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

[Loswr]

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!

 

[gmrza]

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.

what is getting glossed over is that as resolutions rise, we are getting into the territory of diminishing returns. I think the DPReview review was very careful to clear about the lengths you need to go to in order to reap the full benefit of the resolution of the D800. for those who are making a living out of landscapes, that is not an issue, as they will have the lenses and tripods and understand the technique required to get it all to come together.

For those who are not prepared to invest in good glass, the resolution starts to become academic.

The argument about whether a 5D3 is better or a D800 is better is a little like arguing about whether a Range Rover is better than a Porsche 911. Granted, either will get you from A to B, but each has its own strengths and weaknesses which make it more appropriate for a particular task. Thus the 5D3 may well be a better wedding shooter's camera, while the D800 may be better for landscapes. Those in the market for a camera need to decide what their requirement is, and buy accordingly.
I am sure to take some flames for this, but for a broad section of the market, the differences between the 5D3 and the D800 are probably academic, and there will be no appreciable benefit going either way - provided you have some degree of skill, you will still take great photos.

For me, the decision is mainly driven by my wife's needs - for events, she really only starts shooting at ISO800. For large jobs that involve lots of images and little to no chance of large prints, SRAW is a must have. Realistically, given our investment in Canon glass, we are unlikely to buy a Nikon. For events, more fps is better. On a balance, the 5D3 will be the "easier" choice. There is no religion in it however. If you can't produce great images with either camera, then probably photography is not your thing.

 

[AmbientLight]

That is simply not true. Just take an honest look at the 5D Mark II and Mark III. If you cannot notice the improvements in autofocus performance and even in camera build quality you are missing something for sure. That is not a minor upgrade.

 

[Loswr]

Look at the evolution from the D700 to the D800. Compare that to the 5D to 5D2 to 5D3. In one jump, Nikon has done more than Canon to advance their camera than Canon has in two.

"More" as defined by megapixels alone?

How are the D700 to D800 vs. 5D to 5DII different? Ok, the 5DII nearly doubled the MP of it's predecessor, whereas the D800 triples it. But those two 'evolutions' are primarily a change to one - and only one - aspect of the camera. Both updates add video.

I'm pretty familiar with the 5D to 5DII changes, and other than the I admit that I am less familiar with other D700 to D800 changes - can you list some of them that would be significant?

IMO, the D700 to D800 vs. 5D to 5DII are pretty much equivalent updates, whereas the 5DII to 5DIII is more of a revolution, at least compared to most Canon updates.

 

[jaduffy007]

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.

Yep. "Party line". Canon vs Nikon...it's religion. It's politics. Sadly, it's merely about cameras. For Canon shooters resolution was why the 5d2 was sooo superior to the D700. Now that the D800 is out, resolution (and I paraphrase) "may have some minor benefits for a select group of shooters, but 22MP is better overall".
Utter non-sense. Just like when Nikon shooters said full frame sensors didn't have any significant benefits...until the D3 came out! Then suddenly Nikon FX was the must have and crop sensors sucked.

And next year or whenever Canon releases a 40+ MP cam, overnight these forums will be filled with posts about how amazing the resolution is...and 22MP is such old tech. It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

I'm tired of this brand war silliness. It makes me crumpy.

 

[Admin US West]

I've a D800 on its way, but, I don't expect miracles. It is going to be much more difficult to get pixel sharp images than the 5D MK II or III, so if you can't get sharp images with the 5D MK III, you are going to be really frustrated with a D800.

I have a 7D, picked up a 1D MK IV yesterday, sold my 5D MK II and MK III, I'll likely buy a 1Dx, but thought I[d try a D800 along the way. (I can always resell it without losing anything.)

Meanwhile, I'll play with my new toy and get it ready for a low light job next week. i hope to be able top compare the D800 if it arrives as promised, and I can get some more capable Nikon lenses.

 

[jaduffy007]

I've shot a lot with a 5d2...and after 3 weeks with the D800, it isn't one iota more difficult to get sharp images. Btw, I print LARGE.

Try a Zeiss 100 f2, 85mm 1.4G or Nikon 200mm f2 and you will be able to fool 99% into thinking it's medium format.

It's that impressive.

I've a D800 on its way, but, I don't expect miracles. It is going to be much more difficult to get pixel sharp images than the 5D MK II or III, so if you can't get sharp images with the 5D MK III, you are going to be really frustrated with a D800.

I have a 7D, picked up a 1D MK IV yesterday, sold my 5D MK II and MK III, I'll likely buy a 1Dx, but thought I[d try a D800 along the way. (I can always resell it without losing anything.)

Meanwhile, I'll play with my new toy and get it ready for a low light job next week. i hope to be able top compare the D800 if it arrives as promised, and I can get some more capable Nikon lenses.

 

[jaduffy007]

That is simply not true. Just take an honest look at the 5D Mark II and Mark III. If you cannot notice the improvements in autofocus performance and even in camera build quality you are missing something for sure. That is not a minor upgrade.

If they hadn't of fixed the autofocus then nobody would have bought the new camera. Simple as that. So Canon did the minimum required.

Minimum required...Yep. Canon has been milking customers with minor upgrades for a while now. Especially the prosumer models. Quite annoying.

"Minor" may be the wrong word because I don't consider the new AF a minor update, just waaay overdue...so you feel like you're simply getting what you already deserved. And the price being charged for this overdue performance is very disappointing. Canon shooters are being "milked" imo. Value comes into play. Sensors are the expensive component in a camera. After many complaints about the AF in the original 5D, the 5d2 was announced at $2700 with the same prosumer AF (and "prosumer" is being kind). I and many felt a mark II, $2700 camera should have much better AF included.

I think this gets to the heart of this D800 vs 5d3 "debate". Canon should have "fixed' the AF with 5d2, they didn't. So when Nikon consistently puts Pro AF in their prosumer model cams (since D300 & up), it caused me to raise an eyebrow or two. So Canon finally provides excellent AF in a non-pro body with the 5d3...but then charges $500 more than Nikon's cam while leaving the rest of the 5d3 in more ways than not, pretty much the same as the 5d2. Again,"milking". I guess the 5d4 in 2015 will have great resolution (50MP), DR, etc with the same AF as 5d3. That's the pattern. Nikon doesn't take this approach.

 

[JR]

To the original post question, no I will not get the mkIII finally. But not because of some dpreview test, instead simply based on my testing of the mkIII for a few days I concluded that for me, it was not worth the upgrade and that the 1DX might better suited. While I love the new AF system, I was expecting more improvement in IQ over my mkII.

@scalesusa, I did try the D800 last week for the whole week-end and was very impressed with it. My main focus was on ISO 100-400 so i did not even try the high ISO much, but decided to get one for some landscape stuff. I am a Canon guy at hearth, but now I can very weel a scenario where I will end up with the D800 and the 1DX. I feel they are both very complementary, more so then the 5DmkIII and the 1DX...anyway if I dont like it in the edn I can always sell back the D800 and stick with the 1dx and my 5DmkII...

 

[Loswr]

That is simply not true. Just take an honest look at the 5D Mark II and Mark III. If you cannot notice the improvements in autofocus performance and even in camera build quality you are missing something for sure. That is not a minor upgrade.

If they hadn't of fixed the autofocus then nobody would have bought the new camera. Simple as that. So Canon did the minimum required.

Minimum required...Yep. Canon has been milking customers with minor upgrades for a while now. Especially the prosumer models. Quite annoying.

Given past history, Canon could have put a 7D-like AF system (or even a 60D-like one) and it would have been an upgrade. Instead, they gave it 1-series AF, something they haven't done in a lesser body since film cameras. Plus a 50% increase in fps, dual card slots, better weather sealing, etc.

Minimum? No, not even close.

Canon shooters are being "milked" imo. Value comes into play. Sensors are the expensive component in a camera.

I really don't get why people get hung up on this. It's not very relevant. Of the many factors that go into setting a price, cost of materials is one of the least important. Revenue needed to recoup R&D based on estimated sales volume, marketing estimates of the cost the market will bear, etc., are far more important. Consider - the D800E is the same camera as the D800, except that something has been removed from the D800E...so, why is it more expensive?

 

[YellowJersey]

You know what? I think the D800 sensor outperforms the 5D3. But, I'm not going to let that ruin my enjoyment of using the camera. Sure, its sensor isn't as good as the D800, but it's still a hell of a camera (a vast improvement from my 5D1) and I don't regret buying it. Just because the 5D3's sensor isn't as good doesn't mean the 5D3 is a shitty camera. So I tip my hat in congratulations to Nikon for their success and for raising the bar.

 

[woodymirag]

After reading many of the posts here, I get the feeling that most of you didn't actually sit down and read through the 25 sections of dpreview.com's very detailed analysis. It seemed very objective, and after reading nearly every word (as opposed to skipping to the conclusion), I came away with a different take: the reviewers like both the 5DIII and the D800 a lot. They haven't posted their formal review of the 5DIII, but it's obvious that it's going to be well received. I bet it will be within a couple points of the D800 when all is said and done.

You all should take a look at this one particular section of their review (particularly Overall Image Quality, paragraphs 2 and 3):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/23

They specifically point out a few things about the resolution:

1. To get the most out of the sensor, you need impecable technique, an excellent tripod, a cable release, shoot with mirror lockup, and generally plan on higher shutter speeds. Honestly, I'm not good enough at photography (nor do I want to use a tripod or high shutter speeds all the time) to attain medium format results. I bet most of the strident posters on this forum are equally mediocre with their technique as I am. Sure, the D800 does well without perfect equipment and form, but not at the incredible resolutions people seem to think they will get. That means you often have 70MB files that aren't really getting you the sharpness you pretend will magically appear.

2. High end glass matters significantly with the D800. I don't have the cash to have all my lenses be multi-thousands of dollars each.

It's the Internet, folks. Anyone can say anything, but I think dpreview's reviews are pretty credible (more thorough and unbiased than any other site I have found). I think if you actually read through the whole thing and analyze the comparison images on resolution, noise, high ISO, etc., you will come away thinking, "Huh. Both of those cameras are pretty darn good, and not really that different."

Woody

 

[KKCFamilyman]

After reading many of the posts here, I get the feeling that most of you didn't actually sit down and read through the 25 sections of dpreview.com's very detailed analysis. It seemed very objective, and after reading nearly every word (as opposed to skipping to the conclusion), I came away with a different take: the reviewers like both the 5DIII and the D800 a lot. They haven't posted their formal review of the 5DIII, but it's obvious that it's going to be well received. I bet it will be within a couple points of the D800 when all is said and done.

You all should take a look at this one particular section of their review (particularly Overall Image Quality, paragraphs 2 and 3):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/23

They specifically point out a few things about the resolution:

1. To get the most out of the sensor, you need impecable technique, an excellent tripod, a cable release, shoot with mirror lockup, and generally plan on higher shutter speeds. Honestly, I'm not good enough at photography (nor do I want to use a tripod or high shutter speeds all the time) to attain medium format results. I bet most of the strident posters on this forum are equally mediocre with their technique as I am. Sure, the D800 does well without perfect equipment and form, but not at the incredible resolutions people seem to think they will get. That means you often have 70MB files that aren't really getting you the sharpness you pretend will magically appear.

2. High end glass matters significantly with the D800. I don't have the cash to have all my lenses be multi-thousands of dollars each.

It's the Internet, folks. Anyone can say anything, but I think dpreview's reviews are pretty credible (more thorough and unbiased than any other site I have found). I think if you actually read through the whole thing and analyze the comparison images on resolution, noise, high ISO, etc., you will come away thinking, "Huh. Both of those cameras are pretty darn good, and not really that different."

Woody

Yeah I was just curious other opinions. I got my 5d3 for a steal and it works well. I'm sure the sharpness is just technique. I just need to figure out where to add from the kit lens. 50mm 1.4 or 70-200 f4 is and wait to see what primes are announced?

 

[llcanon]

I used to make purchase decisions based on these academic type reviews or comparisons, but not any more. Just look at the photos we took and honestly tell ourselves how many pictures were bad due to lack of skills vs not using the top-of-the-line equipment: out of focus, poor lighting, bad composition, camera shake, lack of content, etc. you can have the world's best sensor and best lens, but you are not the best photographer because of these but because your images have captured others' heart and mind. Please don't be agonized by these comparisons. Spend more time using what you have. If you really feel being a D800 shooter can make you a better photographer than being a 5D3 shooter, then by all means, get the D800.

 

[Radiating]

I purchased the 5d3 a month ago and love it but sometimes the images can be soft and the focus system tricky. I was curious how dpreview can still say that the noise is even better controlled than the 5d3. Basically they do not say in anyway the 5d3 is better except the focus system and fps but really thats not much. Any thoughts?

The images are absolutaly not soft in any way shape or form. The 5D3 is sharper than the 5D2 due to a better AA filter. This info has been confirmed by Canon.

Here's a comparison between the 5D3 and 5D2, the 5D3 is clearly sharper (5D2 on botton).

The noise of the D800, at least at high ISO is not better than the 5D3. Here is a comparison between the 5D3 and D800 both at camera 6400 ISO, but at difference shutter speeds to acheive the same exposure (due to an error in the third party lens reporting the wrong aperture the D800 is shot at less then f/5.6 while the 5D3 at f/8.0, also there is an iso sensetivity difference that I'll cover later) when both are adjusted to the same percentage of noise and rendered at 36 megapixels .

(click link to view full size)

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7911181/img/Picture-Box/6400-ISO-crops.jpg

The 5D3 is on top, it clearly shows more detail.

Here is what the 18% gray card looks like (same image sharpened 500% to show detail):

The 5D3 has a finer more uniform grain of noise than the D800, which as a result means the 5D3 responds better to noise reduction, this finer more uniform grain noise has been confirmed as an intentional design decision by Canon reps, which along with an upgraded jpg processing engine deliver the cleanest possible out of camera images you'll find.

On top of all this the 5D3's ISO is actually under rated by an very substantial margin compared to the D800. At ISO 6400 the D800 is actually at ISO 4200 while the 5D3 is actually at ISO 5200. That's a 24% difference which is extreme to say the least. This is why the review is saying that the noise is less well controlled, because because before noise reduction the cameras perform similarly, yet have ISO rated differently.

Hopefully that helps clear things up.

 

[wickidwombat]

I disagree, when i tested the mk3 and mk2 side by side at ISO 100 the 5Dmk2 was ever so slightly sharper than the 5dmk3 and the mk3 clearly had a little less moire. however that said this was only really noticable at 200% crop anyway so for all intents and purposes they are near enough to being equal in real world use

 

[stevenrrmanir]

Radiating - the fanboyism and ignorance you illustrate is beyond sad. No matter how much you want to convince yourself that MKIII is worth the money... it is NOT!