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

[seekn]

I upgraded from a Rebel t1i to 5D 3, here is my personal view.

Is it worth 3.5 large? No.

I am not going to bother comparing it to my rebel because that is just a waste of time, 5d3 is targeted at different people. But I might as well compare it to D800 since that camera is meant to go head to head against the 5d3.

While D800 and 5D3 go neck to neck in DR and features as the most reviewers are finding out, I don't see why one costs $500 more than the other, while not being better.

So simple as that, it's not worth 3.5 large, but if it had the same price as D800, yes it would be worth it.

With that said, I definitely don't regret buying a 5D3 over D800, because for me, the primary deal breaker was the glass, not the body. Having shot with Canon's 70-200 II and Nikon's 70-20 VR II, I definitely prefer Canon's version for IQ. And although my preordered 24-70 II isn't going to be available until July, I have a feeling it will have better IQ than nikon's current 24-70.

Funny because I upgraded from T1i as well and I think it was worth the investment. Yes, it is VERY pricey however there is a huge difference in just the overall quality of the camera as a whole. Yes, maybe Canon could have improved with some things - the Ai sevo points, the relocation of the magnification button, the DR, the uncompressed video, the mp etc etc.. however taking the camera as a whole it is an impressive machine. I have been shooting pretty much non stop with it since I got it about 4 weeks ago and the pictures are fabulous. I wish sometimes the resolution was just a tad better - but the color and the "look" of the pictures SOOC can be breathtaking at times. The AF is just amazing. I shoot everything I can. Sports, portraits, landscape, events and commercial and I find that I get so many more keepers with the mark iii. I think that is really a understated strength of the mark iii, the ability to actually capture the image.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I used a pair of 5DII's from the day of launch for my professional wedding and landscape business. Previously I used a pair of 5D's. My lens list is very specific, for weddings I use either the f2.8 zoom trinity (16-35IIL/24-70L/70-200IIL) if the light is good or I run with primes if the light is low (24IIL/35L/50L/85IIL/135L) and these lenses are usually shot wide open and close to MFD to create a pleasing background blur. I used the single centre point and re-compose technique, AI one-shot and I had the fine focus screen fitted (EG-S). This technique is tricky to use but once mastered gave me faultless results. I've shot a lot of weddings in tricky light and this approach nailed the focus every time.
Now that I've migrated over to a pair of 5DIII's, I can still use that technique...in fact I'm finding those central 5 AF points are simply amazing. I'm shooting sharp and in focus images during 1st dances, which are so dark, it's all black to my eye. The camera is nailing the focus in light levels which I can't even see in and the high iso ability of this camera is nailing the exposure beautifully too.
What I gain with the 5DIII model isn't the image quality, but it's the plain and simple truth that every other aspect of this camera is massively improved over the 5DII. The build quality of the 5DIII is way way better than the 5DII or 7D. It's not far off a 1DsIII. The dual cards is a massive bonus, the 100% viewfinder is a delight to use. The built in level is great as is the 1x1 aspect crop mode. The silent mode is spookily quiet...from about 1 ft away it's effectively silent. The extra stop or so high iso ability is very nice too. My 5DIII's show practically no pattern or colour iso noise, it's remarkable.
For photojournalism / weddings there is in my opinion, the 5DIII is the best camera currently available. Bar none. Nothing else comes close, it's perfect for that role. The other great point is that it's currently the most versatile camera on the market and it nails pretty much every photographic genre in a very capable manner. I recently photographed wild red grouse who are very shy creatures. The 5DIII's AF was spectacular in AI servo.
It's fast 6fps came in very handy too.
As to the DXO marks....well, I can only guess that someone in that particualr lab is on the payroll of Nikon and their recent changes to their testing methodology now favours Nikon sensors over Canon.
The new D800 Nikon is a fantastic machine, but it is no where near the Canon 5DIII in terms of versatility and for photojournalism it's not a very good fit any more....which is bizarre considering that was the D700's strongest suit

 

[seekn]

Now that I've migrated over to a pair of 5DIII's, I can still use that technique...in fact I'm finding those central 5 AF points are simply amazing. I'm shooting sharp and in focus images during 1st dances, which are so dark, it's all black to my eye. The camera is nailing the focus in light levels which I can't even see in and the high iso ability of this camera is nailing the exposure beautifully too.

Totally agree. I do venture out into some of the lateral focal points but intuitively the 5 centers just feel so much quicker and accurate. I usually end up changing back to one of the centers and recomposing after awhile. +1 with the rest of your post too - my feelings exactly.

 

[symmar22]

Hello everyone, I am new to this forum, and I would gladly like to share a bit...Please forgive my English as I am not a native speaker. Here is the story: I started photography 28 years ago, with a good part of professional activity in it (mainly as architecture, decoration, studio photography). I made the switch from Nikon to Canon with the 5DMk2, since my experience with Nikon sensor was not very satisfying, I had a D70 that was OK for a digital beginner, but had very basic features though the pictures were quite good, I then switched to a D200 that had all the features I needed but a crappy sensor..... very disappointing. I then decided to go for the Canon 5D2 (I am no brand addict, I just use what I think is the best for my needs, but once you have a decent amount of glass, the change is not easy), since I needed the TS-E lenses to work, and Nikon Glass had some gaps at this time. Sorry for the long intro, but I think the background has some importance to explain my point of view.

The Mk2 is a good camera, since I shoot with a tripod, focus manually and know how to expose, but the AF is dating from the Jurassic era, the light metering is way behind Nikon as well as the flash exposure. I knew it since a long time, but I needed a sensor, and for this purpose it was the best for the money. I am quite happy with Canon glass as well, mainly the TS-E lenses, and the 24-105 is the perfect all around lens. But let's be honest here, the 5D3 is a disappointment; Canon just catched up with Nikon AF system and improved a bit the light and flash metering system, but Nikon is and was always master in these categories. My point is Nikon made the best cameras with not so good sensors, and Canon made the best sensors in not so good cameras. BUT it it fair to admit that things have changed, Nikon-Sony has beaten Canon on the sensor while Canon has been a bit overconfident. The 5D3 is a big improvement on the 5D2 features, but the sensor is a failure, sorry to say it, it might hurt some, but going to 21 to 22 MPX in 4 years is a shame, and aside from the high ISO, that not everyone is using, it delivers images barely better than it's predecessor. I was expecting some drawbacks from the 36MPX Nikon sensor, but the figures are here, it beats Canon everywhere. The good point with the 5D3 is that we Canon users finally have a camera with an AF system an light meter that works, it was more than time.... Nikon has it since the F801.

My guess is that Canon has seen a commercial opportunity with the video part of the 5D2, that was an unexpected success, and they declared themselves a cinema camera company. They have spend their energy in too many directions, with all the "C" cameras, without any guarantee of success since the market did not wait for them (Arri and Red are here since a long time), and doing so they lost their ability to design the best photo sensors. Nikon is leaving the problem to Sony, who did a very good job here, and can concentrate on improving PHOTO cameras.

About resolution, sorry folks but it matters for a LOT of people, do you think Hasselblad would sell cameras worth the price of a luxury car otherwise ? If people are ready to put this amount of money to get 60+MPX there is a reason. Nikon has been clever in making the D4 a "combat camera" for reporters who need speed and reliability, and the D800 for the people who don't need the speed or built features, but need resolution (landscape, architecture, studio), for the people who don't need either of these features, the D600 is coming... Marketing speaking that sounds quite reasonable, Canon has a competitor to the D4, but none to the D800. The 5D3 is a sub-1D, it worked when Nikon had nothing to compete, but it's not the case any more.

Nikon got it, the D800e is the perfect studio camera for professionals who cannot afford a Hasselblad, who need high resolution for landscape, architecture without being able to buy a digital view camera. The 5D3 is good, but is clearly more oriented for sport and action, and in my sense is more a cheaper alternative to the D4 or 1D. Since we talk money, Canon has always been a slightly cheaper alternative to Nikon that was a bit overpriced, this has changed too; the recent price increase in lenses and the ridiculous pricing of the 5D3 vs the D800 has changed the trend. The Mk3 should cost 500$ LESS than the Nikon. I was shocked as well when they released the new 24 and 28mm f2.8 fixed lenses, they kept these crappy non USM lenses for 25 years and now the new ones are worth 800$, they should cost half that amount!!! If they think they are Leica, they still have a bit of homework to do.

Putting 3.5K in the new Canon won't improve my pictures at 100 ISO, I'll just wait a few more month since I still have hope they will release a better sensor to catch up; if they don't within a year, I'll go to Nikon, the only thing preventing me to do so immediately is the money I will lose on my lenses. For now I've stopped investing in any new glass, let's wait and see.....

I'd love to have the AF, viewfinder and integrated level of the 5D3, but for me it's just not worth the price they ask for it.

Sorry guys if I am hurting you, that is not my intention, I try to be honest, I use Canon now, I used Nikon a lot in the past, my favourite toy is still my Linhof Technika; but I am a bit in trouble now, since I need more resolution and Canon doesn't seem to be able to deliver it. I have the impression they have sacrificed photography for their new cinema passion, and we customers are paying the price for it. Let's just hope they are ready to release an EOS 3DMk1 with a high resolution sensor soon, but my feeling is they have shot themselves in both feet here.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

I have the impression they have sacrificed photography for their new cinema passion, and we customers are paying the price for it. Let's just hope they are ready to release an EOS 3DMk1 with a high resolution sensor soon, but my feeling is they have shot themselves in both feet here.

This is a questionable point. I agree that it could be true, but we've actually no idea how Canons budgeting and R&D works. Did they divert money and resources away from stills ... it's a "who knows" They might have. And they might not have. Don't forget Canon is already invested in video and were before the 5d2...

On the high resolution point, there's no doubt that some people need it and some people want it (different to needing it) but the amount of people who need/want it is a lot less than the mass of photographers that *don't* need/want it.

This was proven by a nikonrumours poll where they asked their users what resolution they wanted for the d800 - 60% wanted a 16mp sensor compared to the 36mp sensor. It was shown again by a user on this site asking everyone if they wanted a high res camera and whether they'd sign a petition - again, there was a mass of people who just weren't bothered by higher res - especially when given 22MP. For me personally 22 is actually a bit much. I'd prefer 18-20.

I know it can be hard when you want something that others don't, but in the case of resolution, everything I've seen says that 16-24MP is enough for the majority.

That's not to take away that some people DO need/want higher res. I know some do, but Canon have done their research and clearly found that AF and handling is more important than resolution to the bulk of it's users. That's what they spent their R&D budget on...

I'm sure a high MP camera is coming from them though.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

For photojournalism / weddings there is in my opinion, the 5DIII is the best camera currently available. Bar none.

That was my view too, especially when you took price into account: http://www.phildweddingphotography.co.uk/index.php/2012/05/canon-5diii-for-weddings/

 

[Loswr]

5DM3 is hardly any better than the 5DM2 and DXO Mark confirms this with their test

DxOMark is scoring the sensor only, that scoring is based on reducing the image to 8 MP, and it's based on criteria and weightings that they feel are important, but not everyone may have the same needs.

While there are only minor improvements in the sensor, the 5DIII is a much better camera than the 5DII. Last time I checked, it takes more than a sensor to take a picture.

 

[Ivar]

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

I think no (single) review should force you to change systems or upgrade cameras.

That said, the D800 was exactly specs-wise what I was looking for in order to replace my dutily served 5D2. I can't say how happy I'm currently, got it just today, the battery is charging.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

5DM3 is hardly any better than the 5DM2 and DXO Mark confirms this with their test

DxOMark is scoring the sensor only, that scoring is based on reducing the image to 8 MP, and it's based on criteria and weightings that they feel are important, but not everyone may have the same needs.

While there are only minor improvements in the sensor, the 5DIII is a much better camera than the 5DII. Last time I checked, it takes more than a sensor to take a picture.

I was going to say the same, but I've become bored saying it recently...

Lenses, bodies, ergonomics, service, accessories - these are all irrelevant. It's all about the sensor apparently... :

 

[symmar22]

All about sensor ? Yes and no, I do fully agree that the 5D3 is a much better camera, than the 5D2, but isn't it logic considering the 5D2 is 4 years old ? The camera mechanics has much improved, in the same proportions the 5D2 improved over the 5D1, but I am sorry to say the sensor did not. More ISO for sure but that's about it. I am not saying it's a bad camera, but Canon seems to have given up on what made them stand out since the beginning of the digital EOS : the sensor. In good old times, my Nikon F5 had a better AF, better light metering and better TTL metering than nowadays Canons, Nikon still has the edge on all these features. The 5D3 has a good AF ? I agree, but it was more than time. I won't discuss the ergonomics, as this is a matter of preference, as are aesthetics.

Now about the sensors: in film camera days, the main difference in image quality (from a technical point of view), was decided by optics and film quality ONLY. Now film has almost disappeared, and been replaced by sensors. The struggle that before belonged to Kodak and Fuji, depends now on camera manufacturers.

Considering that lens quality is not an issue any more, since Canon and Nikon both have excellent optics, some better here or there, the major factor of image quality is the sensor. I do not deny than AF, light metering and other electronics are an added comfort, but photography resumed to it's basics is about framing and light. Lots of these improvements have led to a lowering of the technical involvement of the photographers.

Some of my best picture are made with a view camera, that doesn't even have a light meter, simply because it forces me to think about what I am doing. The only technical concern is to use the best film available as well as the best optics possible. Transposed to digital it means the best sensor possible.

I know that all the modern refinements make the camera easier and faster to use, but in lots of cases they are merely a compensation for lack of technique. I prefer a simpler camera with the best sensor than a full featured one with a bad sensor (I did not say the 5D3 had a bad sensor). This is exactly the reason that pushed me away from Nikon after more than 20 years, the D200 was the best featured camera I ever had, but the results were poor.
We are not exactly in the same situation nowadays, since Canon results are far from poor, but on the other hand if did not have a camera yet the choice would be easy.

Now if we put together the technical characteristics that matter (you can make a picture without having a dual slot card or an HDMI output), Nikon has better AF, better light metering, better flash TTL, and from now on a better sensor. Considering it's 500$ less expensive than the Canon, it's difficult to recommend the 5D3 over the D800 to someone who wants to buy his first DSLR. For the ones who are already engaged with a brand (I am with Canon), it's a more difficult choice that will depend mainly on the type of photography.

For the rest it's all about aesthetics (I prefer Canon), ergonomics (it took me some time to get used to Canon and it's not bad at all), and the force of habits (this is something not to underestimate, since it take some time to fully master such a tool).

I will leave aside the brand religion, I do not want to enter this arena, since a lot of people seems to be so hurt when they hear their brand is not always the best. I've worked with a lots of brands, but I always try to keep honest, since this is just a piece of equipment; I loved my Hasselblad 503CX, but I am the first one to admit the lenses were not as good as most Mamiya's ones, and the ergonomics were from the 19th century, but I loved the feeling of it. This is the part were passion takes over reason, since the people who worked with Mamiyas at that time had better results than me.

 

[photosites]

There are all these claims that the D800 is better than the 5D3, most attribute this to DR and resolution. So far, the DR claims have mostly been a bunch of numbers or graphs. I have yet seen any photos showing what difference that XX ev has resulted in. Not even lab photos.

As to resolution - yes, it is clearly visible in the photos. However, this statement from dpreview illustrates just how difficult it is to get that kind of resolution advantage (even in a highly controlled lab environment).

"We should note, however, that we had to work quite hard to get this amount of resolution. We used flash to eliminate any risk of blurring due to vibration, we focus-bracketed in extremely fine increments, and we used an excellent lens (the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G) at an aperture optimal for central sharpness of F4.5."

Moreover, this resolution advantage - achieved through considerable efforts - carries a price. Larger files mean less space for photos on your memory card, lower frames per second, longer upload time, longer processing time, more hard drive space required, etc...

On the other hand, the 5D3 has a faster frame per second, less moire and aliasing in video, more advanced in camera movie functions (although some professional had to remove the AA filter to achieve an acceptable resolving power), an advanced AF system from the 1D series and a free bundled RAW conversion software.

Looking at the two cameras from this perspective makes one wonder which is really the better one...

 

[Hesham]

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?

After returning my 5DM3, I almost changed camps due to all the fuzz about resolution & DR (which are true & amazing with the D800). But while waiting for 5DM3 (and D800) to show-up in-stock anywhere, I used the time to do more research and my conclusion is exactly like this one:
Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 Comparison

 

[Loswr]

Yes and no, I do fully agree that the 5D3 is a much better camera, than the 5D2, but isn't it logic considering the 5D2 is 4 years old ? The camera mechanics has much improved, in the same proportions the 5D2 improved over the 5D1

I disagree. The 5D to 5DII update was almost entirely about the sensor, in terms of the 'technical characteristics that matter' - both cameras have the same metering, same AF, 0.9 more fps (30% increase), and a major increase in MP. The 5DIII significantly improves metering, massively improves AF, there's a 54% increase in frame rate, and basically no change in the sensor.

Nikon has better AF

It does? How so?

 

[JR]

Nikon has better AF

It does? How so?

Having shot with a 5dmkiii, the D800 and the D4 in the last few weeks, i would say the new 61 point af from Canon is the better and faster af system. The nikon a system is also very amasing and works well, but the new canon one is just better ...

I both cases, they are light years ahaid of the 5d mkii !!!

 

[RLPhoto]

Yes, Because of those lovely canon primes.

 

[symmar22]

Well, I agree the AF of the 5D3 might be better than the Nikon, but don't forget that Canon was way behind in this domain till now, the 5D2 AF is simply a shame, it was time to correct it.

The same way Nikon was late with sensors, they improved dramatically here.

Don't misunderstand me here, the 5D3 would have had a sensor in the 28-32MP range, I would have bought it immediately, I'm glad Canon has finally developed a decent AF (though of little concern for me, since I focus manually most of the time), I am just disappointed they could not release such a sensor after 4 years, I don't care too much about high ISO so for me the 5D2 will do the job a bit longer.

What is more bothering me is the metering system, with or without flash that allows Nikon owners to use auto modes without even thinking about it (since the F801), Canon still has some work to do here. Once again, little concern for me since I use manual mode and studio flashes, but still a useful feature for quick outdoor shots.

The features I rave the most about the 5D is the 100% viewfinder and the integrated level, but still 3.5k is a bit too much for these features alone.

What I am just saying is that everyone is drooling when a smartphone has more pixels on it's screen, or that compact cameras are in the 18mpx range nowadays, but no one seems to find funny that a brand like Canon could not improve the resolution of its pro cameras in 4 years.

I am not complaining about the improvements on the 5D3, I am honestly criticizing the lack of novelty about the sensor, that barely evolved in 4 years, when Canon was the absolute leader in full frame sensors till now, it just seems they stopped on their way. One could have expected a camera not only with a better AF and light metering but AS WELL a better sensor.

Let them release the same camera with a 30+ mpx sensor, I'll be first to buy it, my personal opinion is the 5D3 offers little image quality improvement (aside from the high ISO) and it's a bit overpriced for what it has to offer.

I would gladly stay with Canon, just for the TS-E lenses that are irreplaceable for me; speaking of lenses and accessories, a little effort on the prices would be welcome as well, price increase has been a bit surrealistic these last years.

Once again I am not a fanboy of any brand, I just try to keep an honest critical point of view, even about the tools I use, since perfection is not part of this world.

I am just hoping that this healthy competition will lead Canon to release the big mpx sensor a lot of people are waiting for...

 

[V8Beast]

I am just hoping that this healthy competition will lead Canon to release the big mpx sensor a lot of people are waiting for...

What are you shooting that requires so much resolution? If resolution an DR are that important to you, the choice is clear: get a D800. If resolution and DR are important enough to complain about Canon's sensors, but not important enough to you to buy a D800, then it's not as important as all the whiners are making it out to be

 

[symmar22]

If only it was just a camera.... when you own about 10 lenses, making the switch is not that easy. It costs me an arm switching from Nikon to Canon years ago, you can understand I am a bit reluctant to try the adventure again...

Is it so unreasonable to wish Canon had put a few more pixels on its sensor over 4 years ?

Every brand goes the same direction, why should Canon be so wise they go the other way ?

What subject needs the resolution of a 50mpx Hasselblad ?

Why is everyone so satisfied with this sensor resolution when a few years ago they were all joking about the resolution of the D700 compared to the 5D2 ?

The fact that Canon marketing has decided 22mpx is enough doesn't mean everyone must agree.

The point to high mpx sensors is they get closer to medium format quality at a fraction of the cost, a lot of studio professionals are very happy with this kind of improvements; everyone is not shooting sports, weddings or hand held low light photography, I mean, there is room for still photography with more resolution. Nikon understood the idea, I am just sorry Canon doesn't.

That doesn't make the 5D3 a bad camera, just not exactly the one some people were expecting....

 

[V8Beast]

Is it so unreasonable to wish Canon had put a few more pixels on its sensor over 4 years ?

My guess would be that Canon's market research indicated that most 5D3 buyers were content with the 5D2's resolution. The glass might have something to do with it to. I defer to the more tech savvy folks to comment on this, but a sensor can only resolve as much as the lens in front of it, and the current L-series lineup may be inadequate in this regard.

Every brand goes the same direction, why should Canon be so wise they go the other way ?

Truthfully, the D800 is the first full-frame body to really push the megapixel limit. The megapixel war is most prevalent in the entry-level crop market, where it's more of a marketing tool than anything else.

What subject needs the resolution of a 50mpx Hasselblad ?

Lots of subjects can benefit from a 50 mp Hasselblad, but very few pro photographers make enough money with their images to justify purchasing medium format gear in order to take images of those subjects. Surely, if you make enough money with your images to own medium format gear, switching 35mm systems isn't a big deal. Plus, if you have a client that requires shooting at the resolution required from medium format, they're probably accustomed to footing the bill to rent that gear.

Why is everyone so satisfied with this sensor resolution when a few years ago they were all joking about the resolution of the D700 compared to the 5D2 ?

I wasn't. I liked the D700 better. At the time, I thought the perfect camera would be a D700 with a tad more resolution, and that's pretty much what Canon built in the 5D3

The point to high mpx sensors is they get closer to medium format quality at a fraction of the cost, a lot of studio professionals are very happy with this kind of improvements; everyone is not shooting sports, weddings or hand held low light photography, I mean, there is room for still photography with more resolution. Nikon understood the idea, I am just sorry Canon doesn't.

IMHO, a D800 is akin to medium format like speedlites are to studio strobes. The lesser, cheaper gear can get the job done in a pinch given proper technique, with surprisingly good results at times, but to say a 35mm sensor is a legitimate replacement for medium format is a bit of a stretch.

 

[symmar22]

Thanks V8 for what I call a constructive answer an a positive debate. I admit I have no absolute knowledge, and I am always pleased when people criticize positively... the main thing being to keep an open mind

1- I agree Canon's has carefully decided the 20mpx range was the sweet spot for most of his customers, and I can understand that. For the glass, are you sure this is an absolute limiting factor here ? Do you think the current lens range can not handle more pixels ?

2 - I don't fully agree about the megapixel race; we saw the Nikon D1 as a marvel with 2 mpx, the 5D1 one as a wonder with 12 mpx, the 5D2 with 21mpx and so on. I am not saying 36mpx is so wonderful, I just think there is a bit of room ahead and the trend should continue to add resolution in the future, though at a slower pace. My guess is that few people would have complained if the mk3 would have been around 28mpx.

3/5 - I fully agree with the problematic of the medium format and the relationship with the clients budget, what I am just saying is the high res sensors can provide a quality closer (not equal) to the medium format for a much lower cost. The trend being to cut on every budget, it might be a decent alternative for some medium end work. The same way film makers were so happy with the video capacity of the 5D2 to provide high end movies for a low budget, although it doesn't play in the same category as an Arriflex...
My guess is this is what Nikon is trying to do with the D800E.

4 - I agree as well the D700 was almost the perfect camera, but lacked a bit of resolution, in this sense, the 5D3 is probably a much better all around camera. Nevertheless I am curious to see if they'll release something else....