Canon 5d Mark III vs Nikon D800!!!

[Otter]

Now that we have a full list of specs for the 5D Mark III, which camera do you think is superior based on the spec lists? The Canon 5d Mark III or the Nikon D800. How do they measure up against each other(ie strengths and weaknesses in your opinion). I understand that you have to take a camera out into the field and shoot with it and see the Raw images to be able to fully make a choice, so this is just for arguments sake based on the released specs.

 

[Shawn_Lights]

Basing purely off of a spec list isn't too smart imo. Rather see the cameras' performance.

 

[Otter]

I understand it's not the best way to gauge a camera, but nobody will be getting their hands on a Mark III anytime soon(I think). I'm not a big tech guy so i was wondering how the two compare, on paper.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The 5D Mark III's burst rate is 150% that of the D800 (6 fps vs. 4).

Have to see high ISO performance first. I'm hopeful that for lens "reach" Canon will look to the 7D replacement.

 

[Canihaspicture]

The 5D Mark III's burst rate is 150% that of the D800 (6 fps vs. 4).

Have to see high ISO performance first. I'm hopeful that for lens "reach" Canon will look to the 7D replacement.

but that lens "reach" is better achieved through the d800 and cropping..... burst rate is understandable considering MP difference.

 

[BillyBean]

Actually, I would vote for the EOS3 over either of these. It has eye control focus, faster frames per second, and has upgradable sensor technology (also known as FILM!).

Ho hum.

 

[JR]

Purely based on spec I would say the 5DmIII will come on top. Now that we finally have a great AF system, I am hoping the ISO performance will be better then the D800. So unless you need 36MP for large print, the 5DmkIII will exceed or equal all the specs of the D800...

 

[FLOYD]

This voting is not objectively on this forum

 

[birdman]

I hate to say it, but the Nikon looks better considering price/performance. It doesn't matter to a professional anyway, as the 5d3 will be a cheap body for someone who can shoot sports.

I am an amateur, and as such love landscapes/street photography. Would like to get into doing model shoots, as well. I may keep my 5dII and eventually upgrade my d7k to the D800/D800e. The 5dii is an excellent dslr even though it's a little long in the tooth. I have never looked at a picture, other than WA taken with a 17-40L, and thought "this is not sharp enough for me!!" The 35L is a stunner coupled with this body.

I don't think the new 5d3 will be a significant upgrade in IQ for broad daylight shots. I just don't really believe it. If I needed 6FPS, 61pt AF, and other improvements I would buy it ASAP. As such, I think I will stick to my gun (5dii). It continues to serve me well. And besides shadow noise (which I can handle), it does what I need it for.
The one spec I will hate to admit that the D800 has is USB 3.0 support. Just built a brand new custom PC and it has a couple of USB 3.0 inputs. Coupled with my Seagate 2 TB 6gb/s HDD, the D800 would be a killer camera. Maybe in time I will have one. Until then, I will support Canon.

 

[pdirestajr]

Actually, I would vote for the EOS3 over either of these. It has eye control focus, faster frames per second, and has upgradable sensor technology (also known as FILM!).

Ho hum.

+1

And as scanner technology advances and drops in price, you can rescan your exposures- whereas digital is stuck in it's current technology... remember when 4 mega pixels (EOS-1D) was a big deal?

But that is a discussion for a completely different thread.

 

[dswatson83]

This is an easy one. The D800 is a Niche camera more than the Mark III based on the specs. As a result, the Mark III will beat the D800 in every area except raw resolution. If you wanted a medium format camera and want to push 30MP plus, GET THE D800! Everyone else, get the D700. If Nikon had upgraded the D700 instead of introducing a new breed of camera, the result may have been different.

 

[Maxis Gamez]

36mpx of the D800 is not necesaraly a good thing. Noise is a huge concern with that camera but we need to see both RAW's and compare. Until then.... we won't know..

I just got back from leading a 5 days bird photography tour around Florida. At times my 7D with my Canon 800mm lens was WAAAYYY too close. A full frame would have been nice but my 5D MKII is too slow for that.

Based on the current specs, the 5D MKIII is a winner and believe it or not, I can see myself using this body a lot when the subjects are close like they are here in Florida.

www.gvisions.org - Bird Photography

 

[Daniel Flather]

There's no official spec list for the 5d3.

 

[V8Beast]

It's a tough call. Strangely, the 5DIII looks like the successor to the D700, and the D800 looks like the successor to the 5DII. So, we have a slightly slower body in the D800 that's a resolution monster, and a slightly faster body in the 5DIII with lower resolution. IMHO, the wild card between the two is ISO and DR. With a 25,600 native ISO range, the 5DIII appears to have the edge on paper, but then again the 1DIV also had the same native range yet the H1 and H2 images were pretty much unusable. As always, no one will know for sure until sample images are available, especially when it comes to DR.

I have a D800 on pre-order, but am seriously thinking about putting in a pre-order for a 5DIII so I can compare both side by side before deciding which system to shoot with in the future.

 

[Rav]

Actually, I would vote for the EOS3 over either of these. It has eye control focus, faster frames per second, and has upgradable sensor technology (also known as FILM!).

+1
And as scanner technology advances and drops in price, you can rescan your exposures- whereas digital is stuck in it's current technology...

You could easily argue for the exact opposite. Analog film deteriorates over time (and development of film scanning technology has virtually stopped across the board, from Nikon to Arri), while RAWs appreciate over time with the improvement of RAW converters.

 

[psolberg]

two totally different cameras. one is for fast low light photography where a low MP count high fps is key. The other is a detail monster for landscape studio.

apples vs oranges being compared on their grape taste.

 

[TAR]

two totally different cameras. one is for fast low light photography where a low MP count high fps is key. The other is a detail monster for landscape studio.

apples vs oranges being compared on their grape taste.

There is nothing wrong in comparing these two ..we are comparing one camera vs another ..not apple vs orange ..depends on your taste , whether you are hungry for speed or resolution...you are going to vote according to that

 

[psolberg]

two totally different cameras. one is for fast low light photography where a low MP count high fps is key. The other is a detail monster for landscape studio.

apples vs oranges being compared on their grape taste.

There is nothing wrong in comparing these two ..we are comparing one camera vs another ..not apple vs orange ..depends on your taste , whether you are hungry for speed or resolution...you are going to vote according to that

high MP or not depends on your taste too

 

[Cinnamon]

two totally different cameras. one is for fast low light photography where a low MP count high fps is key. The other is a detail monster for landscape studio.

apples vs oranges being compared on their grape taste.

There is nothing wrong in comparing these two ..we are comparing one camera vs another ..not apple vs orange ..depends on your taste , whether you are hungry for speed or resolution...you are going to vote according to that

While these are two different cameras seemingly targeted towards different people based on their seemingly different features, I think the similar price and product positioning relative to the rest of the company's lineup makes the comparison legit.

While more Megapixels are great, especially for crops and large prints, I personally would go for the 5D Mark III over the Nikon D800. 20 or so megapixels is enough for my needs, and I would rather have higher ISO and a faster burst rate than more MP. While we obviously have to wait for test shots to compare and contrast - oh, and an official spec list! - I'm really looking forward to the Mark III.