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

[bdunbar79]

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&

Exactly.  There's a slight confusion on how this is done.  Yes, you can shoot your 3 shots and have the camera produce a 4th shot that is the HDR JPEG.  But you can also do HDR in post with your 3 original RAW files.  This is the exact same thing with Multi-Exposure mode.  So to say the JPEG feature is a downside is actually wrong.  It'll give you a free JPEG of all 3 shots and if you don't like it, you can do your own HDR image in post.

[paulr]

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?

Sure, as soon as I stop playing with it and get some real work done. But no need to wait for me to get it together. People have posted raw files all over the web. That's what convinced me to stop saving for a Phase One back and to jump on the nikon waiting list.

I'd suggest checking out the nikon forum at getdpi.com … a lot of those guys are medium format digital people, so they tend to know what they're doing and aren't so quick with the hyperbole. A few of them have posted raw files, including some side by side with files from an IQ180 with Schneider glass.

[paulr]

I get the way the auto HDR works. It sounds like a perfectly good feature, but not useful to me. I don't need the jpeg preview or any in-camera processing. I wouldn't use it. And I can do auto bracketing in the d800, or most high end dslrs.

And I'm less inclined to shoot at high speed than to use a remote with the mirror locked up so I can keep vibration to a minimum.

But my real point is that as great as HDR is, there are situations where it doesn't work, it always requires more work, and it's great to be less dependent on it.

I think that saying there's no advantage to increased DR because you can combine exposures is like saying there's no advantage to more resolution because you can stitch. There's a bit of truth to it, but ... seriously. Show me someone who would choose multiple exposures and extended processing time over a single exposure.

[bdunbar79]

I get the way the auto HDR works. It sounds like a perfectly good feature, but not useful to me. I don't need the jpeg preview or any in-camera processing. I wouldn't use it. And I can do auto bracketing in the d800, or most high end dslrs.

And I'm less inclined to shoot at high speed than to use a remote with the mirror locked up so I can keep vibration to a minimum.

But my real point is that as great as HDR is, there are situations where it doesn't work, it always requires more work, and it's great to be less dependent on it.

I think that saying there's no advantage to increased DR because you can combine exposures is like saying there's no advantage to more resolution because you can stitch. There's a bit of truth to it, but ... seriously. Show me someone who would choose multiple exposures and extended processing time over a single exposure.

I actually use ME more than HDR on my 5D3.  It's more fun anyways.

[Jotho]

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&

Exactly.  There's a slight confusion on how this is done.  Yes, you can shoot your 3 shots and have the camera produce a 4th shot that is the HDR JPEG.  But you can also do HDR in post with your 3 original RAW files.  This is the exact same thing with Multi-Exposure mode.  So to say the JPEG feature is a downside is actually wrong.  It'll give you a free JPEG of all 3 shots and if you don't like it, you can do your own HDR image in post.

Agree on this, for me as an amateur and also completely new in HDR it is a good way for me to learn. I think in general some people wants to dismiss features that they think belong in the amateur space instead of actually embracing them. While learning this, I have played with it together with my children using the crazy modes you can get from it and found it opens my creativity, teaching me what can be done which leads to that I want to do it better myself, also the children will see more of the fun that one can have with cameras.

[gmrza]

Actually, no. A 20 year-old-intern would have included a "lol" somewhere and other crap. The person that wrote this review has been writing camera reviews for years for a newspaper and is old enough to have used film SLRs.

Actually, a 20 year old intern would have written something like "Men were also continuously and unnecessarily sexist, waiting for me to walk through doors and leave the elevator before them." http://printgraphics.net.au/myfiles/Farrago_5_2012/files/assets/basic-html/page27.html

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[NormanBates]

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

You get the "best way to put it" award for hitting the nail in the head in just one line.

(I think it deserves to be called 4D, but it would be weird that it would be cheaper than the 5D3)

[bkorcel]

HDR in post always appears better than the in camera function.  HOWEVER, it sure is nice to have a rough HDR preview jpg to determine if the exposures were correct and to chimp a bit.

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&

Exactly.  There's a slight confusion on how this is done.  Yes, you can shoot your 3 shots and have the camera produce a 4th shot that is the HDR JPEG.  But you can also do HDR in post with your 3 original RAW files.  This is the exact same thing with Multi-Exposure mode.  So to say the JPEG feature is a downside is actually wrong.  It'll give you a free JPEG of all 3 shots and if you don't like it, you can do your own HDR image in post.

Agree on this, for me as an amateur and also completely new in HDR it is a good way for me to learn. I think in general some people wants to dismiss features that they think belong in the amateur space instead of actually embracing them. While learning this, I have played with it together with my children using the crazy modes you can get from it and found it opens my creativity, teaching me what can be done which leads to that I want to do it better myself, also the children will see more of the fun that one can have with cameras.

[Chuck Alaimo]

From a local newspaper:

Verdict: This is a wonderful camera. If you hvae Canon lenses and want to move into the blissful realm of full-frame capture, then the 5D Mk III is for you. But the MkII is just as good for stills and costs $1600 less. If you already have a 5D Mk II (as we do), there is no pressing reason to upgrade. 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.[/u]

I have to say, I cannot take this article seriously because it starts off with a typo. Unless hvae is some weird nikonian slang. 

Above and beyond that - hasn't this issue been beaten to death already?  If you work in the studio or shoot landscapes, yes, the d800 is the clear choice in a vacuum (How many skilled landscape shooters are going into a purchase with no glass to worry about, or make enough to just absorb the cost of adding nikon glass to the bag as opposed to yard saleing the canon gear).  But if you are a wedding shooter who also does general events, portraits and landscapes on the side the mk3 is the better choice.  I know everyone likes to just bash me when I bring up the file sizes of the d800, and the lack of sRAW and mRAW, but, I have zero desire to make all the other investments I would need to maintain a good workflow and retain my shooting style.  Sorry, I i had a d800, the slow cheap CF cards won't cut it.  At a wedding you need to use the burst mode to catch certain things, how would the bride feel if you missed that special moment because your waiting for the buffer to clear?  Somehow I doubt she'd give a rats ass about 3 steps of DR.  Sorry, but sRAW and mRAW are perfectly fine for the majority of the day (and do print quite well I might say up to 12x18, and even 16x24).   I stlll think that was nikons biggest mistake with the d800, adding that little bit of flexibility would make it a great all around camera.  Without it, its a tool for landscapes and studio use where you putting more time into setting up the shot, as opposed to wedding work where your just shooting a lot.  Even if it did have sRAW and mRAW though, the D800 does lose its advantage over ISO 3200, at 3200+ the mk3 is the superior camera.

[Razor2012]

From a local newspaper:

Verdict: This is a wonderful camera. If you hvae Canon lenses and want to move into the blissful realm of full-frame capture, then the 5D Mk III is for you. But the MkII is just as good for stills and costs $1600 less. If you already have a 5D Mk II (as we do), there is no pressing reason to upgrade. 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.[/u]

I have to say, I cannot take this article seriously because it starts off with a typo. Unless hvae is some weird nikonian slang. 

Above and beyond that - hasn't this issue been beaten to death already?  If you work in the studio or shoot landscapes, yes, the d800 is the clear choice in a vacuum (How many skilled landscape shooters are going into a purchase with no glass to worry about, or make enough to just absorb the cost of adding nikon glass to the bag as opposed to yard saleing the canon gear).  But if you are a wedding shooter who also does general events, portraits and landscapes on the side the mk3 is the better choice.  I know everyone likes to just bash me when I bring up the file sizes of the d800, and the lack of sRAW and mRAW, but, I have zero desire to make all the other investments I would need to maintain a good workflow and retain my shooting style.  Sorry, I i had a d800, the slow cheap CF cards won't cut it.  At a wedding you need to use the burst mode to catch certain things, how would the bride feel if you missed that special moment because your waiting for the buffer to clear?  Somehow I doubt she'd give a rats ass about 3 steps of DR.  Sorry, but sRAW and mRAW are perfectly fine for the majority of the day (and do print quite well I might say up to 12x18, and even 16x24).   I stlll think that was nikons biggest mistake with the d800, adding that little bit of flexibility would make it a great all around camera.  Without it, its a tool for landscapes and studio use where you putting more time into setting up the shot, as opposed to wedding work where your just shooting a lot.  Even if it did have sRAW and mRAW though, the D800 does lose its advantage over ISO 3200, at 3200+ the mk3 is the superior camera.

That's the thing though, Nikon came out with something that Canon didn't have, high MP.  There's no way Nikon could of came out with a camera having high MP, great AF, high ISO & FPS at that price point.  I'm happy that Canon went the route they did, coming out with an all-around great camera.

[Aglet]

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&

Do you shoot?
Do you print?
Do you do ANY post-processing to make your print or screen image look BETTER?!?

If so, then you'd appreciate the value of the extra DR.  After all, especially when printing, you have to compress the DR of the captured scene to very limited effective DR of print media otherwise you have a very contrasty image with blocked up shadows and blown hilites.

Of course, if all you do is get your snapshots printed at the local drugstore then you'll likely never realize the benefit of a superior DR image if you don't know the value of it in post-processing.

And how is a high-contrast scene not suited to tripod work?  Do tripods melt in the summer sun?

I still like my Canon gear, especially the modern glass, but I'm ecstatic about the results I get with my modern Nikon bodies, even using 30 year old lenses on them, because the noise levels are so much cleaner at low ISO.  The more I use and compare the two camera systems, the more I see the weaknesses in Canon's noisy low ISO images, even when controlling the lighting to some extent.

Sure wish I COULD mount my Canon glass on a Nikon body tho. And I DO actually prefer Canon's ergonomics and user interface but the Nikons get me the file that make the prints that makes me smile.

[sawsedge]

If Nikon had better ergonomics, I'd have bought one years ago when I went digital.  But I have yet to find one that feels good in my hands.     

[Cali_PH]

I have to say, I cannot take this article seriously because it starts off with a typo. Unless hvae is some weird nikonian slang. 

Since it's passed on from a local newspaper, it seems more likely to me that it's a typo by the OP, no?

[Razor2012]

If Nikon had better ergonomics, I'd have bought one years ago when I went digital.  But I have yet to find one that feels good in my hands.     

Ya, I'm not sure what it is, maybe the body is too small.  I know I had the D800 in my hands and the right side (where you hold) is just not right.  There is nothing there to wrap your hand around.  It's the same with a xBox controller vs a PS one.

[bdunbar79]

Thankfully the D800 is here.  None of the photos I ever took the last 10 years made me smile until the D800.  Now photography can begin.