5D3 review: If you don't own Canon, buy the Nikon D800

[Bruce Photography]

Imagine a D800 with an EF lens mount released by Canon and called 8D. What would you think about it?

I would buy it.

I'll be second.

[Wilmark]

I strongly believe that any aspiring professional photographer starting out should look to lenses FIRST than bodies when looking. Bodies represent technology so we'd be always talking about them and whats the latest. For the FL i am most interested in: general purpose - 24-105 (and the new 24-70II), Macro - 100mmf2.8L IS, General Zoom 70-200 F2.8II, Birding/nature and Sports 400, 500 and 600 IIs, Portraits and other low light F1.2 50mm and 85mm Canon RULES the competition unquestionably!! For Wide and Fish Eye apps like landscape etc, Nikon may be better. But in the vast majority of applications Nikon does not measure up, Especially the 70-200 and the telephotos, the Canadian wedding photographers really showed the superiority of canon in this area and I really love this lens it shines, and i think most of you with the F4 version really haven't a clue what your missing. This is more important than a body that will change next year.

[Razor2012]

I strongly believe that any aspiring professional photographer starting out should look to lenses FIRST than bodies when looking. Bodies represent technology so we'd be always talking about them and whats the latest. For the FL i am most interested in: general purpose - 24-105 (and the new 24-70II), Macro - 100mmf2.8L IS, General Zoom 70-200 F2.8II, Birding/nature and Sports 400, 500 and 600 IIs, Portraits and other low light F1.2 50mm and 85mm Canon RULES the competition unquestionably!! For Wide and Fish Eye apps like landscape etc, Nikon may be better. But in the vast majority of applications Nikon does not measure up, Especially the 70-200 and the telephotos, the Canadian wedding photographers really showed the superiority of canon in this area and I really love this lens it shines, and i think most of you with the F4 version really haven't a clue what your missing. This is more important than a body that will change next year.

I have to agree with you about lenses.  I would take good optics over MP any day.  I owned a Sony R-1 with Carl Zeiss glass, all I can say is that sucker was tack sharp. 

[RLPhoto]

Solid point on glass. Its the only reason I haven't switched systems yet. Canon primes are something unique and most don't have nikon equivalents.

[Zlatko]

From a local newspaper:

Verdict: ... If you are starting from scratch with nothing invested in lenses and accessories, then look at the Nikon D800. It has superior ergonomics, a more luxurious feel and higher resolution sensor, and produces uncompressed video. And it is several hundred dollars cheaper.

The D800 wouldn't be good for me because it doesn't offer a reduced raw file size option like Canon's medium Raw.  Also, I much prefer Canon's ergonomics.  Surely the judgment about ergonomics is very subjective.

[Rat]

Also, I much prefer Canon's ergonomics.  Surely the judgment about ergonomics is very subjective.

Indeed, although not as subjective as the ridiculous argument of a 'more luxurious feel'. Then, I've been told the D800 stops shooting when its buffer is full, and can't shoot again until all images have been written to the card. If that's true, bye bye Nikon ergonomics - I like a camera that I can use all the time. Of course, this too does not apply to the carefully planning studio and landscape photogs. But it does to everyone else.

uncompressed video

This again? If the newspaper lists this as an advantage, the newspaper obviously writes for professional videographers. Apart from directly feeding the video signal into a tv, there is no consumer use for this. I regularly redact photography reviews and any journalist to come up with a statement like that, had better have a serious usability case to back it up. As far as I know, there simply is no consumer grade hdmi processing equipment on the market, and there won't be anytime soon either. The copyright industry will see to that. Especially to a newbie, who should indeed look to start with cheaper stuff - if only to find out where his demands and desires are - this is a totally nonsensical argument.

Well, maybe it's a Beverly Hills newspaper. The only redeeming thing I can find is that he says to *look* at the D800, and doesn't actually state it is a better camera. Apart from that, I call bs. Sorry dilbert

[paulr]

I stumbled onto this thread and thought that as a d800 owner, I'd chime in with my strident, biassed, obnoxious thoughts

Despite not having used a 5D III, all my research suggests it's a great camera, and probably better as an all-purpose camera than the d800. I see the d800 as a camera that's capable of doing anything, but that has very specialized strengths. Those strengths happen to appeal to me: I'm a convert from large format photography (when I started doing color work I could no longer afford the film and processing, and MF digital is beyond my reach). Resolution and dynamic range are so important to me that I'll make big sacrifices for them. Shooting speed, autofocus, high ISO abilities etc. are cool, but I'm not going to make sacrifices for those. This may put me a minority among photographers, and d800 is for that minority.

Dynamic range isn't just about not knowing how to expose. If you don't control your lighting, you quickly find that the world offers way more than ten stops of range in everyday scenes. Shooting black and white 4x5 I frequently had to do N- (pull) development to get 15 or more stops at a useable range. With the d800 I get a bit over 12 without the noise becoming objectionable. This is a big deal for me in the kinds of urban landscapes and unlit interiors that I do. For the many photographers who control their lighting or shoot in lower contrast settings, this ability may be completely unimportant. For me the 2+ stops advantage over the 5D is worth more than the resolution advantage (which seems to be about 14% in real world results).

If I depended on AF, shooting speed, video, or if I did massive volumes of work and didn't want to deal with file sizes that are often gratuitously large, the 5D would be much more attractive. It also fits my hands better (based on picking it up at the store) but my camera stays on a tripod almost all the time. I suspect that if you shoot hand-held, the pixel difference will be very hard to discern.

Justsomeolddude pretty much nailed it. These are different cameras ideally suited for different markets. The annoying thing for Nikon users is that Nikon currently doesn't have a camera with the strengths of the 5D … just as Canon doesn't have one with the strengths of the d800. This forces a lot of apples/oranges comparisons, and green grass / fence discrepancies. It will be interesting to see how the one-upmanship progresses over the next few years.

[bkorcel]

Yep start with the lenses as those are the "eyes" of the camera.  Oh darn.  Most of the Nikon lenses are out of stock!

I strongly believe that any aspiring professional photographer starting out should look to lenses FIRST than bodies when looking. Bodies represent technology so we'd be always talking about them and whats the latest. For the FL i am most interested in: general purpose - 24-105 (and the new 24-70II), Macro - 100mmf2.8L IS, General Zoom 70-200 F2.8II, Birding/nature and Sports 400, 500 and 600 IIs, Portraits and other low light F1.2 50mm and 85mm Canon RULES the competition unquestionably!! For Wide and Fish Eye apps like landscape etc, Nikon may be better. But in the vast majority of applications Nikon does not measure up, Especially the 70-200 and the telephotos, the Canadian wedding photographers really showed the superiority of canon in this area and I really love this lens it shines, and i think most of you with the F4 version really haven't a clue what your missing. This is more important than a body that will change next year.

[Rat]

I stumbled onto this thread and thought that as a d800 owner, I'd chime in with my strident, biassed, obnoxious thoughts

I say thank you for a clear-cut usability case. Indeed, both camera's have their strengths and no-one in his right mind would doubt that the D800 is a serious piece of kit. Wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I'll happily acknowledge your shooting style requires it. Would you care to share some pictures with us?

[TrumpetPower!]

Dynamic range isn't just about not knowing how to expose. If you don't control your lighting, you quickly find that the world offers way more than ten stops of range in everyday scenes. Shooting black and white 4x5 I frequently had to do N- (pull) development to get 15 or more stops at a useable range. With the d800 I get a bit over 12 without the noise becoming objectionable. This is a big deal for me in the kinds of urban landscapes and unlit interiors that I do.

The problem I see with this is that, if the 12 stops of the 5DIII isn't enough, then the 14 stops of the D800 is unlikely to be sufficient, either...and, in any case, you'll get far superior results with even a two-exposure HDR rendering.

Now, consider that the 5DIII has an in-camera auto-HDR mode that will do a 6 frames per second bracket and even give you a not-miserable JPEG preview of the results...and the dynamic range advantage of the D800 vanishes in a flash.

That leaves the only remaining real-world advantage to the D800's dynamic range being for high-contrast scenes not suited to tripod work where you'll still have the luxury of being able to do significant amounts of post-processing...and, for the life of me, I can't think of anybody who actually shoots like that. Outdoor daytime sports published in high-end magazines? If so, good luck getting the shot in the first place, between the D800's framerate, autofocus, and Nikon's heavyweight supertelephotos....

Cheers,

b&

[Dylan777]

I went from my 5Dc to the 5D3. The 5D3 is the best camera i've ever shot with, I'd be hard pressed to believe the d800 can equal the shoot experience of the 5D3. Word on the street has the d800 joystick cannot even be programmed to move the AF point while looking thru the viewfinder! If thats true, I wouldn't want one for any serious shooting outside of a studio.

You gotta try out the 1D X. A friend of mine got his 1D X last friday....he and I went out shoot some fast cars in Pomona racetrack in CA.  All I can say is !!!AMAZING!!!. It makes my 5D III looks like a kid toy

[te4o]

5D2 vs 3 not much better ? Have you got used to the beautiful LCD, the speed, the AF? I shot one CF card full with images from my newborn over a week, when popped into the Lexar the Sandisk was somehow not readable ! Imagine my loss feeling! But I had set it to simultaneous write to both cards and easily recovered all shots from the SD with a big thanks! One week of growth between 4-6 weeks of age is like a decade between 40 and 50! It never comes back.

The noise even the low ISO noise is cleaned easier, don't know about colours - they are all manageable nowadays. But I can see if my shot is OOF, I can set AutoIso and give the camera to my 10yr old son or any stranger on the greet and be IF on a no blurry shot... I could catch jumps of kids with 6fps or do slomo video. Let's not touch the video except for those halflit evening minutes at home when you see 20000 at the lower right and don't notice it on the screen...
If you want a Sony sensor buy the RX100: mine is coming next week

[Tcapp]

I've tried to argue this point time and time again.  The 5D2 isn't as good as anything regarding the 5D3.  The 5D2 isn't a bad camera.  The 5D3 just happens to be better, at everything.

Landscape shot, tripod mounted, manually focused, ISO 100. How is the 5DIII better?

(If you say 'becuase it has one more MP', I'll scream...    )

The rear LCD is so much nicer for live view focusing.






And it has one more MP

[paulr]

The problem I see with this is that, if the 12 stops of the 5DIII isn't enough, then the 14 stops of the D800 is unlikely to be sufficient, either...and, in any case, you'll get far superior results with even a two-exposure HDR rendering.

Now, consider that the 5DIII has an in-camera auto-HDR mode that will do a 6 frames per second bracket and even give you a not-miserable JPEG preview of the results...and the dynamic range advantage of the D800 vanishes in a flash.

Well, I use HDR fairly often (not for horrible effects, but to increase DR). Unfortunately, automatically implemented HDR features aren't of interest to me in their current state. I need the raw files. I want access to the 32 bit floating point file, so I can decide on the rendering. The value of more DR is that you don't have to rely on HDR techniques as often. Sometimes HDR is not an option (even things like branches swaying in the breeze throw a wrench in the works) and it always adds a lot of time and file size overhead.

I don't agree with you that those 2 stops (2-1/2, actually) aren't of practical significance. They make an enormous difference to the work I do. What we're talking about is what range of light to dark you can capture at any given minimum standard for S/N ratio. In other words, you decide how much shadow noise you're willing to tolerate … apply that same standard to both cameras, and you'll get 2-1/2 stops more from the d800 at base ISO. That's often the difference between having to use HDR and not. I am absolutely loving having 2 stops more DR than what my previous camera offered. It's as big a deal as the added pixels, whether I'm using a tripod (which is most of the time) or not.

[TrumpetPower!]

Unfortunately, automatically implemented HDR features aren't of interest to me in their current state. I need the raw files.

That's exactly what the 5DIII does. It saves all the original RAW files plus a JPEG preview rendering in your choice of a few styles (including a not-hideous "Natural" mode that avoids excessive tone-mapping).

And, as I mentioned, it does this at six frames per second.

It's also got a pretty extensive auto-bracket mode that does the same thing but without the JPEG rendering.

b&