August 28, 2014, 11:33:30 AM

Author Topic: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800  (Read 25416 times)

pepazz

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2012, 04:47:28 AM »
LOL, comparing iso performance of a jpeg proves nothing about sensor noise ability, good jpeg processing without a question, but who buys 3,500$ camera to shoot jpeg??

i find this veri interesting, raw at iso 100
5D 3
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2598/filllight5d3crop1.jpg
Nikon 800
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/2416/filllightd3crop1.jpg

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2012, 04:47:28 AM »

Alker

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2012, 05:17:40 AM »
LOL, comparing iso performance of a jpeg proves nothing about sensor noise ability, good jpeg processing without a question, but who buys 3,500$ camera to shoot jpeg??

i find this veri interesting, raw at iso 100
5D 3
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2598/filllight5d3crop1.jpg
Nikon 800
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/2416/filllightd3crop1.jpg

OH NO !!
Another fill light post.

Come on don't start this again.
Until now I have never needed such a fill light correction.

Gearheads vs Real World !!


DavidRiesenberg

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
    • View Profile
    • David Riesenberg
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2012, 05:27:42 AM »
In which universe is 5D3 better in terms of ISO than D800?

In that universe that you don't adjust the results in such a way to justify your preference.
I'm sorry, but I still haven't seen an example of what the D800 can do that the 5D3 cannot in a real life example (as in NOT black frames with the lens cap on).

KeithR

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2012, 06:09:01 AM »
7D has failed us more times than i care to count (poor AF, poor metering...)

That right there is a bad workman blaming his tools: both the AF and the metering on the 7D are impeccable.

KeithR

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2012, 06:26:19 AM »
In that universe that you don't adjust the results in such a way to justify your preference.

True enough - in reality the supposed "pliability" of recent Nikon cameras' files only has value as an excuse to shoot badly and fix everything in post.

logaandm

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2012, 06:38:26 AM »
The in-camera JPG comparison is a valid test if you shoot JPG. I don't, I use Lightroom and RAW so I downloaded the samples from Imaging Resources and DP review and processed the RAW files. I then processed all the files identically and up sampled them to the same size as the Pentax 645D. I then printed some of the files at 13X19" to see what actually mattered. (lots of ink and paper so I didn't print all ISOs)

Resolution:

5D Mark II and 5D Mark III are virtually identical.
D800 is slightly better than the 5D.
P645D is better than the D800. The difference with the D800 is more noticeable than the difference between the D800 and the 5D.

The above results are visible both on the screen at 100% and visible on prints at 100 ISO. The sharpness results wouldn't matter if you had even minor focus error or a narrow depth of field.
Dynamic Range:

Hard to see in a well processed image or on a print, but the Pentax 645D first, then D800 then 5D Mark III at 100 ISO. At higher ISO very hard to see the differences although noise is related to dynamic range especially at higher ISO.

Noise.

5D Mark II has about 1 stop more noise than the 5D Mark III
D800 has between 1 stop and 1/2 stop more noise than the 5D Mark II

High ISO 13X19" print limit

5D Mark II ISO 6400 and ISO 12,600 in a pinch.
5D Mark II ISO 12,600 and ISO 25,200 in a pinch.
D800 ISO 6400, and ISO 12,600 isn't too bad but ISO 25,200 is pretty ugly at 13X19"

Your tolerance for noise may vary, but the relative position will probably be the same. It really doesn't matter to compare the noise up sampling or downsampling since Lightroom does a really good job of colour noise reduction. Rankings stay the same.

None of these results are surprising to me as sensor efficiency is so high almost all differences between cameras can be explained by pixel, sensor size and photon noise. It is disappointing in a way because it also means there is little room for improvement is raw pixel sensitivity left. Most advances are likely to some from processing. Another good reason to shoot RAW.

My opinion, 36 mpx probably isn't worth the extra file size and effort but it doesn't hurt all that much either. For the landscape guy the extra pixels may show up but they would be better off with medium format for more resolution. There are other improvements in IQ with Medium Format due to less enlargement needed. For Nikon users I have noticed the D4 and the D800 are a significant improvement in resolution. Canon users have had that resolution since the 1Ds Mark III.

Lower noise probably isn't worth the 5D Mark II upgrade but my opinion is that the 5D Mark III is worth the upgrade for the improved focus, better body and other stuff which Canon probably could have improved with a firmware upgrade, like better ISO features. The 5D Mark III now has all the features I really like about the Pentax K-5, except the smaller body size. The 5D Mark III is a great camera to use.


Bottom line. The 5D Mark III and the D800 have great IQ and the 5D Mark II isn't too bad. The D800 resolution can be noticed, but it isn't the same as Medium Format.

gecko

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2012, 07:00:02 AM »
The in-camera JPG comparison is a valid test if ...

Thanks, nice summary.  Very helpful.
EOS 3, 7D, 5DII, EF 17-40 f4L, EF 100-400 f4-5.6L,  TS-E 24 f3.5 II, Zeiss 21.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2012, 07:00:02 AM »

cpsico

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2012, 07:56:27 AM »
Careful raw processing can always yield better results at high iso's , what's done in camera can always be topped by a little photoshop talent. I always set sharpening to zero, use a good noise program, then once the image is cleaned up use a light unsharp mask. I still feel my 1d mark  III pushes a little better than the 5d mark II in the shadows

JR

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1244
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2012, 08:01:39 AM »
I had seen those test before when the article was not complete.  While it looks nice for the mkIII ISO performance I dont like the fact they use in-camera JPEG for both camera tested.  We need RAW test!

 :-[
1DX, 24mm f1.4L II, 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L II, 135mm f2L, 24-70mm f2.8L II, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II :  D800, D4, and a whole bunch of Nikon lenses

dstppy

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2012, 08:48:10 AM »
What’s a guy to do while he waits for a 1D X?

Well heck Craig, that's simple: start a bunch of unfounded rumors about a mirrorless camera or a $1500 FF :)

Or you can just do what adamkozlowski is doing and troll on the forums  ;D
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 08:51:20 AM by dstppy »
Canon Rumors is presently creating photographer shortages in Middle Earth (all the trolls emigrated here)

Noink Fanb0i

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2012, 08:49:46 AM »
Ah, I knew a topic like this would attract more replies from Nikon fans than Canon, just like what happens in the Canon forum at DPR, which has now become unusable because more Nikon fanboys post on the Canon forums than Canon owners :D. I'm especially wary of member #s here higher than my own (read: recent registrants :P).

First of all, what is the point of 36MP if you have to downsize it to 22MP to get so-called "equivalent" high ISO noise IQ? This is why even DPR, rightly or wrongly, tests 100% crops from different MP cameras at its native resolution, and if you ask DPR they say that this is because "they don't do printer tests" (IOW, for them, it is silly to normalize to a common output). Most ironically, they actually now do printer tests :D. And thus, as early as now, I would say that the eventual DPR review would also show the same result as that on the article cited in the 1st post of this thread.

So again, those justifying the argument that "it's equivalent when downsized" should be called out, because then what about that other ability those other defenders claim 36MP allows them to do: crop and resize. Really, all their shots need to be downsized and cropped after* it has been downsized to 22MP to make it look good against its closest perceived competitor? I find that funny as a Nikon owner.
T3 is the bobn2 of Canon fanb0is.

DzPhotography

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2012, 09:26:40 AM »
LOL, comparing iso performance of a jpeg proves nothing about sensor noise ability, good jpeg processing without a question, but who buys 3,500$ camera to shoot jpeg??

i find this veri interesting, raw at iso 100
5D 3
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2598/filllight5d3crop1.jpg
Nikon 800
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/2416/filllightd3crop1.jpg

OH NO !!
Another fill light post.

Come on don't start this again.
Until now I have never needed such a fill light correction.

Gearheads vs Real World !!
And the Nikon is a D3 not a D800  ::)
EOS 550D | EOS 7D | EOS 6D | EOS 1Dx | EF-S 15-85 | EF 28f2.8 | EF 30f2.0 | EF 40f2.8 | EF 50f1.8II | EF 16-35f2.8L MkII | EF 24-105 f4L | EF 24-70f2.8L | EF 70-200f2.8L MkII | Sigma 10f2.8 Fisheye | Sigma 50f1.4 | Tamron 17-50f2.8VC | Tokina 11-16f2.8 | 430EXII | 580EXII

meli

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2012, 09:42:53 AM »
Asking whats the point of 36mp is kinda absurd;

So u're saying that If they can provide great high iso performance when downsized to their main competitor size AND still retain greater detail & DR  fullsized at anything below 1600 -plus- offering them 500$ cheaper doesnt make sense. Seriously?

Actually thats whats wrong with DPR forums, its not the nikon trolls & the pissed Canon users, its the thickheaded cheerleaders that are pathetic...

Ah, I knew a topic like this would attract more replies from Nikon fans than Canon, just like what happens in the Canon forum at DPR, which has now become unusable because more Nikon fanboys post on the Canon forums than Canon owners :D. I'm especially wary of member #s here higher than my own (read: recent registrants :P).

First of all, what is the point of 36MP if you have to downsize it to 22MP to get so-called "equivalent" high ISO noise IQ? This is why even DPR, rightly or wrongly, tests 100% crops from different MP cameras at its native resolution, and if you ask DPR they say that this is because "they don't do printer tests" (IOW, for them, it is silly to normalize to a common output). Most ironically, they actually now do printer tests :D. And thus, as early as now, I would say that the eventual DPR review would also show the same result as that on the article cited in the 1st post of this thread.

So again, those justifying the argument that "it's equivalent when downsized" should be called out, because then what about that other ability those other defenders claim 36MP allows them to do: crop and resize. Really, all their shots need to be downsized and cropped after* it has been downsized to 22MP to make it look good against its closest perceived competitor? I find that funny as a Nikon owner.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2012, 09:42:53 AM »

sweetcancer

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2012, 10:07:41 AM »
I still like the unedited raws from 5d3 far better than those from d800. D800 has more room for pp, but the 5d3 doesn't need that much pp.

bvukich

  • Spam Assassin
  • Administrator
  • 5D Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • View Profile
    • My (sparse) ZenFolio Site
Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2012, 10:20:50 AM »
offering them 500$ cheaper doesnt make sense.

Nikon is raising the price, there's going to be no difference.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2012, 10:20:50 AM »