One area the 5D3 beats the D800...

[Wrathwilde]

It seems the 5D3 beats the D800 (and the 5D2) in it's anti-aliasing. You'll notice the 5D3 image is just about perfect, the 5D2, D800 and the A900 all show problems, phantom vertical or horizontal lines that seem to cut through the pattern. Red arrows show the problem areas. 

 The image is from DPR's RAW image comparisons. It's not quite visible on the D800 at the reduced resolution on this site, however if you download the image you should be able to see it clearer at full size. 

 You can also go to DPR's page here and move the selected area to the pinwheel directly below the + in the center of the frame. You can of course compare how other cameras perform against the 5D3 on this same test.

[awinphoto]

[sarcasm]No no no dont bother showing people how the 5d3 is BETTER than the D800, people just dont want to hear it, they just want to whine and complain and flame....  [/sarcasm]

Cool indeed

[iso79]

Also beats the D800 at AF, AWB, FPS without needing a grip, ergonomics among other things.

[AmbientLight]

Many thanks to DP Review for doing some really useful testing.

[V8Beast]

Outside of what DxO tests, I didn't know there were any other metrics relevant to photography?

[AmbientLight]

Oh, come on. Why did you mention DXO in this thread? 

[V8Beast]

Oh, come on. Why did you mention DXO in this thread? 

Because they are the end-all, be-all arbiters of image quality. When you submit images to a client, they run them through a gamut of DxO tests before determining whether or not they like your work. Otherwise, how could anyone judge the quality of something as subjective as art ? 

[helpful]

Betcha this is why Canon went with a stronger AA filter.

[AmbientLight]

@V8Beast: I only wrote that because of the other thread, where posters either enjoy complaining about DXO blatantly manipulating test results or being blind believers in whatever results DXO reports, as if this was any kind of rational behaviour.

[peederj]

That doesn't look like aliasing, that looks like entire lines or columns are either being skipped or offset from one another. Which could be a problem in the sensor or the card or the processing....?

[Jettatore]

The images I've seen so far from samples and reviews online of the 5D Mark III zoomed in past 100% to the D800 at 100% look as good or better when ISO noise and tonality is considered.  But this is so minute it's not worth considering, there is no real world advantage that I can see.  If you want to see a real world advantage to having a higher resolution image, check this out:  http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Select-Download-Server.aspx?Item=722c6f07-891b-4edb-b307-54bb3d2f7bfd&Language=2776733f-13f6-4887-ba49-d4a9168a79d0&RDR=0  Never mind, there old sample was easier to open, this thing is a mess of weird RAW files I know nothing about, the older style sample was a massive 120MB .tif file that looked utterly stunning, this must be samples for people who are familiar with Phase One file formats, not for casual onlookers.

5D has awesome ISO from what I've seen in samples (appears at least very easily arguablly a bit better than D800 but I don't think it will lead to any advantage in most situations).  The camera shoots faster and doesn't suffer a buffer problem after shooting a large burst, so that is a definite real world advantage.  It doesn't have a pop up flash, I actually wish it did, that can be useful, the D800 does.  There's more to consider (video/etc), but honestly, I'd be very happy with either camera but would prefer the FPS of the 5DIII and forgo what I consider an on paper only resolution advantage and the lack of a pop-up flash.  Also, the one video test I saw of the D800's clean HDMI out vs.the same D800's internal recording showed absolutely no difference in terms of quality between the two (at least on the highest res it was posted at on Vimeo), but that was just one sample, both cameras suffered a small bit moire issues on certain textures/patterns in the picture but each on in slightly different spots of the same image, lol (maybe this is because they were filmed side by side and the lighting/angle was ever so slightly different)  They looked about the same to, not absolutely amazing, but easily usable for professional work in the right hands.  For video, without knowing how they feel and the control styles, I would be equally happy with either from the samples I've seen so far but am not 100% happy with the quality of either.

My gut is telling me, after the dust settles and the rushed hype settles, Canon actually has the winner here but it is down to preference and Nikon users have nothing to really desire for other than faster FPS.  But this debate will not die until probably even well after the 5DMKIV and D900 launch.

[Wrathwilde]

@V8Beast: I only wrote that because of the other thread, where posters either enjoy complaining about DXO blatantly manipulating test results or being blind believers in whatever results DXO reports, as if this was any kind of rational behaviour.

  I'm one who believes Dxo's tests aren't biased at all. They are what they are, and they're used to help optimize DxO's software. Every test has a strict set of criteria, and the results are what they came up with while adhering to that criteria. The fact that the results are converted to a scoring system (also using a fixed formula) is public service, they are under no obligation to actually share their test results, but they do, and we should be thankful. 

  Do their results miss some features that also help improve picture quality, like Canon's stellar anti-aliasing filter, it appears so. One thing is for certain, Nikon's sensors excel in areas that most influence DxO's rating system, and seeing as how DxO's system has remained consistent over the last several generations of cameras, I don't think they're Nikon biased... if anything I would say Nikon has optimized it's sensors using DxO's criteria and equipment.

  The one other area that people often bring up to dismiss DxO's testing is the fact that Canon's 70-200 v2 scored lower than v1. I write this off to be nothing more than normal sample variations.  DxO might have received a stellar copy of the v1 lens they originally tested... that skewed it's numbers higher than the average v1 lens. They might also have received a sub par v2. They did say that v1 had only a slight edge in resolution, and that v2 handled chromatic aberration better. Frankly, I think the absence of chromatic aberration has a much bigger impact on the final quality of an image than a minuscule difference in resolving power. I think the test's were fair and accurate (on the basis of an individual copy of the lens tested). Would it get me to purchase a v1 over the v2? No. Reduced chromatic aberration is more important to me than absolute resolving power. DxO's testing is only as accurate as the individual sample they tested.

[altenae]

No camera beats another camera.

It's not a game.
It's not superman vs spiderman.

It's a tool.
And this tool from Canon or Nikon is more then most of us will ever need.

------
www.wildlife-photos.net
www.scramble.nl
www.planepix.nl

[awinphoto]

No camera beats another camera.

It's not a game.
It's not superman vs spiderman.

It's a tool.
And this tool from Canon or Nikon is more then most of us will ever need.

------
www.wildlife-photos.net
www.sscramble.nl
www.planepix.nl

+1...

[Redreflex]

Other than price?