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

[James Tang]

Sorry I am new here but it does seem to me that we can always get the best of both worlds, shoot RAW with a JPEG copy anyway.

As a Canon user, I came from using Nikomat film camera 25 years back and still have one working. So to most of the people, unless fanboys, any system has its own merit and problems.

Regards

[takoman46]

why bother getting back on topic?  the whole D800 vs. 5D3 topic is so far past the "beaten to a pulp" phase.  This dead horse of a topic has been beaten into a fine mist.

Forum junkies, dxo chart loving spec geeks, nikon fanbois masquerading as current canon users, and ticked off landscape shooters (none of whom have actually tried the camera) will continue to bash the 5D3, while professional shooters who are actually out enjoying their 5D3 will disagree and sing it's praises (wedding/event/low-light shooters especially).  wash rinse repeat 

I don't personally know a single 5D3 owner who isn't happy with it, and I know quite a few... But I'll admit I know more people shooters, who're more likely to be shooting in low available light.  Don't know any landscape shooters.  I love mine.  AF performance alone made it worth the upgrade.  And don't even get me started on the ISO performance.  If you think the D800 is awesome... great, go buy one.   It's apparently a very capable camera, and I'm sure it'll serve you well (especially if you dig ginormous raw files for stills or horrible moire in video.... argh, now i'm stooping to that level aren't I - darnit).

Good point. I am very pleased with the 5D3. Just shot a nude female spread in low light this weekend and I couldn't ask for more in a camera.  "Whatever" to all the D800 lovers and to those talking out of non-experience lol.

[zim]

Ah so it IS better at photographing nude women, I'm for havin one of them. make it two 

[AprilForever]

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.

umm no

i mean yeah some pros use jpgs but many also use RAW, even non-studio/landscape pros

and no the in camera jpgs do not get access to extra info, HTP doesn't do any of the things you say, all it does is shoot at 1 stop slower ISO and set a few flags in the RAW file for JPG it takes that RAW data and then simply applies a special ton curve at top and slide most of the image back up 1 stop, so you save 1 stop of highlights at the price of losing one stop of shadow detail. You can do the same exact thing by just under-exposing 1 stop yourself and then applying a different tone curve when you process.

Actually, the pros I know all shoot raw for anything at all important... And, no, raw isn't for just if you messed up the shot. There are scenes where JPG's lack of DR is swatted by raw everytime. I shoot mostly birds; when I switched from JPG to RAW, the colors came out better, the noise cleaned up better, the images became sharper, they looked a whole lot better because of retained shadow and highlights. So, no. Shooting jpg doesn't make you an enlightened genius who sees what the other pros do not. I just loses information.

[drjlo]

Part II of the excellent Camera Store 5d III vs. D800 shootout.  Canon really shines in this one.

Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800 Part 2 with Mike Drew	Small | Large

[V8Beast]

Actually, the pros I know all shoot raw for anything at all important... And, no, raw isn't for just if you messed up the shot. There are scenes where JPG's lack of DR is swatted by raw everytime. I shoot mostly birds; when I switched from JPG to RAW, the colors came out better, the noise cleaned up better, the images became sharper, they looked a whole lot better because of retained shadow and highlights. So, no. Shooting jpg doesn't make you an enlightened genius who sees what the other pros do not. I just loses information.

It depends a lot on the body, too. If I shot on a APS-C body, I'd use raw all the time. Otherwise, jpegs fall apart rather quickly in post, even for simple tweaks. I've found that jpeg files from full-frame bodies are much more forgiving. Arguing either way is pointless, since it's all personal preference.

[Jettatore]

I've got nothing against any other brands (pentax, leica, nikon, etc.) and I'd switch in a heartbeat if necessary.  The D800 looks like a great camera, but with that said, I'd rather prefer the 5DIII and I want one badly.  For me the high FPS makes me actually prefer it.  The D800 and larger file resolution does not make me want to switch at all.  From what I can see, enlarging a 5DIII file or reducing a D800 file results in approximately the same end product, and I have enough editing skills to make either end file do what it needs to for a final print.  If I really need the higher resolution, I'll gladly wait for Canon's upcoming high mega-pixel release or if I could afford it (which I can't) just go to medium format.

Having a 7D, 5DIII and Canon's upcoming high-mp release actually sounds quite good but if the high-mp release doesn't far exceed the D800 while keeping the features of the 5DIII I would without question simply get 2x 5DIII's instead.  I could buy a 5DIII now (I'm not holding out for any other camera release or system switch) but I think I'm going to continue to invest in Canon glass at the moment and pick one up when the first or second wave of sales rolls in, the price is a bit hefty but understandable.  I really want one right now though and if it weren't for reports of a potential need for a recall or update and the stock shortages I might consider just jumping the gun and putting it on my photography/computer credit line, the machine looks amazing and is basically everything I wanted out of a non-1D/permanent battery gripped sized body.  I would not be surprised if I got one before the end of the year or sooner, or just shortly there after.  Just ordered a 135 f/2L about 40 minutes ago and looking for more glass.

[Marsu42]

It depends a lot on the body, too. If I shot on a APS-C body, I'd use raw all the time. Otherwise, jpegs fall apart rather quickly in post, even for simple tweaks. I've found that jpeg files from full-frame bodies are much more forgiving. Arguing either way is pointless, since it's all personal preference.

I'm shooing aps-c and shoot raw because of the *huge* dr difference to jpeg when using highlight recovery - esp. in LR4 there's no drawback in contrast to "recovery" in LR3 which dulls the picture. If you write that ff jpegs are more "forgiving" (I don't doubt that): Why exactly is that? Does the mk2 etc put more dr into the jpegs than my 60d?

[photojrs]

This fourm is like a bunch of 10 year old boys arguing over if Batman can kick Superman's ass.

How true! People should spend more time on taking high quality photos than than to participate in flamewars in the forums.

[D.Sim]

This fourm is like a bunch of 10 year old boys arguing over if Batman can kick Superman's ass.

How true! People should spend more time on taking high quality photos than than to participate in flamewars in the forums.

So says the person who joined and made his first post to add to the flaming.

Its all silly, can we just get back to the topic? I mean, EVERY 9 year old boy worth his salt knows Superman will kick Batman all over the place

[briansquibb]

I touched a D800 yesterday.

Then I bought a Canon lens 

[GMCPhotographics]

This fourm is like a bunch of 10 year old boys arguing over if Batman can kick Superman's ass.

How true! People should spend more time on taking high quality photos than than to participate in flamewars in the forums.

So says the person who joined and made his first post to add to the flaming.

Its all silly, can we just get back to the topic? I mean, EVERY 9 year old boy worth his salt knows Superman will kick Batman all over the place

Lol....then you probably need to read "the Dark knight" by Frank Miller. Batam knocks out Superman's powers and goes toe to toe with him as motals....Batman mashes him. But the point is....it's trajic and they were always friends.

[psolberg]

Here is my summary:

5D3 wins:
-2 fps faster.

-lower video noise at high ISO levels.

-higher maximum ISO values on paper (useful is another matter). However the D800 matches it quite easily when downsampled except in the values it can't shoot:
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-review#iso_performance
(click next at the bottom of the page to see 5d2 vs d53 vs d800 comparisons)

-less moire on video (almost non issue) BUT sub standard resolution. quoted as resolving just around 720p levels. waxy looking video.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review

On the other hand, the D800 could be made to control moire with an aftermarket filter
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7809/mosaic-engineering-working-on-nikon-d800-anti-moire-filter

With the 5DmkIII can aid the poor video resolution by removing the OLP (which in turn introduces problems in your stills that the OLP solves)
OLP
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase


D800 wins:
-less low ISO noise than 5DmkIII namely pattern noise at ISO 100 which the 5DmkIII suffers just as its predecesor
http://diglloyd.com/

-still image resolution (duh), detail, DR, low ISO, crop flexibility, downsample flexibility.

-better metering module with face recognition (sees color unlike the 5DmkIII's ancient one). It more closely resembles the 1Dx in this regard which is impressive for a $3K body to sport flagship level metering module.

-optional model w/o anti alias filter equivalent.

-superior video resolution using its internal codec (samples 2240 x1260 internally)
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7590/first-truly-representative-nikon-d800-video-footage-dxomark-says-sensor-is-best-ever
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7788/classified-no-longer-how-the-nikon-d800s-36mp-sensor-line-skips-for-1080p

- 8bit 4:2:2 color uncompressed clean HDMI out (self explanatory) for recording on a Ninja or similar device.

-crop mode for video mode.

-USB 3 (finally)

AF-wise both are likely to be neck and neck and down to the photographer's skill and technique to win. Ergonomics are subjective.

[grog13]

I'm not trying to bash the 5D3, as I'm actually a Canon fan and will be getting the 5D3, but can anyone think of one major feature that the 5D3 does better than the D800?

So why are you getting the 5d3??

[birdman]

I own the 5d2, and have the D800 on preorder. But the more I wait on the D800 which has never arrived, the more I see that the 5d3 may be a better option for me.

Two things the 5d3 ACTUALLY DOES BETTER than the D800: High ISO (6,400 and above) and faster FPS. Also, has better battery life and seemingly better JPG engine. Yes, I shoot RAW as well as JPEG. I like to see my jpegs after I load my CF stick into my PS3 over my 40" Samsung LED screen. That way, I get a sense of what I have to work with on the RAW files.

Both are super duper machines, but each fits a different purpose. Canon has much better telephoto lens choices, and their primes are a wash vs. Nikon. Let me list all the lenses you cannot get in Nikon's arsenal: 70-200 f/4.0 (IS or non-IS); professional grade 70-300L; 300mm f/4.0 IS; 400mm 5.6L; 100-400L; 50mm 1.2; 17mm TSE......Need I go on? I think u can make the same arguments with some Nikon lenses. I like Canon's arsenal WAY better, but that's just me.