December 19, 2014, 07:20:14 AM

Author Topic: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head  (Read 33991 times)

Ricku

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 494
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2012, 11:12:52 PM »
Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.

The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2012, 11:12:52 PM »

Orion

  • Guest
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2012, 11:15:22 PM »
I compared the D800NR3 (3200 iso) file to the sole 3200 iso from the Canon files. . . . (the mkIII file seems to have NR on)

the 5DmkIII is a ISO beast compared to the D800. You can still make out the green blobs on the D800 with the NR3 . . the Canon is CLEAN!

Even when the resolution is reduced to the 5DmkIII on the D800, it does not compare well to the 5DmkIII. You get mroe detail in the dark red cloth, but in the others the mkIII beats the D800 for clarity and colour.


You will be misled if you go by the jpegs...and make the conclusions you have above.  Trust me...use the raws.

well I looked at RAWs too, a few days ago. Both are amazing. You will get better ISO from the mkIII, but both cameras are top notch for thier respective fields. The D800 is a MP monster, and it is unfair to compare it to the mkIII, and vice versa, I think. Both camps have positie and negative traits. . . . but those are meaningless in the field. . . even taking into account that you can downsize the D800 images and get better iso than at full res and the crop factor.

ona  side note: if Nikon had Canon glass, and the D800 would at least match the mkIII in ISO, I would switch. . . or at the very least have 2 systems, and enjoy bnoth worlds. . . as far as high MP goes, but Canon will coem out with one of their own.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 11:30:47 PM by Orion »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2012, 11:16:55 PM »
Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.

The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.

yeah I wouldnt worry about that, also check out the 50mm f1.4G its a great value for money lens it was my nikon favourite
APS-H Fanboy

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9371
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2012, 11:19:02 PM »
I prefer to compare high ISO images at low light levels and about 3000 kelvin.   This is more realistic of the times I use high ISO (Low light).  Using bright well balanced lights gives unrealistically good results at high ISO, so its hard to really know how they compare for my usage.

Of course, if you just crankup the ISO in good light, perhaps to capture a fast subject or freeze action, then bright light high ISO simulates that.  Maybe they should do both to see if there is a difference.

Stephen Melvin

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2012, 11:23:51 PM »
Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.

The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.

It is, but there are a couple of usability issues with the Nikkor vs the "L." First is the focus breathing issue. At minimum focusing distance, the Nikkor has the angle of view of a 135mm lens. The difference is very noticeable.

The "L" behaves a bit more like a unit-focusing lens in this regard. Such dramatic focus breathing in a $2,500 lens is unacceptable to me.

And the Nikkor's lens hood is very poorly designed. You cannot set your lens down on the hood, like you can with the Canon.

I was briefly considering a move, too. Between the cost (nearly all of Nikon's professional lenses are more expensive than Canon's) and the issues with this lens and the 24G, in comparison to the equivalent "L's," quickly put that thinking to an end.

Not to mention having to learn a completely different user interface, Nikon's poorer reputation for customer service, etc.

YellowJersey

  • Guest
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2012, 11:48:42 PM »

From my recollection and understanding (which may well be faulty) Canon never applies NR to RAWs, it only applies it to the in camera JPEG conversion.  Whereas Nikon cooks the NR into the RAWs (even at NR0 there is some NR being applied).

 Can anyone confirm/debunk this? I'd be interested to know.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9371
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2012, 11:52:12 PM »
Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.

The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.

It is, but there are a couple of usability issues with the Nikkor vs the "L." First is the focus breathing issue. At minimum focusing distance, the Nikkor has the angle of view of a 135mm lens. The difference is very noticeable.

The "L" behaves a bit more like a unit-focusing lens in this regard. Such dramatic focus breathing in a $2,500 lens is unacceptable to me.

And the Nikkor's lens hood is very poorly designed. You cannot set your lens down on the hood, like you can with the Canon.

I was briefly considering a move, too. Between the cost (nearly all of Nikon's professional lenses are more expensive than Canon's) and the issues with this lens and the 24G, in comparison to the equivalent "L's," quickly put that thinking to an end.

Not to mention having to learn a completely different user interface, Nikon's poorer reputation for customer service, etc.

Canon lens prices seem to be well more expensive that their Nnikon counterparts if you just look at the newer models like the 70-200,, f/2.8 MK II, and the 24-105mm L.  The 200-400mm L with its built-in TC is going to make the $7500 of the nikon 200-400mm Zoom look like peanuts.

So prices are getting pretty much the same.  However, Nikons reputation for service, and now their refusing to sell parts to small local dealers is user unfriendly to a extreme.

No wonder Canon seems so confident about raising prices.  I'm going to give the 5D MK III a good trial, I think it will be the right one for me, but some of the features on the Nikon bodies look very nice.  If it weren't for the poor support and the unnecessary 36mp, I might be pretty convinced.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2012, 11:52:12 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4056
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2012, 11:54:16 PM »
Hi,
   Hmm... Is Canon images NR on or off?? My DPP 3.11.4.10 unable to open the RAW file. Nikon images had NR0 to NR3, but Canon images only had one version.

   Have a nice day.

From my recollection and understanding (which may well be faulty) Canon never applies NR to RAWs, it only applies it to the in camera JPEG conversion.  Whereas Nikon cooks the NR into the RAWs (even at NR0 there is some NR being applied).

I believe Nikon cooks it in only for longer exposures, I forget the cut-off, something like a number of seconds long.

Stephen Melvin

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2012, 12:04:38 AM »

Canon lens prices seem to be well more expensive that their Nnikon counterparts if you just look at the newer models like the 70-200,, f/2.8 MK II, and the 24-105mm L.  The 200-400mm L with its built-in TC is going to make the $7500 of the nikon 200-400mm Zoom look like peanuts.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is the same price or cheaper than the VR II Nikkor. (It's currently $100 cheaper.)

The 24-105 f/4L IS USM is much cheaper than the 24-120 VR II Nikkor, and the Nikkor isn't as good. (The Canon is currently $200 cheaper at B&H.)

The 24 f/1.4L II is $600 cheaper than the 24G Nikkor, and it's a better lens.


So prices are getting pretty much the same.  However, Nikons reputation for service, and now their refusing to sell parts to small local dealers is user unfriendly to a extreme.

No wonder Canon seems so confident about raising prices.  I'm going to give the 5D MK III a good trial, I think it will be the right one for me, but some of the features on the Nikon bodies look very nice.  If it weren't for the poor support and the unnecessary 36mp, I might be pretty convinced.

Yeah, I'm with you. Also, in this area, Canons outnumber Nikons at least 10-to-1 in professional hands. I shoot a lot of events, and I almost never see Nikons. Last fashion show I shot, I saw one entry-level Nikon and one D300. Saw about a dozen 5D Mk II's plus various other Canons. I was a little surprised to seen any Nikons at all.

My point being, we lend each other equipment from time to time. If I wanted a piece of Nikon gear, I'd have to rent or buy it.

unkbob

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2012, 01:24:58 AM »
I have a 5D2 and a 5D3 on order, and I'm not about to switch to Nikon. But damn, those ISO 100 images from the D800 make the 5D3 look like a toy. They look more like medium format quality. The colours are just night and day, looking at them on a wide gamut monitor. Ok, I only checked out the jpegs but the 5D files are over sharpened and subtle as a brick in comparison. Even the high ISO files are decent on the D800 and more honest than the heavily NR Canon images. I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.

The 5D3 is more than good enough for my purposes - mostly weddings (stills + video). And the features / usability are great. But well done Nikon!

rlarsen

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2012, 01:37:08 AM »
After a while it starts sounding a little anal here and not very visual. We all know photographers who shoot crap with the best gear and others who are amazing at making pictures and processing files with lesser gear.
It reminds me of people who have the best stereo equipment money can buy but don't own much of a music collection.
I like my Canon gear a lot, and if my co-workers have better Nikon gear, all the better for them.
Like someone said, for all the praise for Nikon, the sidelines are crowded with Canon shooters.

For all the complaints about the Canon 5D MK ll, it has been hugely popular around the world for years, and the buzz surrounding the MK lll release is extraordinary.




jaduffy007

  • Guest
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2012, 01:57:00 AM »
I have a 5D2 and a 5D3 on order, and I'm not about to switch to Nikon. But damn, those ISO 100 images from the D800 make the 5D3 look like a toy. They look more like medium format quality. The colours are just night and day, looking at them on a wide gamut monitor. Ok, I only checked out the jpegs but the 5D files are over sharpened and subtle as a brick in comparison. Even the high ISO files are decent on the D800 and more honest than the heavily NR Canon images. I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.

The 5D3 is more than good enough for my purposes - mostly weddings (stills + video). And the features / usability are great. But well done Nikon!


Refreshing...an unbiased perspective.  I must add...if you checked out the raw files, you would be doubly impressed.  Reading this thread is a real eye opener about how we see what we want to see.  Kinda frightening actually.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 01:59:28 AM by jaduffy007 »

bvukich

  • Spam Assassin
  • Administrator
  • 5D Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
    • View Profile
    • My (sparse) ZenFolio Site
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2012, 02:10:07 AM »
Hi,
   Hmm... Is Canon images NR on or off?? My DPP 3.11.4.10 unable to open the RAW file. Nikon images had NR0 to NR3, but Canon images only had one version.

   Have a nice day.

From my recollection and understanding (which may well be faulty) Canon never applies NR to RAWs, it only applies it to the in camera JPEG conversion.  Whereas Nikon cooks the NR into the RAWs (even at NR0 there is some NR being applied).

I believe Nikon cooks it in only for longer exposures, I forget the cut-off, something like a number of seconds long.

Looks like the cut-off is at 1/4 sec, at least for the cameras tested below.
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p4.html

The article also sparked my memory...  I originally came across this information while researching cameras for astrophotography.  I saw numerous people suggest staying away from Nikon, but most of them had only a tenuous grasp on why.  After some additional research, I came across this.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2012, 02:10:07 AM »

sarangiman

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2012, 02:21:21 AM »
Quote
I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.

HUH?! Evidence??

unkbob

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2012, 02:31:47 AM »
Quote
I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.

HUH?! Evidence??

Download some RAWs and see for yourself. The high ISO images are practically noise-free but very mushy. That is noise reduction, and it's not even subtle. Compare with the Nikon RAWS, where there is tons of noise but also more detail and contrast at high ISOs.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2012, 02:31:47 AM »