5d3 compared on dpreview

[K-amps]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/18

So in this review of the D800/E, the link above takes us to the ISO Noise comps. It's close on RAWS (and open to processing app) but on jpegs, the 5d3 betters the D800 overlall and in some cases even bests the D4... Sort of reverses the gloom and doom that the D800 dished out earlier on in reviews...

 

[awinphoto]

what can I say, we are all prisoners of the moment.

 

[V8Beast]

IMHO, the raw files on the D800 and 5D3 are a draw up to 1600. It's so close, I don't it's really not worth nitpicking

 

[nikkito]

5d3 looks way better than the Nikon or do i need glasses?

 

[traveller]

Everyone should realise that you need to normalise the resolution of the cameras to make a fair comparison. Or perhaps you don't... You could argue that you are interested in how the D800 looks at native resolution because the whole point of buying one is to print large. An argument in favour of more megapixels is that storage is cheap and you can always down-res when you need to up the ISO (of course, the trade off is a slower continuous burst rate).

Another interesting D800 to 5D MkIII comparison is here:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_quality.shtml]
[url]http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_quality.shtml[/url]

In particular, look at the 5D MkIII versus D800 (downscaled to 20MP) comparison images. I think that the D800 looks far superior, but this difference could be to do with the different jpeg engines (the Canon image looks a lot more contrasty). That said, you would expect a 36MP camera to look better even in downscaled images.

 

[Viggo]

Why is this at all relevant? Is it really someone out there still that doesn't know ACR can't handle the 5d3 files. Look at the jpegs, and the block 2nd from top at iso 200 and the red block. The 5d3 kills !

In raw the tables are completely turned and people still don't see that is ACR's fault? man....

Will Adobe ever have a proper support for the 5d3? Nothing has happened in a long time. Check out Reikan Focal, how long did it take them to get proper support for the 5d3?? 3 seconds or around that area.

 

[pwp]

Is it really someone out there still that doesn't know ACR can't handle the 5d3 files.
Will Adobe ever have a proper support for the 5d3?

Convert 5D3 RAW files to DNG using this version http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/category/dng and LR or ACR will recognize your files.
It's been working fine here since 7 May.

Paul Wright

 

[briansquibb]

Is it really someone out there still that doesn't know ACR can't handle the 5d3 files.
Will Adobe ever have a proper support for the 5d3?

Convert 5D3 RAW files to DNG using this version http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/category/dng and LR or ACR will recognize your files.
It's been working fine here since 7 May.

Paul Wright

Better still use DPP to process the RAW files and then convert for finishng

 

[JR]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/18

So in this review of the D800/E, the link above takes us to the ISO Noise comps. It's close on RAWS (and open to processing app) but on jpegs, the 5d3 betters the D800 overlall and in some cases even bests the D4... Sort of reverses the gloom and doom that the D800 dished out earlier on in reviews...

Actually if we look at RAW only (at least for me Jpeg are not relevant since I will only shoot RAW), until ISO 3200 the mkIII and the D4 are real close but from ISO 6400 till 51000 the D4 is better.

The mkIII does look better then the D800 with non normalized file. Now personally I never understood why reviews normalized the file size (or MP) when comparing cameras like the mkIII and the D800...until I shot with the D800 myself and was trying to compare it with my mkIII file.

When I took the same shot as the mkIII (same composition, focal lenght, exposure, etc), if I crop 100% on both file the D800 file will give me a more magnified view (much closer) which can give the impression that at higher ISO the mkIII is better. Now if instead I look at both file with the same visual magnification, the noise on the D800 is much less then at 100% crop and the output more closely match the mkIII.

They are both amazing, but I am really puzzled how Nikon manage to control noise so much with 36 MP.

 

[Ryan708]

you mean, how Sony controlled the noise. Considering nikon didnt make their own sensor.

 

[JR]

you mean, how Sony controlled the noise. Considering nikon didnt make their own sensor.

Yeah for the D800 you're right. The new 36MP seem really good. The sensor in the D4 also seem good...

 

[K-amps]

Is it really someone out there still that doesn't know ACR can't handle the 5d3 files.
Will Adobe ever have a proper support for the 5d3?

Convert 5D3 RAW files to DNG using this version http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/category/dng and LR or ACR will recognize your files.
It's been working fine here since 7 May.

Paul Wright

Better still use DPP to process the RAW files and then convert for finishng

Paul, what Viggo is alluding to is that ACR mucks up the 5d3 RAW files... makes them look flat and noisey. DPP does a much better job. The DNG converter is same as ACR6.7... The best converter so far has been the updated DPP engine for 5D3 raws. Viggo wants ACR to render his 5d3 RAW's as well as DPP does... and not have to deal with the Ancient DPP interface.

 

[briansquibb]

Is it really someone out there still that doesn't know ACR can't handle the 5d3 files.
Will Adobe ever have a proper support for the 5d3?

Convert 5D3 RAW files to DNG using this version http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/category/dng and LR or ACR will recognize your files.
It's been working fine here since 7 May.

Paul Wright

Better still use DPP to process the RAW files and then convert for finishng

Paul, what Viggo is alluding to is that ACR mucks up the 5d3 RAW files... makes them look flat and noisey. DPP does a much better job. The DNG converter is same as ACR6.7... The best converter so far has been the updated DPP engine for 5D3 raws. Viggo wants ACR to render his 5d3 RAW's as well as DPP does... and not have to deal with the Ancient DPP interface.

Nothing wrong with DPP

 

[Viggo]

Is it really someone out there still that doesn't know ACR can't handle the 5d3 files.
Will Adobe ever have a proper support for the 5d3?

Convert 5D3 RAW files to DNG using this version http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/category/dng and LR or ACR will recognize your files.
It's been working fine here since 7 May.

Paul Wright

Better still use DPP to process the RAW files and then convert for finishng

Paul, what Viggo is alluding to is that ACR mucks up the 5d3 RAW files... makes them look flat and noisey. DPP does a much better job. The DNG converter is same as ACR6.7... The best converter so far has been the updated DPP engine for 5D3 raws. Viggo wants ACR to render his 5d3 RAW's as well as DPP does... and not have to deal with the Ancient DPP interface.

Spot-on! I don't think there is anything even remotley close to how fast and intuitive Lr is. I have tried just about every other converter, and I sit and wait for hours and hours just for the file to become rendered properely everytime I touch a slider. In Lr it's instant. Pluss I have every tool and every image sitting right in front of me. If Lr doesn't get any better, I going to have to start shooting jpeg. All the other converters I have tried everything takes forever, especially if I have imported more than three pictures. Maybe I don't know how to use them, but when I have imported an image I sit and watch after zooming in for 30 seconds, and zoom out, wait another 30 seconds, touch a slider another 30 seconds to see the effect, and by the time I'm sort of happy with one image I could've gone through 500 images in Lr. Why do they feel the need to reinvent the wheel instead of just use the Lr layout.

I'm sure a lot of the converters give great results in the end, but it would take ten times longer for me than in Lr.

 

[bycostello]

i soo want the 5d3,,,, but i can soo not afford it....

 

[K-amps]

Viggo:

Unless I am doing macro needing a lot of sharpness or a high DR shot (where I need RAWs) , the jpeg off the 5D3 is pretty good at even high ISO.... and still usable with LR.

I usually shoot both raw+jpeg. The jpeg goes to the SD card and RAW to the CF card.

I load the SD card (jpegs) to LR and play around. for the most part I don't feel the need to use RAWS. But maybe on 10% shots, I need to use the RAW's which I do via DPP. So this Hybrid approach gives me speed and quality without spending all my time PP'ing.

 

[maxxevv]

If they want to 'normalize' and compare the images between two native resolutions, then they should normalize it to a resolution that's right in between the two. Then you would get a 'fairer' comparison.

Since its 22Mp and 36MP, a 'normalized' resolution of 29Mp would be a better comparison ???

 

[K-amps]

If they want to 'normalize' and compare the images between two native resolutions, then they should normalize it to a resolution that's right in between the two. Then you would get a 'fairer' comparison.

Since its 22Mp and 36MP, a 'normalized' resolution of 29Mp would be a better comparison ???

Not fair since reducing the size improves visible noise. In a real word scenario, it would come down to framing. So they should both be tested at their native resolutions with a shot that is framed similarly for both sensors.. i.e. for the D800 move away from the subject and for the 5d3 move into the subject, then show us a 100% crop from both cropped to the small of the 2 sensors. This gives us the same framing per pixel group.

This way you get pixel by pixel comparison of the same shot...