 1Ds mk3 has given way to the 1DX thats more focused on the high end sports/jurno market and the 5D mk3 looks to be targetted at event photography. I'm guessing that alot of event photographers are also moving into videography aswell these days, videography in enviroments where there not in control of the lighting so ISO performance is a big factor.



> 3/5 - I fully agree with the problematic of the medium format and the relationship with the clients budget, what I am just saying is the high res sensors can provide a quality closer (not equal) to the medium format for a much lower cost. The trend being to cut on every budget, it might be a decent alternative for some medium end work. The same way film makers were so happy with the video capacity of the 5D2 to provide high end movies for a low budget, although it doesn't play in the same category as an Arriflex...
> My guess is this is what Nikon is trying to do with the D800E.



Besides the typical "the 5D mk3 can do anything" comments your obviously going to get at launch there have been hints that Canon isnt blind to this, talk of seeing how the D800 performs and then responding.

I think its easy to see why a large conservative company would behave that way as like you say pushing MP into the 40ish region is a very different market and one thats not aswell understood. Perhaps a less a case of whether Canon looks to up MP and more a case as to what form they'll take, 30MP? 50MP? what kind of spec for the body in terms of AF, FPS etc.


----------



## psolberg (May 13, 2012)

photosites said:


> There are all these claims that the D800 is better than the 5D3, most attribute this to DR and resolution. So far, the DR claims have mostly been a bunch of numbers or graphs. I have yet seen any photos showing what difference that XX ev has resulted in. Not even lab photos.
> 
> As to resolution - yes, it is clearly visible in the photos. However, this statement from dpreview illustrates just how difficult it is to get that kind of resolution advantage (even in a highly controlled lab environment).
> 
> ...




Week 2 of my switch to the dark side and the D800 still impresses with DR beyond any canon DSLR I've ever shot with period. As you say, all these "claims" are a bunch of charts and numbers. So I encourage you to rent one and see for yourself. It is really impressive specially if you shoot landscapes. I wouldn't shoot a landscape with any other camera at this point short of a Hassy. There is just something about those RAWs that keeps pulling detail out of nowhere. I've never seen anything like this on a canon. It has transformed the way I post process. Most of the difference is at ISO100-400 where the D800 is just plain unmatched by anything south of medium format.

I have to fully disagree with the idea that it is hard to get resolution out of it. That's just ridiculous. The amount of detail I've pulled out is just insane and it took nothing more than what I had with the 5DMKII. That is: just a simple tripod, stable technique, and proper focus. Anybody spraying and praying has no business with the masterpiece that is the D800. And you know what pisses me off? oh why didn't I order the E model! The stuff that is coming out of it looks even better than the D800 and here I was thinking that was not possible.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_d800e_first_comparison.shtml

If you want to learn how to properly shoot the D800, forget dpreview shooting with a 500 dollar Nikon lens. Go here:

http://diglloyd.com/

the 24 f/1.4 Nikkor on the D800 is like heaven on earth for detail. But you know what don't take a former canon player word for it. Or for heaven's sake forget DP review. Anybody even remotely interested in landscape/studio needs to handle a D800 at least once. Then and only then talk.


----------



## smithy (May 13, 2012)

There's no stock of D800s in any of the camera shops I've been to. I don't know if they've even landed in my country yet. Therefore, despite my best efforts to try out the Nikon, I'll be buying a 5D3. Tomorrow, probably. Being able to physically obtain a camera is usually more important than minor specification differences.

And after my 10 megapixel 40D, 22 megapixels will be a considerable upgrade, I suspect.


----------



## vbi (May 18, 2012)

After your 40D the amount of detail the FF sensor captures will blow you away.


----------



## psolberg (May 18, 2012)

Forget silly reviews. best way tho judge gear is to try it out. weekend shoot at NYC with the D800 coming up so I'll get to test it some more with lots of diverse conditions. Looking forward to night shooting and using a 2x TC on a 300 f4 and some other glass. I'm hoping the touted ability to focus with f8 effective apertures works to my expectations. I'm meeting a lucky MK3 owner to compare notes and test the others gear. Maybe I'll convert him


----------

