5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

[FrutigerSans]

Can the 5D3 be set up to save RAW to the CompactFlash card and JPEG to the SD card simultaneously?

Yup it certainly can.

Its the very first option of the SetUp menu.

[Bosman]

I shot a car race recently, and afterwards, the client wanted to downloaded jpegs straight onto his laptop. I know only amateurs and soccer moms shoot jpeg, but the ability to hand over high quality jpegs on a whim, when you don't have to opportunity to touch raw files up in post, is a huge benefit at times. To me, the out-of-camera Nikon files look like ass. That would bother me a heck of a lot more than, and take up more of my time to fix in post, than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DR.   

The strange thing is that most Pros I know switch to Jpeg once they are shooting events where they are taking large amounts of pictures and not doing dedicated (set up) work like fashion or product photography (when they usually would not use any equipment currently offered by Nikon or Canon ... MF anyone ?), as they also don't have the time to work with hundreds of raws ...

On a side note imagine the following not completely unimaginable scenario: Doing a one to two week photography trip where you would take 5 to 10k pictures ... do you still like 80MB raws afterwards with you limited processing power of a consumer notebook/mac ? I really don't think so and that is for what I need and want my camera to function perfectly ...       

When i shoot sports its always small jpegs. Ya need the buffer and ya don't need a tons of info. Even at 1- 1.5 mg our lab uses fractals and creates nice poster sized images. Our prints really do look excellent. For weddings, i don't worry about buffer or file sizes.
I am tempted to shoot both and use jpegs unless i need help with some files. Like the guy said in the video when he is done with editing the raws they pretty much look like jpegs anyway. The 5dm3 jpegs i am getting havent needed post processing which is pretty dang phenomenal but then i havent shot in a 3 diff light source poorly lit stadium either.

[ssrdd]

i got nikon d800 a week ago, works pretty good in video mode. also we checked it with XF305 and D800 for a short film went for big screen with both shots. we just wanted to check the resolution of the both cameras. So we carefully shot with D800, tried not to have moire patterns or aliasing. Expectedly D800 has much more information than XF305. Better colors on big screen(although we tried to match them very closely) looks organic than canon big time camcorder.

D800's 24mbps data contains more information than 50mbps clearly visible on big screen.
and 5Dmk3 is far better in video mode when it comes to the ISO performance, not sharp enough for the big screen.
XF305 costs me like $9000 and D800 comes around $3000 and i wonder how good it looks when i record Uncompressed HD video with new samurai native fix for D800?

I am definitely gonna shoot my independent feature on it.

[helpful]

I shot a car race recently, and afterwards, the client wanted to downloaded jpegs straight onto his laptop. I know only amateurs and soccer moms shoot jpeg, but the ability to hand over high quality jpegs on a whim, when you don't have to opportunity to touch raw files up in post, is a huge benefit at times. To me, the out-of-camera Nikon files look like ass. That would bother me a heck of a lot more than, and take up more of my time to fix in post, than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DR.   

The strange thing is that most Pros I know switch to Jpeg once they are shooting events where they are taking large amounts of pictures and not doing dedicated (set up) work like fashion or product photography (when they usually would not use any equipment currently offered by Nikon or Canon ... MF anyone ?), as they also don't have the time to work with hundreds of raws ...

On a side note imagine the following not completely unimaginable scenario: Doing a one to two week photography trip where you would take 5 to 10k pictures ... do you still like 80MB raws afterwards with you limited processing power of a consumer notebook/mac ? I really don't think so and that is for what I need and want my camera to function perfectly ...       

When i shoot sports its always small jpegs. Ya need the buffer and ya don't need a tons of info. Even at 1- 1.5 mg our lab uses fractals and creates nice poster sized images. Our prints really do look excellent. For weddings, i don't worry about buffer or file sizes.
I am tempted to shoot both and use jpegs unless i need help with some files. Like the guy said in the video when he is done with editing the raws they pretty much look like jpegs anyway. The 5dm3 jpegs i am getting havent needed post processing which is pretty dang phenomenal but then i havent shot in a 3 diff light source poorly lit stadium either.

Totally agree. The people who wear T-shirts "I shoot raw" and only shoot raw are generally pro wananbes and not pros. I have worked for clients all over who want JPEGS, and the USATF wanted only Small JPEGs for their national Olympics.

RAW files basically give someone about 6 more bits of leeway if they took the picture wrong. The final used and delivered result never has more than the output from a JPEG, anyway.

When I shoot something critical I use RAW as a back up, but I make sure that my camera settings are set right, and I absolutely NEVER have to do any post processing.

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Actually, I would take that quote a step further: a digital camera has access to MORE than the raw data when it converts to JPEG, so the JPEG you are getting has the potential to be better than the best you could possibly get by developing the raw file on the computer. Just ask yourself how a digital camera can do highlight tone priority, which affects both raw and jpeg output. The camera actually changes sensitivity to a lower ISO and also compresses the full 16-bit image pipeline into the 14-bit raw output. It messes up the dark end, but that is just an example of what cameras can do when developing their own JPEGs that is absolutely impossible to do in post processing.

My point is that I hope some of the self-proclaimed experts on this site will take a moment to think before accusing people who use JPEGs of being soccer moms and amateurs. Shooting JPEGs is something that full-time professionals do. Amateurs might do it too, and they might not. But logically there is no relationship between what one unrelated person does and what a professional photographer does.

[V8Beast]

Totally agree. The people who wear T-shirts "I shoot raw" and only shoot raw are generally pro wananbes and not pros. I have worked for clients all over who want JPEGS, and the USATF wanted only Small JPEGs for their national Olympics.

Gotta love those shirts! I can't figure out if the shirts are mocking people that shoot jpeg, or if the shirts are actually meant to mock people who shoot raw because that's what everyone else online does. 

When I shoot something critical I use RAW as a back up, but I make sure that my camera settings are set right, and I absolutely NEVER have to do any post processing.

I wish my technique were refined enough where I didn't have to perform any post, but at any rate, I try to keep it at a minimum nonetheless. I'm really diggin' the dual card slots on the 5DIII since it simplifies recording in both raw and jpeg. I record raws to the CF card, but unless I come across a file that needs a lot of work in post, I'll just pull the jpegs off the SD card, touch them up a tad, and submit them to my clients. The raws are more of a safety net in case I really mess something up.

My point is that I hope some of the self-proclaimed experts on this site will take a moment to think before accusing people who use JPEGs of being soccer moms and amateurs. Shooting JPEGs is something that full-time professionals do. Amateurs might do it too, and they might not. But logically there is no relationship between what one unrelated person does and what a professional photographer does.

I've had the good fortune of working with some very talented pros, and I think people would be surprised by how many of them shoot jpeg. One commercial photog I know has shot many ad campaigns for GM, Chrysler, and Mazda. He mentioned that he mainly shoots jpeg, and occasionally raw, for the same reasons others have expressed in this thread. I thought jpegs were just for editorial hacks like me, but maybe not That said, he's just one dude, and many others prefer raw and have good reasoning behind it.

Of course, different situations call for different formats, and I'm well aware that raw files are advantageous for certain situations. 

[D.Sim]

I shot a car race recently, and afterwards, the client wanted to downloaded jpegs straight onto his laptop. I know only amateurs and soccer moms shoot jpeg, but the ability to hand over high quality jpegs on a whim, when you don't have to opportunity to touch raw files up in post, is a huge benefit at times. To me, the out-of-camera Nikon files look like ass. That would bother me a heck of a lot more than, and take up more of my time to fix in post, than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DR.   

The strange thing is that most Pros I know switch to Jpeg once they are shooting events where they are taking large amounts of pictures and not doing dedicated (set up) work like fashion or product photography (when they usually would not use any equipment currently offered by Nikon or Canon ... MF anyone ?), as they also don't have the time to work with hundreds of raws ...

On a side note imagine the following not completely unimaginable scenario: Doing a one to two week photography trip where you would take 5 to 10k pictures ... do you still like 80MB raws afterwards with you limited processing power of a consumer notebook/mac ? I really don't think so and that is for what I need and want my camera to function perfectly ...       

When i shoot sports its always small jpegs. Ya need the buffer and ya don't need a tons of info. Even at 1- 1.5 mg our lab uses fractals and creates nice poster sized images. Our prints really do look excellent. For weddings, i don't worry about buffer or file sizes.
I am tempted to shoot both and use jpegs unless i need help with some files. Like the guy said in the video when he is done with editing the raws they pretty much look like jpegs anyway. The 5dm3 jpegs i am getting havent needed post processing which is pretty dang phenomenal but then i havent shot in a 3 diff light source poorly lit stadium either.

Totally agree. The people who wear T-shirts "I shoot raw" and only shoot raw are generally pro wananbes and not pros. I have worked for clients all over who want JPEGS, and the USATF wanted only Small JPEGs for their national Olympics.

RAW files basically give someone about 6 more bits of leeway if they took the picture wrong. The final used and delivered result never has more than the output from a JPEG, anyway.

When I shoot something critical I use RAW as a back up, but I make sure that my camera settings are set right, and I absolutely NEVER have to do any post processing.

"I have never found a practical use for RAW files in years of digital photography. In fact, here is the dirty secret of RAW files: it would take an accomplished expert hours of image processing time to match the same precision adjustments that are made to the image by the camera automatically when it exports image data to JPEG. The camera already has access to the full RAW data when it creates the JPEG image, and it optimizes and improves it automatically before creating the JPEG. So when you get the JPEG you are getting the best you can get."

Actually, I would take that quote a step further: a digital camera has access to MORE than the raw data when it converts to JPEG, so the JPEG you are getting has the potential to be better than the best you could possibly get by developing the raw file on the computer. Just ask yourself how a digital camera can do highlight tone priority, which affects both raw and jpeg output. The camera actually changes sensitivity to a lower ISO and also compresses the full 16-bit image pipeline into the 14-bit raw output. It messes up the dark end, but that is just an example of what cameras can do when developing their own JPEGs that is absolutely impossible to do in post processing.

My point is that I hope some of the self-proclaimed experts on this site will take a moment to think before accusing people who use JPEGs of being soccer moms and amateurs. Shooting JPEGs is something that full-time professionals do. Amateurs might do it too, and they might not. But logically there is no relationship between what one unrelated person does and what a professional photographer does.

Gee, bash the RAW shooters for bashing JPG shooters by doing the same thing? Really helpful =/

Whether or not you shoot RAW or JPG is up to each photographer, no? There will be a time and place for both - RAW can give you the leeway that might be useful for an important shot - but the ease of space on JPGs will give you the freedom to shoot more. Both have their own advantages or disadvantages, and while you can get it right in-camera, would you still knock that fact where you can have a bit more freedom? Each has its own advantages - freedom in post, or freedom to shoot more. To each their own, but calling people who do shoot raw "self proclaimed experts" or "pro wannabees" is the same as what you're trying to defend, no?

[Tcapp]

Raw is great for the simple fact you can adjust white balance easier and with better results.

Jpeg has its place, but for my wedding work I always shoot raw.

</$0.02>

[V8Beast]

Tim,

Have you redone your website lately? It looks great. You have a great eye for light.

[Tcapp]

Tim,

Have you redone your website lately? It looks great. You have a great eye for light.

Thanks man!! Means a lot, especially coming from someone who's work I admire! I did change the layout of my blog. I wanted a layout that shows a whole bunch of posts on the homepage that would load easier. Glad you like it!

As far as my main site, I haven't changed it in a long while. I'm actually due to add some of my latest work to it!

[briansquibb]

Here we go again - demanding the best possible IQ and mps - and then suggesting using jpeg which degrades the IQ as soon as any pp is done.

Shooters taking candids/sports/wildlife/birding CANNOT guarantee to get the perfect exposure everytime  so as soon as they touch the levels - oops there goes the IQ.

And then there are those that haven't got the right filters, or need selective light adjustments etc etc

I would suggest there is a place for jpegs out of the camera - but it is a small, niche market and should be avoided wherever possible where IQ is important.

[Tcapp]

Tim,

Have you redone your website lately? It looks great. You have a great eye for light.

Also, Unrelated to topic at hand but...

This is why I like to hang out on this forum. The people here are awesome. Great knowledge to be had, and friends to be made.

I bet the people on Nikon Rumors aren't as cool. JK. ( I mean, they are the dark side after all!)

[smithy]

Can the 5D3 be set up to save RAW to the CompactFlash card and JPEG to the SD card simultaneously?

Yup it certainly can.

Its the very first option of the SetUp menu.

Thanks.  I'm not sure what all the fuss is about then.  Just shoot both! 

[V8Beast]

This is why I like to hang out on this forum. The people here are awesome. Great knowledge to be had, and friends to be made.

Yes, there are lots of talented people here. I suck at portraits, and taking pictures of people in general, so I've developed a deep appreciation for those that excel at it

[V8Beast]

I would suggest there is a place for jpegs out of the camera - but it is a small, niche market and should be avoided wherever possible where IQ is important.

Can you try to stay on topic? This thread is supposed to be about how much the 5DIII sucks

[Tcapp]

Here we go again - demanding the best possible IQ and mps - and then suggesting using jpeg which degrades the IQ as soon as any pp is done.

Shooters taking candids/sports/wildlife/birding CANNOT guarantee to get the perfect exposure everytime  so as soon as they touch the levels - oops there goes the IQ.

And then there are those that haven't got the right filters, or need selective light adjustments etc etc

I would suggest there is a place for jpegs out of the camera - but it is a small, niche market and should be avoided wherever possible where IQ is important.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Raw=maximum quality
Jpeg=maximum convenience

I always shoot raw. That said, I recently shot a wedding where the couple wanted to put the ceremony/portraits in a slideshow during the reception. Jpeg to the rescue! Raw to CF, Jpeg to SD.

Also, I want to note that now with my 5d3, im ALWAYS shooting raw to CF and Jpeg to SD as backup. Yes, the buffer fills faster, but I dont care. Jpegs are small enough to fit thousands upon thousands of photos on one card, so I can basically keep my sd card in there all the time, from shoot to shoot, without formatting or removing it. That way if something unfortunate were to happen to my CF card, or (not that it ever happens) if i accidentally format the wrong CF card, the jpegs are safe and sound. Plus, if I shoot a couple photos and accidentally delete one that i wanted to keep, (not often, but it has happened) then the jpeg is still there since it only can delete from one card at a time.

If I took a trip somewhere and i was going to take 10k images, I would still shoot raw. Call me crazy. Then again, I have an overclocked beast of a computer to power through the processing, but yea. Thats just me.

Oh and to the comment about the camera applying certain processing to the photo to make it look better than an unmodified raw output... Lightroom has presets, so it can do the same thing upon import. The camera applies settings that lightroom doesn't have access to? Use a third party lens. Lightroom knows tricks the camera doesnt then! 

So yea, both formats have their merits. Different strokes for different folks. NUFF SAID. Capisce?