After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?

[gmrza]

Canon loyalists saying resolution is bad?!?  Heresy.  The Canon party line is that more megapixels are good...or at least, that was the party line until Canon changed their strategy.  Regardless, the fact is that more - or less - megapixels aren't inherently bad or good.  Increased resolution has consequences, IMO mostly good, but some less so.

what is getting glossed over is that as resolutions rise, we are getting into the territory of diminishing returns.  I think the DPReview review was very careful to clear about the lengths you need to go to in order to reap the full benefit of the resolution of the D800.  for those who are making a living out of landscapes, that is not an issue, as they will have the lenses and tripods and understand the technique required to get it all to come together.

For those who are not prepared to invest in good glass, the resolution starts to become academic.

The argument about whether a 5D3 is better or a D800 is better is a little like arguing about whether a Range Rover is better than a Porsche 911.  Granted, either will get you from A to B, but each has its own strengths and weaknesses which make it more appropriate for a particular task.  Thus the 5D3 may well be a better wedding shooter's camera, while the D800 may be better for landscapes.  Those in the market for a camera need to decide what their requirement is, and buy accordingly.
I am sure to take some flames for this, but for a broad section of the market, the differences between the 5D3 and the D800 are probably academic, and there will be no appreciable benefit going either way - provided you have some degree of skill, you will still take great photos.

For me, the decision is mainly driven by my wife's needs - for events, she really only starts shooting at ISO800.  For large jobs that involve lots of images and little to no chance of large prints, SRAW is a must have.  Realistically, given our investment in Canon glass, we are unlikely to buy a Nikon.  For events, more fps is better.  On a balance, the 5D3 will be the "easier" choice.  There is no religion in it however.  If you can't produce great images with either camera, then probably photography is not your thing.

[dilbert]

The problem I have with buying further Canon photography equipment is that there would appear to be no demonstration from Canon that they are doing anything to make future cameras perform better.

Look at the evolution from the D700 to the D800. Compare that to the 5D to 5D2 to 5D3. In one jump, Nikon has done more than Canon to advance their camera than Canon has in two.

That is the issue that I see. And for me it suggests that if Canon do not keep up in advancing their technology that they will eventually fall behind and exit.

[AmbientLight]

That is simply not true. Just take an honest look at the 5D Mark II and Mark III. If you cannot notice the improvements in autofocus performance and even in camera build quality you are missing something for sure. That is not a minor upgrade.

[dilbert]

That is simply not true. Just take an honest look at the 5D Mark II and Mark III. If you cannot notice the improvements in autofocus performance and even in camera build quality you are missing something for sure. That is not a minor upgrade.

If they hadn't of fixed the autofocus then nobody would have bought the new camera. Simple as that. So Canon did the minimum required.

[neuroanatomist]

Look at the evolution from the D700 to the D800. Compare that to the 5D to 5D2 to 5D3. In one jump, Nikon has done more than Canon to advance their camera than Canon has in two.

"More" as defined by megapixels alone?

How are the D700 to D800 vs. 5D to 5DII different?  Ok, the 5DII nearly doubled the MP of it's predecessor, whereas the D800 triples it.  But those two 'evolutions' are primarily a change to one - and only one - aspect of the camera.  Both updates add video. 

I'm pretty familiar with the 5D to 5DII changes, and other than the I admit that I am less familiar with other D700 to D800 changes - can you list some of them that would be significant?

IMO, the D700 to D800 vs. 5D to 5DII are pretty much equivalent updates, whereas the 5DII to 5DIII is more of a revolution, at least compared to most Canon updates.

[jaduffy007]

Canon loyalists saying resolution is bad?!?  Heresy.  The Canon party line is that more megapixels are good...or at least, that was the party line until Canon changed their strategy.  Regardless, the fact is that more - or less - megapixels aren't inherently bad or good.  Increased resolution has consequences, IMO mostly good, but some less so.

Yep. "Party line". Canon vs Nikon...it's religion. It's politics.  Sadly, it's merely about cameras.  For Canon shooters resolution was why the 5d2 was sooo superior to the D700. Now that the D800 is out, resolution  (and I paraphrase) "may have some minor benefits for a select group of shooters, but 22MP is better overall".
Utter non-sense.  Just like when Nikon shooters said full frame sensors didn't have any significant benefits...until the D3 came out!  Then suddenly Nikon FX was the must have and crop sensors sucked.

And next year or whenever Canon releases a 40+ MP cam, overnight these forums will be filled with posts about how amazing the resolution is...and 22MP is such old tech.  It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

I'm tired of this brand war silliness.  It makes me crumpy. 

[CR Backup Admin]

I've a D800 on its way, but, I don't expect miracles.  It is going to be much more difficult to get pixel sharp images than the 5D MK II or III, so if you can't get sharp images with the 5D MK III, you are going to be really frustrated with a D800. 

I have a 7D, picked up a 1D MK IV yesterday, sold my 5D MK II and MK III, I'll likely buy a 1Dx, but thought I[d try a D800 along the way.  (I can always resell it without losing anything.)

Meanwhile, I'll play with my new toy and get it ready for a low light job next week.  i hope to be able top compare the D800 if it arrives as promised, and I can get some more capable Nikon lenses.

[jaduffy007]

I've shot a lot with a 5d2...and after 3 weeks with the D800, it isn't one iota more difficult to get sharp images.  Btw, I print LARGE.

Try a Zeiss 100 f2, 85mm 1.4G or Nikon 200mm f2 and you will be able to fool 99% into thinking it's medium format.

It's that impressive.

I've a D800 on its way, but, I don't expect miracles.  It is going to be much more difficult to get pixel sharp images than the 5D MK II or III, so if you can't get sharp images with the 5D MK III, you are going to be really frustrated with a D800. 

I have a 7D, picked up a 1D MK IV yesterday, sold my 5D MK II and MK III, I'll likely buy a 1Dx, but thought I[d try a D800 along the way.  (I can always resell it without losing anything.)

Meanwhile, I'll play with my new toy and get it ready for a low light job next week.  i hope to be able top compare the D800 if it arrives as promised, and I can get some more capable Nikon lenses.

[jaduffy007]

That is simply not true. Just take an honest look at the 5D Mark II and Mark III. If you cannot notice the improvements in autofocus performance and even in camera build quality you are missing something for sure. That is not a minor upgrade.

If they hadn't of fixed the autofocus then nobody would have bought the new camera. Simple as that. So Canon did the minimum required.

Minimum required...Yep.  Canon has been milking customers with minor upgrades for a while now.  Especially the prosumer models.  Quite annoying. 

"Minor" may be the wrong word because I don't consider the new AF a minor update, just waaay overdue...so you feel like you're simply getting what you already deserved.    And the price being charged for this overdue performance is very disappointing.  Canon shooters are being "milked" imo.  Value comes into play.  Sensors are the expensive component in a camera.  After many complaints about the AF in the original 5D, the 5d2 was announced at $2700 with the same prosumer AF (and "prosumer" is being kind).  I and many felt a mark II,  $2700 camera should have much better AF included.

I think this gets to the heart of this D800 vs 5d3 "debate".  Canon should have "fixed' the AF with 5d2, they didn't.  So when Nikon consistently puts Pro AF  in their prosumer model cams (since D300 & up), it caused me to raise an eyebrow or two.  So Canon finally provides excellent AF in a non-pro body with the 5d3...but then charges $500 more than Nikon's cam while leaving the rest of the 5d3 in more ways than not, pretty much the same as the 5d2.  Again,"milking".  I guess the 5d4 in 2015 will have great resolution (50MP), DR, etc with the same AF as 5d3.  That's the pattern.  Nikon doesn't take this approach.

[JR]

To the original post question, no I will not get the mkIII finally.  But not because of some dpreview test, instead simply based on my testing of the mkIII for a few days I concluded that for me, it was not worth the upgrade and that the 1DX might better suited.  While I love the new AF system, I was expecting more improvement in IQ over my mkII.

@scalesusa, I did try the D800 last week for the whole week-end and was very impressed with it.  My main focus was on ISO 100-400 so i did not even try the high ISO much, but decided to get one for some landscape stuff.  I am a Canon guy at hearth, but now I can very weel a scenario where I will end up with the D800 and the 1DX.  I feel they are both very complementary, more so then the 5DmkIII and the 1DX...anyway if I dont like it in the edn I can always sell back the D800 and stick with the 1dx and my 5DmkII...

[neuroanatomist]

That is simply not true. Just take an honest look at the 5D Mark II and Mark III. If you cannot notice the improvements in autofocus performance and even in camera build quality you are missing something for sure. That is not a minor upgrade.

If they hadn't of fixed the autofocus then nobody would have bought the new camera. Simple as that. So Canon did the minimum required.

Minimum required...Yep.  Canon has been milking customers with minor upgrades for a while now.  Especially the prosumer models.  Quite annoying. 

Given past history, Canon could have put a 7D-like AF system (or even a 60D-like one) and it would have been an upgrade. Instead, they gave it 1-series AF, something they haven't done in a lesser body since film cameras. Plus a 50% increase in fps, dual card slots, better weather sealing, etc.

Minimum?  No, not even close.

Canon shooters are being "milked" imo.  Value comes into play.  Sensors are the expensive component in a camera. 

I really don't get why people get hung up on this. It's not very relevant. Of the many factors that go into setting a price, cost of materials is one of the least important.  Revenue needed to recoup R&D based on estimated sales volume, marketing estimates of the cost the market will bear, etc., are far more important.  Consider - the D800E is the same camera as the D800, except that something has been removed from the D800E...so, why is it more expensive?

[YellowJersey]

You know what? I think the D800 sensor outperforms the 5D3. But, I'm not going to let that ruin my enjoyment of using the camera. Sure, its sensor isn't as good as the D800, but it's still a hell of a camera (a vast improvement from my 5D1) and I don't regret buying it. Just because the 5D3's sensor isn't as good doesn't mean the 5D3 is a shitty camera. So I tip my hat in congratulations to Nikon for their success and for raising the bar.

[woodymirag]

After reading many of the posts here, I get the feeling that most of you didn't actually sit down and read through the 25 sections of dpreview.com's very detailed analysis. It seemed very objective, and after reading nearly every word (as opposed to skipping to the conclusion), I came away with a different take: the reviewers like both the 5DIII and the D800 a lot. They haven't posted their formal review of the 5DIII, but it's obvious that it's going to be well received. I bet it will be within a couple points of the D800 when all is said and done.

You all should take a look at this one particular section of their review (particularly Overall Image Quality, paragraphs 2 and 3):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/23

They specifically point out a few things about the resolution:

1. To get the most out of the sensor, you need impecable technique, an excellent tripod, a cable release, shoot with mirror lockup, and generally plan on higher shutter speeds. Honestly, I'm not good enough at photography (nor do I want to use a tripod or high shutter speeds all the time) to attain medium format results. I bet most of the strident posters on this forum are equally mediocre with their technique as I am. Sure, the D800 does well without perfect equipment and form, but not at the incredible resolutions people seem to think they will get. That means you often have 70MB files that aren't really getting you the sharpness you pretend will magically appear.

2. High end glass matters significantly with the D800. I don't have the cash to have all my lenses be multi-thousands of dollars each.

It's the Internet, folks. Anyone can say anything, but I think dpreview's reviews are pretty credible (more thorough and unbiased than any other site I have found). I think if you actually read through the whole thing and analyze the comparison images on resolution, noise, high ISO, etc., you will come away thinking, "Huh. Both of those cameras are pretty darn good, and not really that different."

Woody

[dilbert]

That is simply not true. Just take an honest look at the 5D Mark II and Mark III. If you cannot notice the improvements in autofocus performance and even in camera build quality you are missing something for sure. That is not a minor upgrade.

If they hadn't of fixed the autofocus then nobody would have bought the new camera. Simple as that. So Canon did the minimum required.

Minimum required...Yep.  Canon has been milking customers with minor upgrades for a while now.  Especially the prosumer models.  Quite annoying. 

Given past history, Canon could have put a 7D-like AF system (or even a 60D-like one) and it would have been an upgrade. Instead, they gave it 1-series AF, something they haven't done in a lesser body since film cameras. Plus a 50% increase in fps, dual card slots, better weather sealing, etc.

Minimum?  No, not even close.

If the 5DIII had lesser AF capability than the 7D, Canon would have been slammed. The 7D set the minimum level for the 5DIII AF.

Consider that most photographers will protect themselves from the elements before the weather sealing of the camera comes into play. And sorry, I don't consider dual card slots a feature that is worth buying a camera for or not for. Similarly, if you want good fps then you buy 1-series. Or maybe I should say that the increase in fps could have been missing and it would make little difference to most people.

[KKCFamilyman]

After reading many of the posts here, I get the feeling that most of you didn't actually sit down and read through the 25 sections of dpreview.com's very detailed analysis. It seemed very objective, and after reading nearly every word (as opposed to skipping to the conclusion), I came away with a different take: the reviewers like both the 5DIII and the D800 a lot. They haven't posted their formal review of the 5DIII, but it's obvious that it's going to be well received. I bet it will be within a couple points of the D800 when all is said and done.

You all should take a look at this one particular section of their review (particularly Overall Image Quality, paragraphs 2 and 3):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/23

They specifically point out a few things about the resolution:

1. To get the most out of the sensor, you need impecable technique, an excellent tripod, a cable release, shoot with mirror lockup, and generally plan on higher shutter speeds. Honestly, I'm not good enough at photography (nor do I want to use a tripod or high shutter speeds all the time) to attain medium format results. I bet most of the strident posters on this forum are equally mediocre with their technique as I am. Sure, the D800 does well without perfect equipment and form, but not at the incredible resolutions people seem to think they will get. That means you often have 70MB files that aren't really getting you the sharpness you pretend will magically appear.

2. High end glass matters significantly with the D800. I don't have the cash to have all my lenses be multi-thousands of dollars each.

It's the Internet, folks. Anyone can say anything, but I think dpreview's reviews are pretty credible (more thorough and unbiased than any other site I have found). I think if you actually read through the whole thing and analyze the comparison images on resolution, noise, high ISO, etc., you will come away thinking, "Huh. Both of those cameras are pretty darn good, and not really that different."

Woody

Yeah I was just curious other opinions. I got my 5d3 for a steal and it works well. I'm sure the sharpness is just technique. I just need to figure out where to add from the kit lens. 50mm 1.4 or 70-200 f4 is and wait to see what primes are announced?