I have not seen anyone discuss this review:
While he does not outright declare a winner - I think he prefers the 5d Mk3 followed by the D4.
really? I thought he didn't like the D4 AT ALL and preferred the D800 over all of them with the mosaic engineering filter because of the unnaceptably soft output of the 5DIII. I guess the fact it is hard to say which he liked best speaks to be impartial tone of the review. which is how it should be
I feel that if you are willing to sharpen in post, the 5D3 wins hands down
but sharpening doesn't bring resolution which is lacking, how is this winning hands down? If anything it sounds as lame as having to noise reduce the D800 footage. That's not "hands down" winning anything
that's more like making lemonade out of lemons which was Bloom's point all along.
Basically like we know, the 5D3 is still the killer Video DSLR to beat.
The D800 comes close but is let down by Moire and AA issues and the D4 has been crippled for some reason (technically it should have done better than the D800).
the problem is that the killer dslr doesn't even had 4:2:2 output and the codecs fall appart easily with motion, and additionally it's Full1080p mode doesn't resolve detail to be called true 1080. this makes the D800 the better "killer" IMO for a lot of applications. Moire/AA aren't a problem with the D800 unless you are shooting horizontal patterns, and even then you can opt for the mosaic engineering filter when that is a problem. On the canon side, softness is there unless you take the one way street of removing the OLP filter and there is absolutely no way to get 4:2:2 color or higher bitrates to address motion/compression artifacts present in all 5DIII footage. If you remove the OLP to increase detail, then you can't put it back on easily, and become prone to IR artifacts which then require even more correction or additional IR filters. Contrast that to the mosaic AA filter can be removed anytime in seconds and does not void your warranty. Given as 5DmkII's had significant worse moire than the D800 (as Bloom also confirms) I also have to question the real impact of moire when we have such great 5DmkII footage being used in high budget films all the time. I have shot a lot of D800 video so far and have seen far less issues than with the 5DmkII and the perveived resolution is much better than sharpened 5DIII outputs. So I'm just not seeing a problem here, literally.
so I'll dissagree that the 5D3 is the video DSLR to beat because it clearly lags in critical areas like image quality in full HD (it is more like upsampled 720p at best as mentioned by eoshd.com) and its innability to record to prores with a recorder in 4:2:2 color or better which is a non starter for post procesing. Both issues were ok in 2007 but the expectations are much higher now and the "DSLR to beat" should not suffer/lack such key aspects if it was really the one to beat. So IMO neither the D800/5DIII can really claim victory when you're having to work around problems that shouldn't be there if they were the cream of the crop.
In the end this round goes to canon for video but Nikon for stills
I think that is the case ONLY for low light filming which the 5DIII does a great job (although it will likely get blown out the water by the 1Dx). But for artifical light or daytime shooting, I can't think of a single reason why one would opt for the soft look of the 5DmkIII footage over the crisper 4:2:2 high bitrate option of the D800. shooting wildlife and detailed scenes, or even high motion scenes of anything, are just ruined with the 5DIII unless you really shoot in dark places where the benefits of the D800 are offset by the noise. In particular, scenes with lots of motion fall appart with both camera's built in codecs which make the HDMI+external recorder the only solution. The mosaic filter, like on the 5DmkII makes for a more practical solution than sacrificing detail permanently. IMO.
Sharpening simply isn't going to bring detail that is gone and as Bloom says, it just isn't ideal. Neither is the filter but as he says, neither camera can do it all at this point (D800 image quality and resolution with 5DmkIII high ISO).
So calling either a "winner" is like saying the hammer is a winner over the screwdriver. total nonsense. I can both think of scenarios where one is clearly a better tool than the other. So the fact is that ther is no "DSLR to beat" yet for video because they all suck at something badly
I didn't think he liked the D4 at all. I think he slightly preferred the 5D3 but also liked the D800 because it was sharper, 5D3 is kinda soft although it has no aliasing/moire and much better SNR.
that's my take too. The soft output of the 5DIII and lack of uncompressed clean output are the main two things keeping it from winning over the rivals. The need for the mosaic filter is a shame on the D800 because it was otherwise perfect. And the D4 clearly blows the 5DIII out of the water in low light but its even softer output rules it out.
what a shame really and here is where I agree with Philip. Why can't these companies get it right.