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

[winoheel]

I am totally committed to Canon with lens and other Canon cameras; 50D, 5DII, 1DIV along with the 5DIII.  It is inconceiveable to me to change to another format.  It seems to me to be some knee jerk reaction to tech advances in competiting cameras that Canon competes very well against.  You are either Canon or you are not.  I do understand that some people have both which is just not for me personally.

[PhilDrinkwater]

Or of my fb friends quipped the other day something along the lines that next time he'll take the d3x to a wedding since the d800 was just uncomfortable to use.

I think the problem is that people see a camera and just see tech. However, a camera is way more than that. It's a body. Its how it feels. It's the colour and tone that are produced. It's a system of lenses. Its a system of repairing and replacing. Its being able to deliver the product and keeping your customers informed.

Will I switch to nikon? When I first saw the dr of the d800 I was impressed, but poor comfort would kill me. So would 70mb files (there's no mraw option). And most of all you'd have to prise my 50mm 1.2 out of my dead hands...

Will I buy a 5d3? I just did and I'm delighted! In fact I just discovered you can use the set button with the front dial to set iso. That's just made my day cos I change iso a lot at weddings.

The single genuine disappointment for me is the viewfinder issues with the red not being visible in good light and the dark points not being visible in poor light. That's nearly at the point of inexcusable. But I'm so happy with the camera that I'll put up with it

[jaduffy007]

The D800 is a better camera.  I'm a Canon guy and I always have been.  I'm not going to switch because Nikon wins one round.  I am also not interested in 36 MP's.  But based on most of the reviews that I have read and watched when the two cameras are put head to head, whether it's low ISO performance, Dynamic Range ect, it seems the D800 ends up on top.
However that does not mean the MKIII is not a great camera and it does do a lot of things great.  I am going to pick one up when I get the money and it doesn't bother me that the D800 is rated higher.  Do I wish the MKIII had a higher rating when I'm spending $500 more on the MKIII over the D800.  Most definitely but it won't affect me purchasing the MKIII.

The things you mention aren't always the most important factors in a camera. Why not use a IQ180 if you want the best? Answer that and you'll see why parts of your post are downright stupid.

Actually Rune, Otter's post was objective and fair-minded...unlike yours which introduces a $44,000 body into the discussion as a comparative option to the 5d3 or D800.  THAT is what I would call "stupid".

[markko]

The single genuine disappointment for me is the viewfinder issues with the red not being visible in good light and the dark points not being visible in poor light. That's nearly at the point of inexcusable. But I'm so happy with the camera that I'll put up with it

Exactly the same here That's why I was pleased to hear/see Chuck Westfall mention that they might address the issue in a future firmware. Check out his quote in this video (at 8m20s):

Canon's Chuck Westfall speaks with planet5D at NAB 2012	Small | Large

[jaduffy007]

Oh Ivar, like Otter you're being so logical and reasonable...it reveals you speak from experience ...but that isn't of value to in a discussion regarding the 5d3 vs D800....don't you get it? 

At the same shutter speed, the same sized print (or downsize of a bigger image) would NOT be different no matter the density (22MP vs 36MP).

True, in order to benefit even more from a higher density sensor, it is advisable to use higher shutter speeds in such fast action situations.

Again, a 36MP sensor is no worse recording image than a 22MP at the same shutter speed, it can only be better.

Here's a scenario for you that think they're equal in noise. When you increase pixels you also need to shorten your shutter speed to not show motion blur. I tried the D800 and I had to have at least 1/2500s to freeze a bike messenger I tried outside the shop where I work, that means going to 3200 iso whereas with the 5d3 I had iso 1250 and around 1/1000s, no motion blur on either, but I was over a full stop higher in iso , making the image, of course, more noisy and less DR (that some of you are EXTREMELY conserned about).

[Jason Beiko]

I won't switch yet....Basically I'm a Canon guy, but have been very impressed with the D800 images and think the "E" version will be an absolute stunner.  I will say that right now I am in a holding pattern WRT purchases (i.e. I will not be purchasing anymore Canon gear) until I review and see how Canon responds.  If they produce a "D800e type" camera then I will likely stay with Canon as I primarily shoot landscapes (95% of my pics are ISO 100).  If not.... then I maybe tempted to try the dark side.

[jaduffy007]

Sorry Viggo, but Ivar is right.  You are mistaken.  Canon loyalists keep trying to say resolution=bad.  Wrong.  Believe what you wish, by all means.

At the same shutter speed, the same sized print (or downsize of a bigger image) would NOT be different no matter the density (22MP vs 36MP).

True, in order to benefit even more from a higher density sensor, it is advisable to use higher shutter speeds in such fast action situations.

Again, a 36MP sensor is no worse recording image than a 22MP at the same shutter speed, it can only be better.

Here's a scenario for you that think they're equal in noise. When you increase pixels you also need to shorten your shutter speed to not show motion blur. I tried the D800 and I had to have at least 1/2500s to freeze a bike messenger I tried outside the shop where I work, that means going to 3200 iso whereas with the 5d3 I had iso 1250 and around 1/1000s, no motion blur on either, but I was over a full stop higher in iso , making the image, of course, more noisy and less DR (that some of you are EXTREMELY conserned about).

Not worse, it just shows the motion blur more than lower res. And if you crop, which I assume is one of two reasons why people want 36 mp, you still can see it better, that's a fact.

Zoom them both in to 100% crop at the same settings and it becomes obvious. It's not that 36 mp is more prone to motion blur, it's just that the higher level of detail reveals it.

And to say the 36 image is no worse than 22 at 22 is a pointless point, why would you buy a 36 to use it at 22?

Normalize res and all this, what a waste.

"oh look, the 5d3 is no better at focusing than the 5d2 when I use an f5,6 lens and aim at a completely white surface, man, Canon has failed and left it all in the hands of nikon"

[AmbientLight]

I felt compelled by this thread to visit DPREVIEW and actually read the D800 review. It makes a nice read and gives a good impression of a reasonably fair test procedure.

I don't see this as a completely positive test. If you use their comparison tool, it actually shows the much beloved, but already well aged 7D to come out ahead of the D800 in the overall score profiting from its rich feature set, its good speed and autofocus system. If as I expect the 5D Mark III should get a higher overall score compared to the 7D, it should beat the D800 with a still higher rating.

Regarding the resolution debate I believe we are having too many visitors from the Nikon camp. Having for years been limited mostly to 12 MP people may have a hard time accepting higher resolutions, but I think this discussion is nonsensical for Canon shooters. To me resolutions in about the 18-22 MP range are quite fine, but the option for more is certainly nothing bad. What is a real problem with the D800 is the slow frame rate. That is at least an issue for me.

[jaduffy007]

I won't switch yet....Basically I'm a Canon guy, but have been very impressed with the D800 images and think the "E" version will be an absolute stunner.  I will say that right now I am in a holding pattern WRT purchases (i.e. I will not be purchasing anymore Canon gear) until I review and see how Canon responds.  If they produce a "D800e type" camera then I will likely stay with Canon as I primarily shoot landscapes (95% of my pics are ISO 100).  If not.... then I maybe tempted to try the dark side.

95% landscape??  IMO, the D800 E is an obvious choice if you're willing to switch systems.  I can't see how Canon markets a high MP, AA filterless camera against the $3500 5d3.  $4500? No thank you.

[V8Beast]

I think the problem is that people see a camera and just see tech. However, a camera is way more than that. It's a body. Its how it feels. It's the colour and tone that are produced. It's a system of lenses. Its a system of repairing and replacing. Its being able to deliver the product and keeping your customers informed.

Will I buy a 5d3? I just did and I'm delighted! In fact I just discovered you can use the set button with the front dial to set iso. That's just made my day cos I change iso a lot at weddings.

It's funny how it's the little things that make a big difference in the field. I just realized that the ISO button on the 5DIII is indented with a raised spot in the center. That makes it very easy to located by feel, since the surrounding buttons are rounded smooth. Not having to take my eye out of the viewfinder to locate the ISO button, thereby eliminating the need to recompose and re-check focus after adjusting the ISO, is a great convenience. That's not something that will show up on a spec sheet, but the benefit of fewer missed shots and lower stress level is priceless when the action is happening "right now."

[jaduffy007]

You need higher fps? That's cool.  But if you think the 7D  compares to the D800, which you imply...you're smoking crack.

I felt compelled by this thread to visit DPREVIEW and actually read the D800 review. It makes a nice read and gives a good impression of a reasonably fair test procedure.

I don't see this as a completely positive test. If you use their comparison tool, it actually shows the much beloved, but already well aged 7D to come out ahead of the D800 in the overall score profiting from its rich feature set, its good speed and autofocus system. If as I expect the 5D Mark III should get a higher overall score compared to the 7D, it should beat the D800 with a still higher rating.

Regarding the resolution debate I believe we are having too many visitors from the Nikon camp. Having for years been limited mostly to 12 MP people may have a hard time accepting higher resolutions, but I think this discussion is nonsensical for Canon shooters. To me resolutions in about the 18-22 MP range are quite fine, but the option for more is certainly nothing bad. What is a real problem with the D800 is the slow frame rate. That is at least an issue for me.

[neuroanatomist]

At the same shutter speed, the same sized print (or downsize of a bigger image) would NOT be different no matter the density (22MP vs 36MP).

True, in order to benefit even more from a higher density sensor, it is advisable to use higher shutter speeds in such fast action situations.

Again, a 36MP sensor is no worse recording image than a 22MP at the same shutter speed, it can only be better.

I must disagree.  Subject motion blur results from a subject's projection of light onto the sensor passing over multiple sensels during the exposure time.  For a given combination of foal length, subject distance, and shutter speed, the subject will pass a fixed distance across the image circle projected by the lens onto the sensor.  If the pixel density is higher, that fixed distance will cover more pixels, resulting in greater blur.

Canon loyalists keep trying to say resolution=bad.  Wrong.  Believe what you wish, by all means.

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. 

[AmbientLight]

I didn't say that IQ is the same. I am talking only about the comparison end result. Even here the JPG quality is rated as not much better. Traditionally using a Nikon you should better shoot RAW, so that may be an effect, but I am still surprised. I expected a much higher rating given all the hype.

[jaduffy007]

I didn't say that IQ is the same. I am talking only about the comparison end result. Even here the JPG quality is rated as not much better. Traditionally using a Nikon you should better shoot RAW, so that may be an effect, but I am still surprised. I expected a much higher rating given all the hype.

Ambient....c'mon.  Did you notice the handling rating? iso charts? DR chart? Resolution rating?  Did you notice how well the D800 compared to the Pentax medium format cam???!!  And you want to say the 7D is in the same league?  All confirmed by dxo mark as well.  One of us is way, waaaay off in our reasoning.

Why is it soooo hard for people to *simply* accept that the D800 kicks ass?   Our current cameras didn't stop working, the earth still turns.  These brand identity crises that arise freak me out! 

PS: I removed "IQ" from my previous response to your post.

[PhilDrinkwater]

I think the problem is that people see a camera and just see tech. However, a camera is way more than that. It's a body. Its how it feels. It's the colour and tone that are produced. It's a system of lenses. Its a system of repairing and replacing. Its being able to deliver the product and keeping your customers informed.

Will I buy a 5d3? I just did and I'm delighted! In fact I just discovered you can use the set button with the front dial to set iso. That's just made my day cos I change iso a lot at weddings.

It's funny how it's the little things that make a big difference in the field. I just realized that the ISO button on the 5DIII is indented with a raised spot in the center. That makes it very easy to located by feel, since the surrounding buttons are rounded smooth. Not having to take my eye out of the viewfinder to locate the ISO button, thereby eliminating the need to recompose and re-check focus after adjusting the ISO, is a great convenience. That's not something that will show up on a spec sheet, but the benefit of fewer missed shots and lower stress level is priceless when the action is happening "right now."

Yes I spotted that too you're right - the little things can make a big difference in the field - especially if you need to shoot fast.... you need all the help you can get!