Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800

[logaandm]

The in-camera JPG comparison is a valid test if you shoot JPG. I don't, I use Lightroom and RAW so I downloaded the samples from Imaging Resources and DP review and processed the RAW files. I then processed all the files identically and up sampled them to the same size as the Pentax 645D. I then printed some of the files at 13X19" to see what actually mattered. (lots of ink and paper so I didn't print all ISOs)

Resolution:

5D Mark II and 5D Mark III are virtually identical.
D800 is slightly better than the 5D.
P645D is better than the D800. The difference with the D800 is more noticeable than the difference between the D800 and the 5D.

The above results are visible both on the screen at 100% and visible on prints at 100 ISO. The sharpness results wouldn't matter if you had even minor focus error or a narrow depth of field.
Dynamic Range:

Hard to see in a well processed image or on a print, but the Pentax 645D first, then D800 then 5D Mark III at 100 ISO. At higher ISO very hard to see the differences although noise is related to dynamic range especially at higher ISO.

Noise.

5D Mark II has about 1 stop more noise than the 5D Mark III
D800 has between 1 stop and 1/2 stop more noise than the 5D Mark II

High ISO 13X19" print limit

5D Mark II ISO 6400 and ISO 12,600 in a pinch.
5D Mark II ISO 12,600 and ISO 25,200 in a pinch.
D800 ISO 6400, and ISO 12,600 isn't too bad but ISO 25,200 is pretty ugly at 13X19"

Your tolerance for noise may vary, but the relative position will probably be the same. It really doesn't matter to compare the noise up sampling or downsampling since Lightroom does a really good job of colour noise reduction. Rankings stay the same.

None of these results are surprising to me as sensor efficiency is so high almost all differences between cameras can be explained by pixel, sensor size and photon noise. It is disappointing in a way because it also means there is little room for improvement is raw pixel sensitivity left. Most advances are likely to some from processing. Another good reason to shoot RAW.

My opinion, 36 mpx probably isn't worth the extra file size and effort but it doesn't hurt all that much either. For the landscape guy the extra pixels may show up but they would be better off with medium format for more resolution. There are other improvements in IQ with Medium Format due to less enlargement needed. For Nikon users I have noticed the D4 and the D800 are a significant improvement in resolution. Canon users have had that resolution since the 1Ds Mark III.

Lower noise probably isn't worth the 5D Mark II upgrade but my opinion is that the 5D Mark III is worth the upgrade for the improved focus, better body and other stuff which Canon probably could have improved with a firmware upgrade, like better ISO features. The 5D Mark III now has all the features I really like about the Pentax K-5, except the smaller body size. The 5D Mark III is a great camera to use.


Bottom line. The 5D Mark III and the D800 have great IQ and the 5D Mark II isn't too bad. The D800 resolution can be noticed, but it isn't the same as Medium Format.

 

[gecko]

The in-camera JPG comparison is a valid test if ...

Thanks, nice summary. Very helpful.

 

[cpsico]

Careful raw processing can always yield better results at high iso's , what's done in camera can always be topped by a little photoshop talent. I always set sharpening to zero, use a good noise program, then once the image is cleaned up use a light unsharp mask. I still feel my 1d mark III pushes a little better than the 5d mark II in the shadows

 

[JR]

I had seen those test before when the article was not complete. While it looks nice for the mkIII ISO performance I dont like the fact they use in-camera JPEG for both camera tested. We need RAW test!

:-[

 

[dstppy]

What’s a guy to do while he waits for a 1D X?

Well heck Craig, that's simple: start a bunch of unfounded rumors about a mirrorless camera or a $1500 FF

Or you can just do what adamkozlowski is doing and troll on the forums ;D

 

[Noink Fanb0i]

Ah, I knew a topic like this would attract more replies from Nikon fans than Canon, just like what happens in the Canon forum at DPR, which has now become unusable because more Nikon fanboys post on the Canon forums than Canon owners . I'm especially wary of member #s here higher than my own (read: recent registrants ).

First of all, what is the point of 36MP if you have to downsize it to 22MP to get so-called "equivalent" high ISO noise IQ? This is why even DPR, rightly or wrongly, tests 100% crops from different MP cameras at its native resolution, and if you ask DPR they say that this is because "they don't do printer tests" (IOW, for them, it is silly to normalize to a common output). Most ironically, they actually now do printer tests . And thus, as early as now, I would say that the eventual DPR review would also show the same result as that on the article cited in the 1st post of this thread.

So again, those justifying the argument that "it's equivalent when downsized" should be called out, because then what about that other ability those other defenders claim 36MP allows them to do: crop and resize. Really, all their shots need to be downsized and cropped after* it has been downsized to 22MP to make it look good against its closest perceived competitor? I find that funny as a Nikon owner.

 

[DzPhotography]

LOL, comparing iso performance of a jpeg proves nothing about sensor noise ability, good jpeg processing without a question, but who buys 3,500$ camera to shoot jpeg??

i find this veri interesting, raw at iso 100
5D 3
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2598/filllight5d3crop1.jpg
Nikon 800
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/2416/filllightd3crop1.jpg

OH NO !!
Another fill light post.

Come on don't start this again.
Until now I have never needed such a fill light correction.

Gearheads vs Real World !!

And the Nikon is a D3 not a D800 :

 

[meli]

Asking whats the point of 36mp is kinda absurd;

So u're saying that If they can provide great high iso performance when downsized to their main competitor size AND still retain greater detail & DR fullsized at anything below 1600 -plus- offering them 500$ cheaper doesnt make sense. Seriously?

Actually thats whats wrong with DPR forums, its not the nikon trolls & the pissed Canon users, its the thickheaded cheerleaders that are pathetic...

Ah, I knew a topic like this would attract more replies from Nikon fans than Canon, just like what happens in the Canon forum at DPR, which has now become unusable because more Nikon fanboys post on the Canon forums than Canon owners . I'm especially wary of member #s here higher than my own (read: recent registrants ).

First of all, what is the point of 36MP if you have to downsize it to 22MP to get so-called "equivalent" high ISO noise IQ? This is why even DPR, rightly or wrongly, tests 100% crops from different MP cameras at its native resolution, and if you ask DPR they say that this is because "they don't do printer tests" (IOW, for them, it is silly to normalize to a common output). Most ironically, they actually now do printer tests . And thus, as early as now, I would say that the eventual DPR review would also show the same result as that on the article cited in the 1st post of this thread.

So again, those justifying the argument that "it's equivalent when downsized" should be called out, because then what about that other ability those other defenders claim 36MP allows them to do: crop and resize. Really, all their shots need to be downsized and cropped after* it has been downsized to 22MP to make it look good against its closest perceived competitor? I find that funny as a Nikon owner.

 

[sweetcancer]

I still like the unedited raws from 5d3 far better than those from d800. D800 has more room for pp, but the 5d3 doesn't need that much pp.

 

[bvukich]

offering them 500$ cheaper doesnt make sense.

Nikon is raising the price, there's going to be no difference.

 

[Maui5150]

I think you are missing the real point which is the Nikon D4 versus the Canon 5D MKIII.

When I upsize images from the D4 to equal the 22MP of the 5DMKIII I notice that the D4 images are softer and have more noise. I also notice the D4 is crap for detail when compared to the 5DMKIII at 22 MP...

Go figure...

The question is not D800 versus 5DMKIII, it is 5DMKIII versus the D4 and why when you upsize the D4 images to match the resolution of the 5DMKIII, the little camera that is almost half the price of the D4 has sharper and much more detailed pictures.

Go figure.

 

[EYEONE]

I'm officially bored of the 5DIII and Nikon D800 stuff. I never thought I could get bored of cameras but congratulations 'internet', you did it.

I think everyone should take a 24 hour break from Canon Rumors and Iswitchedtonikonorcanon.com and go shooting. That's where I'll be.

 

[awinphoto]

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml
I'm not saying the mk3 is not better than the 800 on noise etc. but the crop on the 800 is noticably tighter and this will make the noise look worse.
I'm a canon shooter with a 60D, and not looking to move to nikon. but if i was a big scene shooter the D800 would be a contender - LOL funds permitting.

Crop is tighter because it's at 100% view and the D800 has more resolution, hence tighter... They aren't doesnscaling to meet the 5d3... they are going head to head at native resolution.

 

[awinphoto]

Adam, i know you're getting crushed right now, and i frankly dont think you care, and rightfully so. As others said, no one camera is going to make you a better photographer, but confidence is key... For instnace, shooting a 7D over the 5d2, I know I'm going to get the shot... I got the confidence the AF can keep up whereas with the 5d2, I chimped more to check focus. Likewise how many of us got that new suit, or new dress, or new car and instantly felt more spontaneous, more in control, more solid. It's the same thing with the camera... right or wrong, mind trick or not, if you feel that you can get something with a certain key element, you will naturally be more aggressive, more daring, more on your game, whereas if that element is missing you tend to be more conservative, more nuts and bolts... Canon isn't for everybody and I applaud you for being brave enough to find a camera that will suit your needs. If that is the one element that makes you instantly better, great. With that said, I doubt any client will be able to distinguish PRINTS coming from a 5d3 and a D800 in the end.

 

[bbasiaga]

In that universe that you don't adjust the results in such a way to justify your preference.

True enough - in reality the supposed "pliability" of recent Nikon cameras' files only has value as an excuse to shoot badly and fix everything in post.

True. But it is an important feature when you like to spend your time reading specs, not developing in-camera capture skills, and then doing a lot of PP to get what you want.

I think photoshop is neat and I like some of the capabilties, but I don't like spending more time working on my photos than I do taking them. If you take the time to get properly exposed pictures in the camera, the need for PP is much less and the differences in theoretical performances of RAW files becomes much less important.
Not everyone feels this way, but I do.

-Brian

 

[awinphoto]

In that universe that you don't adjust the results in such a way to justify your preference.

True enough - in reality the supposed "pliability" of recent Nikon cameras' files only has value as an excuse to shoot badly and fix everything in post.

True. But it is an important feature when you like to spend your time reading specs, not developing in-camera capture skills, and then doing a lot of PP to get what you want.

I think photoshop is neat and I like some of the capabilties, but I don't like spending more time working on my photos than I do taking them. If you take the time to get properly exposed pictures in the camera, the need for PP is much less and the differences in theoretical performances of RAW files becomes much less important.
Not everyone feels this way, but I do.

-Brian

You'd be surprised how often i hear this sentiment from my college professional photogs... The fun is in the creative process, not in the post. Many pro's outsource the post just so they dont have to deal with it. I'm a photoshop guy but I also was trained in the film era where we HAD to get it right in camera cause if you didn't, you were screwed and film only had so much latitude in post with contrast/dodge/burn/etc... I can appreciate what some can do with photoshop but I've found that I'm getting less and less photoshop oriented and more using photoshop as a tool to fine tune the photos such as blemish removal, contrast. To me, ignoring photoshop/lightroom/post production is a big mistake, but depending on it to fix your mess ups is just as bad.

 

[Invertalon]

I'm officially bored of the 5DIII and Nikon D800 stuff. I never thought I could get bored of cameras but congratulations 'internet', you did it

+1

It is already so old... One can not mention one without the other, it is ridiculous.

I can't wait for the day it ends. I bought and love my 5D3 and care less about the D800. It is an amazing camera just like the 5D3, end of discussion. I guess the peepers have been extremely bored though, I mean, pushing files +5 EV and then making their decision based off that... Awesome. I think out of 30K+ images I have taken, if not more, none have needed that much shadow push or exposure compensation. I mean really... But I am sure I am pissing off the peepers now by saying that : Common sense is hard for them to understand I suppose... Getting your exposure right the first time and doing minor tweaking in post to bring up detail, not underexpose the hell out of it and save it by bringing it up 5 stops and complain about banding.

 

[lensla]

The in-camera JPG comparison is a valid test if you shoot JPG. I don't, I use Lightroom and RAW so I downloaded the samples from Imaging Resources and DP review and processed the RAW files. I then processed all the files identically and up sampled them to the same size as the Pentax 645D. I then printed some of the files at 13X19" to see what actually mattered. (lots of ink and paper so I didn't print all ISOs)

Resolution:

5D Mark II and 5D Mark III are virtually identical.
D800 is slightly better than the 5D.
P645D is better than the D800. The difference with the D800 is more noticeable than the difference between the D800 and the 5D.

The above results are visible both on the screen at 100% and visible on prints at 100 ISO. The sharpness results wouldn't matter if you had even minor focus error or a narrow depth of field.
Dynamic Range:

Hard to see in a well processed image or on a print, but the Pentax 645D first, then D800 then 5D Mark III at 100 ISO. At higher ISO very hard to see the differences although noise is related to dynamic range especially at higher ISO.

Noise.

5D Mark II has about 1 stop more noise than the 5D Mark III
D800 has between 1 stop and 1/2 stop more noise than the 5D Mark II

High ISO 13X19" print limit

5D Mark II ISO 6400 and ISO 12,600 in a pinch.
5D Mark II ISO 12,600 and ISO 25,200 in a pinch.
D800 ISO 6400, and ISO 12,600 isn't too bad but ISO 25,200 is pretty ugly at 13X19"

Your tolerance for noise may vary, but the relative position will probably be the same. It really doesn't matter to compare the noise up sampling or downsampling since Lightroom does a really good job of colour noise reduction. Rankings stay the same.

None of these results are surprising to me as sensor efficiency is so high almost all differences between cameras can be explained by pixel, sensor size and photon noise. It is disappointing in a way because it also means there is little room for improvement is raw pixel sensitivity left. Most advances are likely to some from processing. Another good reason to shoot RAW.

My opinion, 36 mpx probably isn't worth the extra file size and effort but it doesn't hurt all that much either. For the landscape guy the extra pixels may show up but they would be better off with medium format for more resolution. There are other improvements in IQ with Medium Format due to less enlargement needed. For Nikon users I have noticed the D4 and the D800 are a significant improvement in resolution. Canon users have had that resolution since the 1Ds Mark III.

Lower noise probably isn't worth the 5D Mark II upgrade but my opinion is that the 5D Mark III is worth the upgrade for the improved focus, better body and other stuff which Canon probably could have improved with a firmware upgrade, like better ISO features. The 5D Mark III now has all the features I really like about the Pentax K-5, except the smaller body size. The 5D Mark III is a great camera to use.


Bottom line. The 5D Mark III and the D800 have great IQ and the 5D Mark II isn't too bad. The D800 resolution can be noticed, but it isn't the same as Medium Format.

Well you sorta contradict yourself there. You say the D800 works well up to 6400, the same as the 5D2, but previously mention that it has 0.5-1 stop worse noise than the 5D2.

In the real world, with downsampling and noise correction, which most any pro would do, the difference between the 5D3 and D800 is maybe a half stop. Look at the downsampled images yourself. It's as clear as day to anyone without an agenda.

I know it's difficult to swallow the idea that a sensor with that much resolution can close in on the performance of a camera like the 5D3 that has photosites the size of parking lots, but in the real world, it's just the way that Nikon chose to get performance out of its camera.

That's why it's not a 24 or a 27 megapixel camera. They weren't looking for a 10% premium in MP. The reason its resolution is so vast is because it gives you the advantage of incredible detail, cropping ability, pixel binning ability, as well as the ability to downsample to very usable print sizes while reducing noise by a large amount. Canon chose a different strategy. What's the big deal?

By the way, I have a 5D3 on order, I'm not some Nikon fanboy. The 5D3 with the new 24-70 2.8 (assuming the lens' ability follows its impressive MTF curves) is going to be a knockout combo. But pouting about how good the new D800 is isn't going to make my camera any better. It has the specs and performance that I want and need for what I do, so now I have nothing to complain about. Trying to diminish the ability of the D800 is childishness.

 

[DzPhotography]

7D has failed us more times than i care to count (poor AF, poor metering...)

That right there is a bad workman blaming his tools: both the AF and the metering on the 7D are impeccable.

second that

 

[RLPhoto]

Ultimately, Its the Canon Primes that keep me here...