D800 not so great afterall...it has its shortcomings too

[revup67]

Just came across this article. it's candid and true to the point and not by any company but by a photographer.

http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=11652

Seems like the D800 has its downsides as well..

I'm glad I got my 5D MK3

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Having had both, I pretty much agree with the video, it seems pretty fair and I see the same things.

What he doesn't mention is that Nikon does not have a 135mm f/2, or a 100-400mm lens that are in the same ballpark as the Canon lenses. For landscape with the D800 and the 14-24mmG, a landscape shooter will be very happy. However, my D800 was very noisy as ISO got up to 1600, but it took NR very well. However, a low light shooter might not be very happy with it.

The DR at lower iso's in the D800 is simply amazing. Difficult bright sun and shadows just are no problem, while my 5D MK III struggled just as my other Canon bodies struggle. I've learned to live with it, but it was really nice to not have to worry about high contrast scenes.

 

[Tammy]

I'm sure you'll be ecstatic if/when Canon releases that newer 100-400L II..

 

[wickidwombat]

I'm sure you'll be ecstatic if/when Canon releases that newer 100-400L II..

problem is we will all be so old it'll be to heavy to use by the time that actually comes out...

 

[briansquibb]

Granted the 5D3 has its own with the move of the zoom button ...

That is quite a serious flaw, makes you wonder why the pros didn't pick it up during testing

 

[EvilTed]

LOL, I guessed all this when I read the Technical manual for the D800 and saw the specs of the 5D MK3 the night it was released.

5 minutes later I'd cancelled my D800 pre-order and ordered a 5D MK3 instead.
I have never regretted the move.

I also have a X-Pro 1 + 35mm F/1.4 and it's really amazing (and in a lot of ways more fun to shoot than a DSLR)
Judging by all the forum entries I've been reading there is a mixed bag of people selling D700s and 5D MK2s and moving to Fuji.

ET

 

[wickidwombat]

Granted the 5D3 has its own with the move of the zoom button ...

That is quite a serious flaw, makes you wonder why the pros didn't pick it up during testing

getting used to the change is actually easy the problem comes when you swap back an forth between other models with the old zoom function and this new setup, thats were it becomes a PITA

maybe that was their cunning plan to make everyone buy 2!

 

[Marsu42]

I'm sure you'll be ecstatic if/when Canon releases that newer 100-400L II..

problem is we will all be so old it'll be to heavy to use by the time that actually comes out...

And by the time it reaches the shelves of a store, we'll all be dead and buried!

I don't see them releasing an update to the 100-400L at all because this zoom range is packed with the "budget" 70-200/2.8+tc & 70-300L - if you ask Canon, they'll tell you to get a 2.8 tele prime or a better paying job or both :-o

 

[YellowJersey]

Am I the only person whose native language is English and is having trouble understanding this guy's accent?

 

[Viggo]

I guess they could give us the option to choose , because I see the point of those who liked the old way, and personally I love the new way a lot... I set my SET button to zoom...

 

[moreorless]

Doesnt really seem that supprizing to me what both cameras are better at what they set out to achieve, looking to paint one as superior to the other in almost all areas is really just a case of people confusing there own needs with everyones needs.

 

[Marsu42]

Doesnt really seem that supprizing to me what both cameras are better at what they set out to achieve, looking to paint one as superior to the other in almost all areas is really just a case of people confusing there own needs with everyones needs.

That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.

In the UK, the retailers are still selling 5DIII's for RRP with is a lot more than the RRP in the US. If one takes the UK RRP and performs a £ to $ conversion, they are selling here for around $4500....which is a lot more than the $3500 that you are being charged for them. I have found a few on line retailers who are selling for £2700ish, which is a lot more reasonable.
I think it's fair for Canon to charge a little more for the 5DIII. It's not really an upgrade to the 5DII, it's a completely different camera and every area is revolutionised. Even the card door is superior. The old 5DII's CF door was a creaky thing that after a year or so of use, it lost it's texture and went all shiny. The new door is spring loaded, doesn't creek and has a rubberised pad on it....way better than any non 1D series camera to date.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

What he doesn't mention is that Nikon does not have a 135mm f/2, or a 100-400mm lens that are in the same ballpark as the Canon lenses. For landscape with the D800 and the 14-24mmG, a landscape shooter will be very happy. However, my D800 was very noisy as ISO got up to 1600, but it took NR very well. However, a low light shooter might not be very happy with it.

Looking at the manual for the new 600 EX RT, the wide angle adaptor now pushes the range to 14mm at the wide end. It's another indicator that reinforces my assumption that a Canon 14-24mm lens is in developement. But I get the feeling that Canon are taking their time with their lenses and want to get things right and not rush to market a half baked product. In the mean time....there's the new Sigma 12-24II, which looks pretty amazing and is a lot wider than the Nikkor. The Current TS-E 17mm is pretty amazing optically and with a bit of shift, it can equal around 12.5mm...although it's a bit of a faf.
On the Nikon front, the lack of a Nikon equivalent 100-400L may seem an issue...but Sigma make a very good 80-400 OS which is pretty close to the Canon in IQ and performance.
I'm waiting for a 100-400IIL to arrive too....sure it's going to be at least another year before we see anything on the shelves, but if it's in the same league as the 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II, then it will be worth the wait.
The recent 70-300L has had it's critics, but the one I tried a few months ago was stunning in every area. It's build was fantastic, it's AF was very very good and it's IQ was top tier. It's expensive but worth everry penny IMHO.

 

[Marsu42]

I think it's fair for Canon to charge a little more for the 5DIII. It's not really an upgrade to the 5DII, it's a completely different camera and every area is revolutionised. Even the card door is superior.

This has been gone thought again and again of course, but my opinion still is that technological evolution and competition usually results in revised & updated products with the same or even lower price - or your $1000 pc of the year 2000 would cost $10000 now.

The price of the 5d3 has nothing to do with "fair", but rather the limited competition and brand loyalty in the dslr market. It's still just a dlsr, and if "worth it" or the superiority is due to your battery door not getting all squeaky and shiny is debatable

 

[psolberg]

Just came across this article. it's candid and true to the point and not by any company but by a photographer.

http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=11652

Seems like the D800 has its downsides as well..

I'm glad I got my 5D MK3

they all have downsides and different reviewers have different opinions. We've all seen plenty of links by now to know the D800's strenghts are its unrivaled image quality and dynamic range whereas the 5DIII offers slightly more low light appeal and speed (although certainly not on par with a D4/1DX which is what I'd shoot if I needed to meet such demands from my photography). I switched to the D800 after years with canon and could not be happier. Anybody shooting landscape with 35mm format cameras should read http://diglloyd.com/ extensive D800 reviews to really undertand the D800's audience and purpose. Definitively not for the spray and pray sport shooter.

ultimately both cameras are so different that if you're happy with what you got, clearly the other camera wasn't meant for you. I'd never buy a 5DmkIII period. It just doesn't really have anything that appeals to me in such degree that would make me give up the gains I've obtrained from the D800 in both video and stills.

What he doesn't mention is that Nikon does not have a 135mm f/2, or a 100-400mm lens that are in the same ballpark as the Canon lenses. For landscape with the D800 and the 14-24mmG, a landscape shooter will be very happy. However, my D800 was very noisy as ISO got up to 1600, but it took NR very well. However, a low light shooter might not be very happy with it.

the 135 f/2 from both nikon and canon are terribly outdated. both lacking IS which is unnaceptable for this FL. The nikon offers defocus control which is neat for some video tricks and off course an aperture ring. Image quality wise, both are ok for their age but easily bested by Zeiss glass and the even more impressive 135 f1.8 from sony. not THAT is a lens I'd like to have. The 100-400 canon push pull is a terrible design for dust reasons and badly in need of an update. The nikon version is sluggish AF wise but great otherwise. So I don't see how either lens really needs to be brought into a review of bodies since neither is particularly great. I'll take a 70-200 over a 135 any day.

Doesnt really seem that supprizing to me what both cameras are better at what they set out to achieve, looking to paint one as superior to the other in almost all areas is really just a case of people confusing there own needs with everyones needs.

exactly. it is such a silly and pointless thing to compare the weak point of one body to the strong poitn of the other since both cameras compromised to achieve a certain specialization. It is like comparion a wrench and a hammer. Both are good at one thing but not the other. The need to generalize which camera is "superior" is not only childish, but completely misses the point of both cameras' specialization. Neither really set out to be the best at everything so it is no surprising neither is.

 

[jebrady03]

exactly. it is such a silly and pointless thing to compare the weak point of one body to the strong poitn of the other since both cameras compromised to achieve a certain specialization. It is like comparion a wrench and a hammer. Both are good at one thing but not the other. The need to generalize which camera is "superior" is not only childish, but completely misses the point of both cameras' specialization. Neither really set out to be the best at everything so it is no surprising neither is.

HEY! Making complete sense and being rational isn't allowed on public forums. Cut that out now!

 

[moreorless]

Doesnt really seem that supprizing to me what both cameras are better at what they set out to achieve, looking to paint one as superior to the other in almost all areas is really just a case of people confusing there own needs with everyones needs.

That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.

Again I'd say thats partly tied into the cameras potential users, the 5D3 to me seems to be design more to appeal to a larger professional market, event photographers, jurnos and the like who want good but not massive resolution, top of the line AF, decent FPS and high quality HD video that doesnt need a lighting rig etc.

 

[Neeneko]

That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.

If they are not even designed to handle the same use cases, comparing the price points is meaningless and people are only doing it because they just happened to be released in about the same timeframe.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm sure you'll be ecstatic if/when Canon releases that newer 100-400L II..

I'km quite happy with the one I have, people have been predicting a new model for several years, but with no one else in the industry competiting at that price level, they are not under any pressure.

If only Nikon had something close to even the old Canon design, I would be much happier to keep the D800. Nikon seems very good at shorter focal lengths while Canon has a good selection at longer focal lengths. The D800 has a lot of features I really like. I'm still considering trying a D800E.

Both have really good super telephotos.