Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head

[sarangiman]

on a  side note: if Nikon had Canon glass

I could say I understood this before Nikon came out with the AF-S 24/1.4 & 35/1.4, but I just don't get it anymore.

14-24/2.8 kills Canon's wide-angle zooms.

85/1.4 beats Canon's 85/1.2 IMHO b/c it has 9 aperture blades (which means circular OOF highlights well beyond f/1.6, which is where Canon's 85/1.2 starts imparting octagonal shape to OOF highlights) & less CA on the sides & focuses faster & yields 18-point sunstars & has a more standard 77mm filter and is lighter and... etc.

Nikon 24/1.4 has like 1 stop of vignetting in the corners. Canon's has like 3.

If you compare most MTF charts of primes, Nikon has higher MTF wide open than Canon (and usually you buy primes to shoot them wide open or thereabouts).

So please someone explain to me why Canon glass is better. I'd really like to understand this sentiment that I commonly hear thrown around... I think each brand has different glass that is better suited for one individual over another. But generally, both offer good options. For my particular needs, it'd seem Nikon's glass might suit be better. But to each his/her own.

I am heavily invested in Canon, but for one considering the switch, the only barriers/reasons not to switch I see are: (1) The investment/hassle of switching; (2) Canon's AF may be superior due to extra sensitivity at f/2.8 (does that lead to more accuracy/precision? I'd like some quantitative tests, which I will do shortly when I have both a 5DIII & a D800 in my hands) & extra cross-type sensors. I would add Canon's new flashes as a reason to stick with Canon, but at least E-TTL Pocket Wizards work with Nikon flashes, AFAIK, without frying them or incredible radio interference (something I have a little experience with).

[woodymirag]

In analyzing this particular set of images from the Canon 5DIII and the Nikon D800, there are two conclusions that seem irrefutable:

1. At ISO100, the Nikon D800 has noticeably superior images out of the camera, due primarily to greater detail and dynamic range.
2. At ISO6400, the Canon 5DIII has noticeably superior images out of the camera, due primarily to significantly less noise.

That's what the speculation has been all along, and this one set of images bears this out. The 5DIII is the better low light tool, and the D800 is the detail/landscape/portrait king.

You can argue that noise reduction can be improved in post, whereas detail and dynamic range cannot, so maybe the D800 wins.

But it's funny, because when my jaw drops at an amazing image in the galleries on fredmiranda.com, I don't start drilling down to the pixel level to figure out why. I think, "Amazing light, great composition, outstanding quality." I don't think, "Oh, that must have been taken by Nikon or Canon" but instead, "Why is that photographer so much better than I am?"

For all the "switchers" out there (or pretend switchers), I can't fathom that you would dump your glass and familiarity with a UI to make a change from Canon to Nikon (or vice-versa), when both tools look to by quite exceptional. Also, if you are inclined, browse the forums of nikonrumors.com. It's funny to see how many of them are complaining that D800 75MB raw files are just too unwieldy for their workflow, and hoping Nikon will release a 20-24 megapixel option for them. For them, the grass is greener when there is low light. For you, the grass is greener when there is more detail.

[te4o]

I am with Canon because when I bought my gear it used to be cheaper! Now I am paying the price!

[jhop]

Two words why I will be staying with Canon regardless what Nikon does: Ashton Kutcher.  Any company that decides to hire this guy to represent product is suspect to me!  It's only a matter of time before he is caught in a conversion van molesting something other than himself! 

[erfon]

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.

yeah, new canon lenses might start off the same, but eventually they will drop in price.  nikon lenses won't — they'll always be expensive. 

that's because nikon just implemented a "universal pricing policy" where their authorized retailers are forced to charge nikon's MSRP. if they don't, nikon stops selling to them.

this ridiculous new policy is one of the reasons that, after 8 years with nikon, my first full frame camera will be the mark iii.

canon's lenses seem extremely affordable to me, and i can tell you, in my experience, have much more beautiful bokeh.

[Pyrenees]

14-24/2.8 kills Canon's wide-angle zooms.

Nikon 24/1.4 has like 1 stop of vignetting in the corners. Canon's has like 3.

If you compare most MTF charts of primes, Nikon has higher MTF wide open than Canon (and usually you buy primes to shoot them wide open or thereabouts).

So please someone explain to me why Canon glass is better.

Look, the Nikon 14-24mm is a great lens. The problem is, it has almost 4% barrel distortion at 14mm. For someone like me, who shoots architectural stuff almost always at f/8 or smaller, and for whom the widest fov is critical, it just doesn't cut it next to the Canon 14mm.

Canon's vignetting decreases significantly by f/8 or f/11, and in any case, it is very easily fixed in post.

When you fix 4% barrel distortion, unfortunately, you lose the fov advantage that 14mm might have because part of the image has to be thrown away.

So, it really depends on the application.

On a side note, Guys, how are you viewing these RAWS ? I have updated Lightroom 3 and PS5 and it says the Nikon file is 'incompatible??? Can someone help??

[Alker]

I am with Canon because when I bought my gear it used to be cheaper! Now I am paying the price!

Now you are paying the price
What a nonsense.

[TAR]

14-24/2.8 kills Canon's wide-angle zooms.

Nikon 24/1.4 has like 1 stop of vignetting in the corners. Canon's has like 3.

If you compare most MTF charts of primes, Nikon has higher MTF wide open than Canon (and usually you buy primes to shoot them wide open or thereabouts).

So please someone explain to me why Canon glass is better.

Look, the Nikon 14-24mm is a great lens. The problem is, it has almost 4% barrel distortion at 14mm. For someone like me, who shoots architectural stuff almost always at f/8 or smaller, and for whom the widest fov is critical, it just doesn't cut it next to the Canon 14mm.

Canon's vignetting decreases significantly by f/8 or f/11, and in any case, it is very easily fixed in post.

When you fix 4% barrel distortion, unfortunately, you lose the fov advantage that 14mm might have because part of the image has to be thrown away.

So, it really depends on the application.

On a side note, Guys, how are you viewing these RAWS ? I have updated Lightroom 3 and PS5 and it says the Nikon file is 'incompatible??? Can someone help??

use Light room 4 or download camera raw 6.7 beta

[Pyrenees]

use Light room 4 or download camera raw 6.7 beta

Cheers for that.

[V8Beast]

But it's funny, because when my jaw drops at an amazing image in the galleries on fredmiranda.com, I don't start drilling down to the pixel level to figure out why. I think, "Amazing light, great composition, outstanding quality." I don't think, "Oh, that must have been taken by Nikon or Canon" but instead, "Why is that photographer so much better than I am?"

Precisely. I just don't see either of these bodies giving their handlers a big enough edge over the other where the tech specs would be what separates a mediocre image from a great image.

For all the "switchers" out there (or pretend switchers), I can't fathom that you would dump your glass and familiarity with a UI to make a change from Canon to Nikon (or vice-versa), when both tools look to by quite exceptional.

I'm guilty of this myself, as I pre-ordered a D800 when the rumor mill was swirling with some very underwhelming 5DIII specs. Then Canon shocked me by putting a near-1Dx caliber AF system and a 6 FPS burst rate in the 5DIII, addressing my two biggest gripes with the 5DII. The dual card slots, weather sealing, and improved ISO are just icing on the cake. Before the 5DIII was announced, I thought the D800 would blow it out of the weeds. However, after seeing some real sample pics between the two, the difference in IQ between them is so  insignificant for my shooting needs that I'm reconsidering my plans to test both bodies out side by side, and may just cancel my D800 order outright. My 5DIII pre-order is probably going to show up on my doorstep first anyway

For this round of the mid-range DSLR war, I'll concede that Nikon appears to have delivered the overall winner. Even so, the D800's advantages aren't that substantial for my style of shooting and Nikon hasn't distanced itself enough from Canon to put up with the hassle of switching systems,   

[briansquibb]

But it's funny, because when my jaw drops at an amazing image in the galleries on fredmiranda.com, I don't start drilling down to the pixel level to figure out why. I think, "Amazing light, great composition, outstanding quality." I don't think, "Oh, that must have been taken by Nikon or Canon" but instead, "Why is that photographer so much better than I am?"

Precisely. I just don't see either of these bodies giving their handlers a big enough edge over the other where the tech specs would be what separates a mediocre image from a great image.

For all the "switchers" out there (or pretend switchers), I can't fathom that you would dump your glass and familiarity with a UI to make a change from Canon to Nikon (or vice-versa), when both tools look to by quite exceptional.

I'm guilty of this myself, as I pre-ordered a D800 when the rumor mill was swirling with some very underwhelming 5DIII specs. Then Canon shocked me by putting a near-1Dx caliber AF system and a 6 FPS burst rate in the 5DIII, addressing my two biggest gripes with the 5DII. The dual card slots, weather sealing, and improved ISO are just icing on the cake. Before the 5DIII was announced, I thought the D800 would blow it out of the weeds. However, after seeing some real sample pics between the two, the difference in IQ between them is so  insignificant for my shooting needs that I'm reconsidering my plans to test both bodies out side by side, and may just cancel my D800 order outright. My 5DIII pre-order is probably going to show up on my doorstep first anyway

For this round of the mid-range DSLR war, I'll concede that Nikon appears to have delivered the overall winner. Even so, the D800's advantages aren't that substantial for my style of shooting and Nikon hasn't distanced itself enough from Canon to put up with the hassle of switching systems,

It would be interesting to see how the 1DX matches up against the D800 in terms of IQ. Apart from the obvious mps difference I wonder which would be better for  those that want low res output ie 16 x 10 @ 720dpi

[zee]

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.

Not sure about Nikon's supposedly poorer reputation for customer service...I work at a retail store in Canada and my experience with them has been excellent.

Once I dropped my Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens off a tripod since it wasn't secured properly...the back where it mounts broke right off, was quoted $600 parts & labour for repair...Nikon ended up fixing it for free even though it was my fault.

Haven't had to take my 5DII in for service yet so I can't compare their service to Canon but in my experience, Nikon's service has been excellent.

[moreorless]

14-24/2.8 kills Canon's wide-angle zooms.

Nikon 24/1.4 has like 1 stop of vignetting in the corners. Canon's has like 3.

If you compare most MTF charts of primes, Nikon has higher MTF wide open than Canon (and usually you buy primes to shoot them wide open or thereabouts).

So please someone explain to me why Canon glass is better.

Look, the Nikon 14-24mm is a great lens. The problem is, it has almost 4% barrel distortion at 14mm. For someone like me, who shoots architectural stuff almost always at f/8 or smaller, and for whom the widest fov is critical, it just doesn't cut it next to the Canon 14mm.

Canon's vignetting decreases significantly by f/8 or f/11, and in any case, it is very easily fixed in post.

When you fix 4% barrel distortion, unfortunately, you lose the fov advantage that 14mm might have because part of the image has to be thrown away.

So, it really depends on the application.

To me that seems to sum up the different views of both companies, its obviously a bit of a generalisation but the impression I get is that Canon have a clear divide between the "money is no object" hardware and offering value at the lower end of the market while Nikon on the other hand seem to target somewhere inbetween those two ends a bit more often.

Nikon's business plan does I'd say tend to target the subset of people who are most represented on photo forums, that is amatures after high end quality but within a reasonable budget.

[WarStreet]

I'm guilty of this myself, as I pre-ordered a D800 when the rumor mill was swirling with some very underwhelming 5DIII specs. Then Canon shocked me by putting a near-1Dx caliber AF system and a 6 FPS burst rate in the 5DIII, addressing my two biggest gripes with the 5DII. The dual card slots, weather sealing, and improved ISO are just icing on the cake. Before the 5DIII was announced, I thought the D800 would blow it out of the weeds. However, after seeing some real sample pics between the two, the difference in IQ between them is so  insignificant for my shooting needs that I'm reconsidering my plans to test both bodies out side by side, and may just cancel my D800 order outright. My 5DIII pre-order is probably going to show up on my doorstep first anyway

For this round of the mid-range DSLR war, I'll concede that Nikon appears to have delivered the overall winner. Even so, the D800's advantages aren't that substantial for my style of shooting and Nikon hasn't distanced itself enough from Canon to put up with the hassle of switching systems,

+1  The AF and 6fps are the 2 most important aspect (for me) of this new camera. Both cameras are great and I would be happy with any of them, since each camera has their own strong points.

I still need to replace my broken printer, otherwise I would like to try printing some samples at low and high iso's and see how they perform. From my eyes, seems they won't be far from each other, possibly with an edge for D800 at low iso's and edge for the 5DIII on high iso's. For me image quality it is not just more detail (MP), or less noise, but the combination of these two, together with DR, converted into a final print. For small size web images, both of them exceed the requirements.     

[yunusoglu]

The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...

I've taken a good look at ISO3200 images and the D800 is clearly superior at all noise reduction settings. At base ISO there's no competition of course... So, what exactly are we talking about?

This is no situation that Canon and Nikon have focused on different stuff and these are two different cameras aiming at different types of photographers. The situation is; the cheaper camera is better than the more expensive one except for the differences of 2fps bust speed and number of AF points.

If the 5D3 was priced around $2500, I could go with that. I'd say the D800 was a bit better but the 5D3 was a bit cheaper but there's nothing and absolutely nothing with the 5D3 that I can justify Canon's move.