Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800

[KeithR]

I applaud you for being brave enough to find a camera that will suit your needs.

Personally I don't object to that - who would? What I object to is personal opinion presented as definitive fact, when the vast majority of the useful evidence out there directly contradicts that opinion.

I know I may be in a minority here, but I see the internet as a valuable source of useful information, and I think its incumbent upon all of us to do what we can to ensure that it contains information - so when I see an unsupported (and frankly unsupportable) dig at something, I'm inclined to challenge it.

[KeithR]

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?

The point is to compare both cameras at an equivalent image size - whether you downsize one or upsize the other (logically, downsizing is fairer from an IQ point of view) - because 100% crops are not what we look at in the Real World.

IQ at the image level is what counts, and you can only make that assessment by levelling the playing field and looking at output from both cameras at the same image size.

[iso79]

LOLz..

Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800	Small | Large

[cpsico]

What kills me is the Nikon fan boys loved there low megapixel cameras and slammed canons high megapixel cameras and that downsized images didn't really equal there superior low light cameras abilitys

[V8Beast]

What kills me is the Nikon fan boys loved there low megapixel cameras and slammed canons high megapixel cameras and that downsized images didn't really equal there superior low light cameras abilitys

To be fair, both sides have switched ideologies. All of the sudden the Nikon guys are all about the megapixels, and the Canon guys are all about low-light performance.

[SandyP]

What kills me is the Nikon fan boys loved there low megapixel cameras and slammed canons high megapixel cameras and that downsized images didn't really equal there superior low light cameras abilitys

To be fair, both sides have switched ideologies. All of the sudden the Nikon guys are all about the megapixels, and the Canon guys are all about low-light performance.

I guess if people are stupid enough to take sides with material possessions, sure! I mean, clearly most people CHOOSE a side, technically, by owning one camera system. Yes, but beyond that, it's only the ridiculous fanboys who parade around these ideologies. It's also mostly these people who get caught up in it, and think that switching camera systems will make their actual photography better, at this level, that's pretty much crap. Pretty much.

I'm about photography, do I like having a few mega-pixels? Ok. Do I like being able to shoot low light? Ok. What of it? While it's true, it hardly means the actual content, what makes a photo a good photo, will get any better. OF COURSE - back to the ridiculous people again - there are those who deem part of a photo being good, having 12% more or less grain, and being able to zoom in a certain % more on a monitor. Bravo! Haha.

While these wanna-be lab rats scurry around pointing at charts and banging their heads against keyboards, there are a bunch of us shooting every day, doing what we love, and never making excuses because of our equipment.

[briansquibb]

What kills me is the Nikon fan boys loved there low megapixel cameras and slammed canons high megapixel cameras and that downsized images didn't really equal there superior low light cameras abilitys

To be fair, both sides have switched ideologies. All of the sudden the Nikon guys are all about the megapixels, and the Canon guys are all about low-light performance.

I guess if people are stupid enough to take sides with material possessions, sure! I mean, clearly most people CHOOSE a side, technically, by owning one camera system. Yes, but beyond that, it's only the ridiculous fanboys who parade around these ideologies. It's also mostly these people who get caught up in it, and think that switching camera systems will make their actual photography better, at this level, that's pretty much crap. Pretty much.

I'm about photography, do I like having a few mega-pixels? Ok. Do I like being able to shoot low light? Ok. What of it? While it's true, it hardly means the actual content, what makes a photo a good photo, will get any better. OF COURSE - back to the ridiculous people again - there are those who deem part of a photo being good, having 12% more or less grain, and being able to zoom in a certain % more on a monitor. Bravo! Haha.

While these wanna-be lab rats scurry around pointing at charts and banging their heads against keyboards, there are a bunch of us shooting every day, doing what we love, and never making excuses because of our equipment.

+1 Especially now where the digital technology is starting to mature so there will be little improvement for your average shooter in the immediate future - just gentle improvements

[birtembuk]

These rants re 5d3 vs d800 look more and more like those heated "don't-touch-my-baby" battles between iPhoners and Gallaxiers. Only these are fought mostly by teenagers while the DSLR world is supposed to be an adult one ... Mankind is a strange species.

[JTC]

Review

http://www.crisislab.com/index.php?section=1

[dlleno]

... beyond that, it's only the ridiculous fanboys who parade around these ideologies. It's also mostly these people who get caught up in it, and think that switching camera systems will make their actual photography better, at this level, that's pretty much crap. Pretty much.

... there are those who deem part of a photo being good, having 12% more or less grain, and being able to zoom in a certain % more on a monitor. Bravo! Haha.

While these wanna-be lab rats scurry around pointing at charts and banging their heads against keyboards, there are a bunch of us shooting every day, doing what we love, and never making excuses because of our equipment.

+1 Especially now where the digital technology is starting to mature so there will be little improvement for your average shooter in the immediate future - just gentle improvements

It would be helpful if those folks would follow with comments such as "I will frequently depend on <this feature> because..." or, "I sold everything switched brands , and I make so much more money now that I can pay for my new investment in less than 50 years."

[V8Beast]

While these wanna-be lab rats scurry around pointing at charts and banging their heads against keyboards, there are a bunch of us shooting every day, doing what we love, and never making excuses because of our equipment.

This is a tough point to get across. I think part of the appeal of photography for certain people is the technology behind it. Others purchase new gear begrudgingly, only when they have to. The difference between the two camps is quite staggering. Many pros that I know aren't even aware when a new model comes out, and continue producing exceptional work with old gear. They're just now learning that there's a new 5D on the market. I have two buddies that have been using their 1DsII's professionally for 7 years now. These are extreme examples, but it does happen.

The 5DIII is the first new camera I've purchased since 2005. It's been all used stuff since then. Honestly, part of the reason why is because I don't like spending the money, and secondly, with many of my colleagues creating incredible images with old gear, I don't want to be the guy with superior equipment that comes home with inferior results Now that I have the newer equipment, the pressure is on to up my game and justify my purchase

[awinphoto]

Review

http://www.crisislab.com/index.php?section=1

Fail to get the point he's trying what he's trying to figure out on the last 2 tests... lost me there and lost my respect. 

[cpsico]

I still love my 5d mark II,What I am dying to have is the revised 24-70L II ! I do like the versatility of the updated 5d but I need to see more real world images before that purchase

[Vamp898]

The test is completely useless because you compare 36MP to 24MP.

If you downscale the 36MP to 24MP, the D800 have less noise than the 5D Mark III

I tested this a very lot of times and in RAW and in JPEG the D800 have visible less noise if you downscale the image to the 5D Mark III size.

So you have the choose, better noise than the 5D Mark III or higher resolution than the 5D Mark III. Whatever you choose, you are better than with a 5D Mark III

and dont forget the lower price. In the end (and after _very_ lot of tests) im very lucky that i sold all my Canon stuff.

If you dont believe it, just go to dpreview, download the RAW Images at ISO 25´000 for 5D Mark III and D800 (studio samples made at same conditions)

than compare both at 100% (D800 have more noise but _much_ higher resolution and so even with the higher noise, much more details)

than downscale the D800 to the 5D Mark III size and again you have less noise an much more details.

So just get it yourself, happy downscaling

I really didnt found _any_ reason to ""upgrade"" to the 5D Mark III

If you have a 5D Mark II, the difference never worth the price, if you dont have the camera, you get much more for a lower price at Nikon.

[Dylan]

Have fun taking your 75mb file and downsizing it to reach the noise level of another camera. When I see people like Ken Rockwell stating that "if Canon could make a 36mp camera, they would have" It makes me wonder how they could state such a thing. Canon was the first to make a 120 megapixel 29.2 x 20.2mm APS-H CMOS sensor and also the first to make the worlds largest CMOS sensor at 202 x 205.  I think that proves that Canon is more than capable of putting out a FF 36mp sensor. They chose the balance of the 5D3 because it was a versatile (and more practical) camera. I'm impressed with the D800 and especially at the price point, but I would bet that 90% of the people buying it don't need that much resolution. So you have to choose, do I really need that much resolution or do take 36mp pictures that aren't necessary and be forced to use them to get good low light performance.