High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

[KeithR]

I was expecting the 5DIII to beat it by a comfortable margin due to the disparity in megapixel count.

...Which graphically demonstrates the complete nonsense of that line of thinking.

Just look at this comparison between the D700 and D800 - the 36 mp D800 is all over the 12 mp D700 at the image level, and that's after conversion in a Raw Therapee, which is well known not to be great at high ISOs, and using cobbled-together profiling for the D800...

[SpartanWarrior]

I think both will be great cameras, but I got to say dpreview is filled with fanboy galore they are already making it sound like the D800 is better than D4 in high ISO, they wish, I will also say the 5D III comes close to D4 at high ISO but better detail from 5D III.

[V8Beast]

...Which graphically demonstrates the complete nonsense of that line of thinking.

Allow me to elaborate. When looking at a 100 percent crop of a 36 mp image compared to a 22 mp image, I'd expect the odds to be stacked in favor of the 22 mp files unless the 36 mp image was downsized accordingly. In viewing the raws from both cameras at 100 percent, I can't see much a difference in noise.

I'm not complaining about the 5DIII's megapixel count, as I think 22 is plenty, but considering that Canon didn't increase it much at all over the MKII, I was hopeful of a substantial improvement in ISO. It looks like what we got was a substantial increase in in-camera noise reduction. I'm not going to complain about that either, but Canon's advertised 2 stop ISO advantage of the MKIII over the MKII is obviously for jpegs, now raws.

[PhilDrinkwater]

It's an apples to oranges comparison since they aren't images of the same subject/scene, but I have to admit that this is a surprisingly good showing by the D800. I was expecting the 5DIII to beat it by a comfortable margin due to the disparity in megapixel count.

I don't know the tech side of this, but I wasn't personally expecting this. The 5dii was only 1/3rd stop behind the d700 (although Nikon fanboys claimed a lot more) and it had twice as many MP.

When taking resolution out of the equation (ie. resizing to the lower resolution of the two) it seems noise is about the same. MP doesn't seem to affect noise all that much..

[Kernuak]

...Which graphically demonstrates the complete nonsense of that line of thinking.

Allow me to elaborate. When looking at a 100 percent crop of a 36 mp image compared to a 22 mp image, I'd expect the odds to be stacked in favor of the 22 mp files unless the 36 mp image was downsized accordingly. In viewing the raws from both cameras at 100 percent, I can't see much a difference in noise.

I'm not complaining about the 5DIII's megapixel count, as I think 22 is plenty, but considering that Canon didn't increase it much at all over the MKII, I was hopeful of a substantial improvement in ISO. It looks like what we got was a substantial increase in in-camera noise reduction. I'm not going to complain about that either, but Canon's advertised 2 stop ISO advantage of the MKIII over the MKII is obviously for jpegs, now raws.

From my quick tests last week, the impression I got was that the MkIII has around a 1.5 stop advantage over the MkII with the noise reduction switched off, but I didn't have any images to take home with me to look properly. I had to compare the images on the back of the screens, as the card slots were taped up.

[SpartanWarrior]

I don't know the tech side of this, but I wasn't personally expecting this. The 5dii was only 1/3rd stop behind the d700 (although Nikon fanboys claimed a lot more) and it had twice as many MP.

When taking resolution out of the equation (ie. resizing to the lower resolution of the two) it seems noise is about the same. MP doesn't seem to affect noise all that much..

They claim a lot of false stuff without proof, 5D II and D700 maybe not even 1/3 stop but less, here is my 5D II and my friends D700 that I tested and I have many more with same results,
shot in RAW same settings, cropped 100% and converted to Jpeg nothing else
5D II ISO 12800

D700 ISO 12800

5D II Left 12800

D700 12800

and here are 5D II mRAW ISO 12800

[Actionpix]

5DIII and D800 are completely different cameras. So why would you try to compare them? As long digital cameras are being sold there always has been the trade of between amount of pixels and amount of noise. Also you can not expect large files and high fps together. All this is getting better with every camera but the difference remains. Just get what you need most. (Being able to make the pick in one camera system would be nice though.)

[Cali_PH]

Canon have provided a sample video with the 5D3 coupled to various EF L lenses, some of which was shot at ISO 3200 and some at ISO 6400 (see below). Now compare that to any preview Nikon D800 HD video that is available

Funny timing, I was just reading about the Nikon D800 promo video debacle.  Nikon's apparently admitted they used footage from at least a couple of people without permission for their video, one of which said he shot with a Canon 5DmkII (unless this is a fake story?).  In the comments section I see people pointing out more clips taken from non-D800 sources.  My apologies if this is old news for most.

http://wideopencamera.com/cameras/nikon-steals-canon-5d-mk-ii-footage-for-d800-promo-video/

[XanuFoto]

Good photographers will be able to work with either bodies and produce stellar images. Everyone else with be just comparing specs and complaining. Both cameras are good tools if you know what you are doing.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

5DIII and D800 are completely different cameras. So why would you try to compare them? As long digital cameras are being sold there always has been the trade of between amount of pixels and amount of noise.

But the point here is there hasn't always been that much of a trade. It now looks like the crazy MP D800 will not only have a lot more dynamic range at low ISO but do just about nearly as well at high ISO. And it's actually often been like that. Within anything not going to crazy extremes, more MP has usually offered more pluses than often trivially minor losses in high iso performance.

Also you can not expect large files and high fps together.

That is why the 1.3x crop and 1.5 crop modes of the Nikons are cool. 36MP 4fps, 25MP 5fps, 16MP 6fps.

Canon is getting close to large files and high fps at 22 and 6 (if it had been the 6.9-7.5 of the rumors it would've have fully attained that goal).

[justsomedude]

But the point here is there hasn't always been that much of a trade. It now looks like the crazy MP D800 will not only have a lot more dynamic range at low ISO but do just about nearly as well at high ISO. And it's actually often been like that. Within anything not going to crazy extremes, more MP has usually offered more pluses than often trivially minor losses in high iso performance.

+1

And, I really really really hate to say this, but it looks like Canon may (and will?) lose dominance to competition from the d800.  I will be totally honest, I have been a 100% die-hard Canon fanboy through and through since my 40D days - but these sample images coming out are making me think twice.  Toss in my own disasters with 7D AF (this pretty much sums up my 7D experience) and the 580exII PocketWizard fry-out issue I also had, and Canon's reputation in my mind has sustained some chinks in its armor.

I can't help but think that others around the CR forums are feeling the same way.  When other die-hards start saying things like "well - you can't compare them [the d800 and 5D3]," "they're two different cameras," and "well - I'm sure both bodies will take great shots!" ...you know there is trouble in paradise.  It's like we're already setting up excuses for the lack of improvements that one would expect in the 5D3 after 4 years of R&D.  It seems everyone is trying to deny the fact that the d800 shots look, well - let's face it - f*cking incredible.  And nothing trickling out from MKIII land is really that mind blowing. 

It's discouraging.  It's heart wrenching.  It's making me wonder WTF Canon has been doing the last four years.

It's like they had a board meeting and said, "let's address the forum kids bitching about AF - so toss in the 1DX system - and maybe improve noise a smidge" - and called it a frickin' day (or 4 years).  Don't get me wrong, the AF and stop improvements will be very welcomed features to most 5D users.  But when Nikon has clearly been hard at work with Sony researching sensor tech - you gotta show a little more after 48 months of R&D.  Seriously - how can anyone deny those d800 shots?  They're just bad ass.  ...and quite frankly, they make me want to cry.  I WANT those images to be from the 5D.   

To boot - that $500 cost premium over Nikon isn't helping Canon much.  Sure - they'll get stellar sales on the 5D3 (in full disclosure - I'm already one of the buyers) - but so far every single buyer is living off of 5D2 experiences, and their own hopes and dreams of what the 5D3 *should* be.  If that doesn't materialize, you can bet your bottom dollar every single one of us will be looking at the d800 shooter in the corner wondering, "what if?"

I've never considered abandoning all of my Canon gear for Nikon.  And I hate to sound trollish - and expect the flames to come - but the d800 samples are the first images that have made me seriously consider "the switch".  I'll wait for my hands on with the 5D3 and real world reviews before I make such a huge business decision - but the bug is already there in the back of my mind. 

And just the fact that the bug is there is what's pissing me off the most.  I just wish Canon had done more this go 'round.

:-/

[KeithR]

there always has been the trade of between amount of pixels and amount of noise.

No.

[KeithR]

And, I really really really hate to say this, but it looks like Canon may (and will?) lose dominance to competition from the d800.

People have been saying this for years and it hasn't happened yet.

And it never will, as long as more photographers concentrate on actually using their kit - using it well - than worrying about spec sheets and what online "experts" tell us is supposely wrong with the gear.

[V8Beast]

5DIII and D800 are completely different cameras. So why would you try to compare them?

Because I have both of them on pre-order, and whichever is the better camera will determine which system I go with.

Because I'm heavily invested in the Canon system, I want the 5DIII to be better, but it's hard to ignore the Nikon.

Because both the 5DIII and D800 represent the mid-range, prosumer DLSR in each company's respective lineup, both are priced similarly, and both will be compared to each other by potential consumers.

Because like it or not, they are not completely different cameras. They're competing in the same arena of the market for the same consumer dollars. The 5DII and D700 were different tools, with the former aimed at resolution and the latter at speed, but people inevitably shopped them against each other.

As long digital cameras are being sold there always has been the trade of between amount of pixels and amount of noise. Also you can not expect large files and high fps together. All this is getting better with every camera but the difference remains. Just get what you need most.

The 1Ds, 1DsII, and 1DsIII all offered an outstanding tradeoff between resolution, speed, and noise. On paper, the 5DIII continues this tradition. The problem is that the competition has been making revolutionary strides, and the D800 sacrifices very little in speed and noise compared to the 5DIII despite its massive resolution advantage. Canon used to be the class of the field in this regard, and Nikon was an absolute joke just five years ago. Unfortunately for Canon shooters like me, the tables are turning.

Before the sample images from each body started floating around, I hoped the noise and DR of the 5DIII would have been improved enough to make the D800 less appealing. It doesn't look like Canon has succeeded.

Again, this is still merely speculation and I'll reserve final judgement until I can test both cameras out in the field. That said, I'm still pulling for Canon.

[justsomedude]

And it never will, as long as more photographers concentrate on actually using their kit - using it well - than worrying about spec sheets and what online "experts" tell us is supposely wrong with the gear.

Right now I don't see anyone worrying about specs.  I see a lot of people worrying about actual sample images.  Call me kooky.