Nikon D800 vs Canon 5d3 sample images.

[rj79in]

Are we forgetting the lens?
Just looked at the picture of the woman in red. It's probably more about the lens (24-70 2.8L) it looks exactly the same as what my 1D IV delivers with than particular lens. Same soft-ish look. Running it through my sharpening routines it looks fine.
I don't see any real evidence of heavy noise reduction, maybe some retouching on the face of the model, but not anywhere else.
When not pixel peeping at 100% it is fine too.

I've scaled down and sharpened these (cropped the tiger), I think it looks pretty good. Originals:

Tiger: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/14.jpg
Woman in red: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/08.jpg

The point is ... with sample images Canon is trying to "Sell" this camera to you. You should be allowed to pixel peep at 100% to make a judgment. If one only had the sample images to go by how many will buy the "new" camera?

[altenae]

I agree they look good, but at 1600px width they should.
Don't get me wrong, but even a not sharp picture can look sharp at 1600 px.

[etg9]

The woman in the red trench has the focus (imho) missed. On the full version you can see her gloves are very much in focus while her face isn't. I think the samples in general were pretty weak and Canon does an inconsistent job posting good and bad samples for their products.

[RuneL]

Are we forgetting the lens?
Just looked at the picture of the woman in red. It's probably more about the lens (24-70 2.8L) it looks exactly the same as what my 1D IV delivers with than particular lens. Same soft-ish look. Running it through my sharpening routines it looks fine.
I don't see any real evidence of heavy noise reduction, maybe some retouching on the face of the model, but not anywhere else.
When not pixel peeping at 100% it is fine too.

I've scaled down and sharpened these (cropped the tiger), I think it looks pretty good. Originals:

Tiger: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/14.jpg
Woman in red: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/08.jpg

The point is ... with sample images Canon is trying to "Sell" this camera to you. You should be allowed to pixel peep at 100% to make a judgment. If one only had the sample images to go by how many will buy the "new" camera?

They should let us have the raws.

I agree they look good, but at 1600px width they should.
Don't get me wrong, but even a not sharp picture can look sharp at 1600 px.

I felt that posting full res images here would be a rather pointless strain on the servers.

Also, how many people will be showing the pics from the 5D III in excess of 1600px?
You could print the Canon examples in a magazine too without any issue.

Wait for some real world results, yeah. And it is shocking that the examples aren't better.

[altenae]

Also, how many people will be showing the pics from the 5D III in excess of 1600px?
You could print the Canon examples in a magazine too without any issue.

Correct, but if that is all you do with the pictures you don't need a 5D Mark III right ?

[RuneL]

Also, how many people will be showing the pics from the 5D III in excess of 1600px?
You could print the Canon examples in a magazine too without any issue.

Correct, but if that is all you do with the pictures you don't need a 5D Mark III right ?

Lol, tell that to the people who are going to be buying it. http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_5d_mark_ii/ It is the new Rebel.

[Daniel Flather]

I hate to admit but the Nikon sample images look wayyy better.
I am telling myself that Nikon used better photographer... 

Link(s)?

[RuneL]

I hate to admit but the Nikon sample images look wayyy better.
I am telling myself that Nikon used better photographer... 

Link(s)?

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm
Be aware of focal lengths though, before comparing sharpness on the people pics.

[ashe]

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/03/02/should-i-upgrade-to-the-5d-mk-iii-from-the-5d-mk-ii/#comment-456497550

ChrisGampat wrote,

It's fine.

I know that the D800 has the same pixel density as the D7000 in terms of physics, which makes me believe that it may have slightly better high iso capabilities. With that said, the 5D Mk III had better pull some magic because the D7000 sensor is said to be better than the Mk II.

Pound for pound though, these two cameras are very much the same with some single outlying features. Overall, Canon's lenses are ones that I'm happier with.

Lastly, I own cameras and lenses in both systems. But at the end of the day, my Canon investment has saved me more money.

-Chris Gampat
Editor in Chief
The Phoblographer

[jaduffy007]

I agree.  Samples so far are very disappointing imo.  Your suggestion about the use of a very strong AA filter for video aliasing &  moire reduction is looking likely...and that would be very, very bad news.

Just seeing the sample images (and I'm not giving conclusion) I admit.

All the sample I've seen from the 5D3 looks way too soft. It can be 2 things : First is post prod NR. Second is 5D3 NR. If It's the 5D3 NR they use it wayyyy too much.
Ok nice, you see no noise at 1600 ISO or even 6400 but it ruin the quality.

Aside from the possible bad judgment and/or low talent of the people Canon chose to shoot their samples, I've come to almost the same conclusion as you have, but I'm just not quite as sure as you are, and I would like to see images from raw, shot by a good photographer and processed in DPP by a good craftsman before I could be. If, under those conditions, the results from raws look great, then I'd have to say that Canon has rolled up a big fat fail with its 5DIII in-camera Jpg processing.

But, there is another possiblity that is something I have deduced from the available specs and samples, plus statements by those associated by Canon with the 5DIII release. It's possible that Canon, in order to satisfy the potential video users of this camera who had previously complained about the bad aliasing and moire on 5DIII video, has used a much stronger AA filter on this camera to help cure it, and that the softness you see in the released Jpegs is mostly from this. There are two other points that can support this. One is that Canon is offering the unprecedented function of supposedly deconstructing the effect of the AA filter in the latest version of its raw software converter, DPP, to be released with the camera. Why do this now, unless it is especially relevant to the 5DIII? Although this might be their software answer to the Nikon D800 without AA filter, I doubt Canon could have developed this software function in the short time after which they likely learned of Nikon's plans. Also, in looking at many of the Canon 5DII samples, I noted an unusually low level of moire in many of the samples, several of which I know would certainly have displayed some level of moire if shot with my 1DsIII. I hope I am wrong about this, but I am afraid that I may well be correct in my deduction.

Second, as I look to the image, it look photoshoped! In some of them I can see clearly bad photoshop!
I think that we really have to wait unofficial pictures.

Most likely what you are seeing, and I too, at first, suspected as possibly some sort of horrible Photoshop work, is rather the awful effects of using the new in-camera HDR function, which, at different settings results in effects that range from bad to absolutely pathetic. This function needs either to be vastly improved or deleted from the firmware ASAP.

Regards,
David

[Daniel Flather]

I'm assuming you are comparing sample images from canon website and nikon website.

D800 images are 20mb jpeg and 5D3 images are 5~10mb jpeg.

I agree that 5D3 images seem too soft, but still I won't change to Nikon just after comparing sample images...

+1 on both points, the d800 looks sharper at 2 to 3x file size.  The 5D3 pics looks worse than my 50D, so I'll assume the samples are just plain bad.

If the 5D3 can't best my 50D then Canon is f*cked.

[ashe]

Video samples: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/05/comparing-video-from-the-canon-5d-mark-ii-and-5d-mark-iii-at-iso-12800/

[Grum]

I have to agree that the Canon samples are fairly poor - difficult to believe on such a major release but it does look like they are not quite in focus on at least a couple of the shots.

These look pretty good though IMO

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcfever.com%2Fnews%2Freadnews.php%3Fid%3D6365

Though I'm definitely holding judgement until we've seen proper RAW file conversions and reviews/tests.

[Martin]

Hope that AA filter theory is wrong, on the other side the theory is convincing. I can belive I waited so long and the camera will produce soft images due to AA filter. After I bought canon gear and worked with it for several months I knew that I had made bad decision but I hoped that 5d3 will change a lot. I don't understand guys who say that presented official samples are sharp and ok. Samples are out of detail and very soft (not mentioning the price) We need to wait.

[Kernuak]

Just seeing the sample images (and I'm not giving conclusion) I admit.

All the sample I've seen from the 5D3 looks way too soft. It can be 2 things : First is post prod NR. Second is 5D3 NR. If It's the 5D3 NR they use it wayyyy too much.
Ok nice, you see no noise at 1600 ISO or even 6400 but it ruin the quality.

Regards,
David

It could also be due to JPEG compression. I would expect at least some of those images to be closer to 15-18 MB if uncompressed. Certainly most of them should be over 10 MB.