First DSLR: Canon 5d MkIII or Nikon D800...

[se7en]

Now, normally I wouldn't ask this on a site that could potentially be biased...however; with all the rigamarole, spec tossing, opinions and blatant fear I am thinking people might be pretty objective with my situation. As I said this would be my first DSLR(I know, either camera is way more camera than i'll even be able to utilize before the next upgrade occurs anyways), I have NO investment thus far on any series of lenses. I was 'set' on Canon because the only two pros i know use Canon...ive had Canon p+s cameras in the past and loved them compared to any others. I already preordered a mark iii, and at the same time discovered the D800. With that being said, i'm wondering what the majority of the experienced pros here would do in my situation. Starting from scratch which direction would you veer? I intend on shooting(in order of majority of):

Landscape(time-lapse videos, the higher DR is of significant value to me, although a lot of TLs I saw done with the mkII were nothing less than phenomenal)
Outdoor/rock climbing shots
Small videos
Everyday walk around camera
The occasional wedding
And hoping to get into stock photography...

I know the D800 is supposed to be amazing for landscapes, but I don't plan on cropping much due to it being a time-lapse on a dolly...so the extra MP is more of a hindrance to me I am thinking at this point. But the DR is very attractive. The canon lens are also a big factor, although I plan on shooting a lot on Zeiss lens, so how much does that factor weigh in?

So, you're starting from scratch, and you're shooting what I will be shooting, which direction do you go?

Thanks!

 

[wickidwombat]

I would wait a month and see some real world examples hit the streets and then get to physically test both out and see what I think.

for what you describe you shoot then the D800 certainly will fit the bill
lenses to look at would be the 14-24, the 50mm f1.4G the 70-200 f2.8 or the 85 f1.4G also the 105 f2.8 Micro is a stunning lens and makes a great portrait lens

All up to get the glass to do justice to that camera you are going to be dropping around $10k if you are starting from scratch. Thats quite a bit of coin for a first DSLR

its a similar story with the canon

but you have many more lenses to decide on and choose between
16-35 f2.8 II 50mm f1.4 or f1.2 if you'r feeling rich, 85mm f1.2 if you are feeling rich again and can handle the focus speed but as for quality of portraits its pretty tough to beat (I went for the sigma as i couldnt hanlde the focus speed of the 1.2 and of course the 70-200 f2.8 IS II

So its a tough choice really. my advice get yourself a couple of good CF cards now and when they come out take those card into the stores and give it all a good workout, take the cards home and check the files yourself
when spending that kind of money i certainly dont go with the populist vote on the internet!

 

[studio1972]

Now, normally I wouldn't ask this on a site that could potentially be biased...however; with all the rigamarole, spec tossing, opinions and blatant fear I am thinking people might be pretty objective with my situation. As I said this would be my first DSLR(I know, either camera is way more camera than i'll even be able to utilize before the next upgrade occurs anyways), I have NO investment thus far on any series of lenses. I was 'set' on Canon because the only two pros i know use Canon...ive had Canon p+s cameras in the past and loved them compared to any others. I already preordered a mark iii, and at the same time discovered the D800. With that being said, i'm wondering what the majority of the experienced pros here would do in my situation. Starting from scratch which direction would you veer? I intend on shooting(in order of majority of):

Landscape(time-lapse videos, the higher DR is of significant value to me, although a lot of TLs I saw done with the mkII were nothing less than phenomenal)
Outdoor/rock climbing shots
Small videos
Everyday walk around camera
The occasional wedding
And hoping to get into stock photography...

I know the D800 is supposed to be amazing for landscapes, but I don't plan on cropping much due to it being a time-lapse on a dolly...so the extra MP is more of a hindrance to me I am thinking at this point. But the DR is very attractive. The canon lens are also a big factor, although I plan on shooting a lot on Zeiss lens, so how much does that factor weigh in?

So, you're starting from scratch, and you're shooting what I will be shooting, which direction do you go?

Thanks!

For your first DSLR, I would recommend a cheap D550 or something similar with the kit lens. Get used to how a DSLR works and build your craft before going into the deep end with pro gear like the 5D3.

 

[wickidwombat]

I disagree about the 550, If he has the money to go all in why not get the best?

I didnt see the ziess mention before so you are fully aware of what the right glass is going to cost i am sure
all my previous comments about trying it all out still stand though
(It will be interesting to see how the ziess glass resolves the D800 res in real terms though)

 

[simonxu11]

Now, normally I wouldn't ask this on a site that could potentially be biased...however; with all the rigamarole, spec tossing, opinions and blatant fear I am thinking people might be pretty objective with my situation. As I said this would be my first DSLR(I know, either camera is way more camera than i'll even be able to utilize before the next upgrade occurs anyways), I have NO investment thus far on any series of lenses. I was 'set' on Canon because the only two pros i know use Canon...ive had Canon p+s cameras in the past and loved them compared to any others. I already preordered a mark iii, and at the same time discovered the D800. With that being said, i'm wondering what the majority of the experienced pros here would do in my situation. Starting from scratch which direction would you veer? I intend on shooting(in order of majority of):

Landscape(time-lapse videos, the higher DR is of significant value to me, although a lot of TLs I saw done with the mkII were nothing less than phenomenal)
Outdoor/rock climbing shots
Small videos
Everyday walk around camera
The occasional wedding
And hoping to get into stock photography...

I know the D800 is supposed to be amazing for landscapes, but I don't plan on cropping much due to it being a time-lapse on a dolly...so the extra MP is more of a hindrance to me I am thinking at this point. But the DR is very attractive. The canon lens are also a big factor, although I plan on shooting a lot on Zeiss lens, so how much does that factor weigh in?

So, you're starting from scratch, and you're shooting what I will be shooting, which direction do you go?

Thanks!

For your first DSLR, I would recommend a cheap D550 or something similar with the kit lens. Get used to how a DSLR works and build your craft before going into the deep end with pro gear like the 5D3.

Nothing wrong to start from FF if OP can afford

 

[psolberg]

I'll take your goals one by one.

Landscape(time-lapse videos, the higher DR is of significant value to me, although a lot of TLs I saw done with the mkII were nothing less than phenomenal)

Nikon has had better DR than canon for a good number of years. There are no measurements of the new cameras but nikon is starting at a higher echelon so I assume that if they both improved by the same amount, nikon will still have the edge. Then there is detail where the D800 wins too. But I think you knew that.

Outdoor/rock climbing shots

don't think it matters which one you get for this.

Small videos

the canon has a better codec but the nikon has uncompressed HDMI. but unless you're really serious, I doubt either one is a bad choice. I'd give canon the edge for more options.

Everyday walk around camera

I can't say for the 5DIII but the 5DII wasn't as weather sealed as the Nikon. Maybe it is different. for everyday walkaround, you can't go wrong with either one.

The occasional wedding

The sheer amount of weddings shot with 5DII proves you don't need a fast body for weddings, but it is nice to have. Conversely, the wedding market remains very print driven and so high MP shouldn't be ignored. I think low light performance will be better on the canon but when downscaled to 22MP, a D800 fill will be nearly identical. So I'd say you can't really go wrong with either one.

And hoping to get into stock photography...

D800 period unless you're doing a very special kind of stock photography that wouldn't benefit from detail.

so my total:
nikon: wins 2
canon: wins 1
the rest tie.

I'd get the D800 and put the difference in cash (500 bucks) towards glass.

 

[april]

Now, normally I wouldn't ask this on a site that could potentially be biased...however; with all the rigamarole, spec tossing, opinions and blatant fear I am thinking people might be pretty objective with my situation. As I said this would be my first DSLR(I know, either camera is way more camera than i'll even be able to utilize before the next upgrade occurs anyways), I have NO investment thus far on any series of lenses. I was 'set' on Canon because the only two pros i know use Canon...ive had Canon p+s cameras in the past and loved them compared to any others. I already preordered a mark iii, and at the same time discovered the D800. With that being said, i'm wondering what the majority of the experienced pros here would do in my situation. Starting from scratch which direction would you veer? I intend on shooting(in order of majority of):

Landscape(time-lapse videos, the higher DR is of significant value to me, although a lot of TLs I saw done with the mkII were nothing less than phenomenal)
Outdoor/rock climbing shots
Small videos
Everyday walk around camera
The occasional wedding
And hoping to get into stock photography...

I know the D800 is supposed to be amazing for landscapes, but I don't plan on cropping much due to it being a time-lapse on a dolly...so the extra MP is more of a hindrance to me I am thinking at this point. But the DR is very attractive. The canon lens are also a big factor, although I plan on shooting a lot on Zeiss lens, so how much does that factor weigh in?

So, you're starting from scratch, and you're shooting what I will be shooting, which direction do you go?

Thanks!

For your first DSLR, I would recommend a cheap D550 or something similar with the kit lens. Get used to how a DSLR works and build your craft before going into the deep end with pro gear like the 5D3.

Nothing wrong to start from FF if OP can afford

absolutely true!!! it will actually be more economical to buy top end rather than buying a crop then upgrade later. Whatever you need get it NOW otherwise you'll miss the shots ;D

for me the deciding factor will be if you can ignore cross hatches or banding noises then go with canon as you will have vast choice of lenses. the difference between competing models are small it's just a matter of your preference. before I bought my first canon camera I was using my cousins' nikon D60 and I liked it but it was taken by a burglar so I had no choice but to buy a new camera. It was a tough one since I've wanted the D700 but after comparing canon lenses vs nikon lenses, I decided to go canon thinking that my mates are with canon as well and that I could borrow some stuff whenver I need it...I wanted a FF camera but I ended up with 50D since I've heard rumors about 5d3 (that's 3yrs. ago) and now that 5d3 is here, d800 is also here so I was waiting again for another couple of months for some reviews and hopefully hands on tests before I could decide which one.

 

[takoman46]

If you have the expendable income to spend on either camera, I would say go for it; even though it's your first DSLR. My reasoning is that if you're really interested in photography, you're probably gonna end up upgrading anyway. The only thing I suggest considering is whether carrying around a speedlite all the time would be a problem for you. The 5DmkIII doesn't have a pop-up flash. Although IMO the pop-up flash is pretty worthless, having it can be a convenience for some people.

I would recommend the 5DmkIII, mainly because for a beginner user like yourself, the 36mp file sizes are going to be more of a nuisance in terms of storage space. 22mp should definitely be more than enough for your purposes. I have never needed anything higher than the 5DmkII's 21mp for prints. In closing, the 5DmkIII and D800 are actually intended to fulfill very different roles in the photography world so you need to determine what features are important to the kind of photos you wish to produce.

 

[se7en]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm pretty set on FF, the 36mp is a little intimidating and I think I'm sticking with Canon...

 

[te4o]

I use Zeiss solo and I am pretty sure it will shine one either D800 and 5D3 as it already shines on the D3x and 5D2. But it shines ONLY if you can focus them (while climbing too!) I can focus them quite good now after a year and a half but I use a MF screen (EG-S) which is no option now with neither camera. So, be careful what you buy!

 

[eaw213]

I'd absolutely go FF if you can and want to. As others have said, it's actually the more fiscal long-term decision *if* you can decide now that it's where you see yourself in the future anyway.

That's one reason, but another is the *REALLY* long term vision. If you see yourself using two bodies at the same time for weddings, then whenever you upgrade to say a 5D4 or D900, you'll still have a fantastic second camera in the 5D3 or D800. If you have an entry level camera, you'd be stuck wanting to buy another two cameras.

As for your actual question, I really think you can't go wrong with either. I'm absolutely tied to Canon with the amount of gear I own, but if I were starting with 0 today, I'd be very tempted to go with the D800E. If the full reviews and user feedback in a couple months show the ISO to be nearly the same as the 5D3, that is. Studio shots are nice, but I'd really want some more real world usage example in true low light to base my decision on.

 

[erfon]

Now, normally I wouldn't ask this on a site that could potentially be biased...however; with all the rigamarole, spec tossing, opinions and blatant fear I am thinking people might be pretty objective with my situation. As I said this would be my first DSLR(I know, either camera is way more camera than i'll even be able to utilize before the next upgrade occurs anyways), I have NO investment thus far on any series of lenses. I was 'set' on Canon because the only two pros i know use Canon...ive had Canon p+s cameras in the past and loved them compared to any others. I already preordered a mark iii, and at the same time discovered the D800. With that being said, i'm wondering what the majority of the experienced pros here would do in my situation. Starting from scratch which direction would you veer? I intend on shooting(in order of majority of):

Landscape(time-lapse videos, the higher DR is of significant value to me, although a lot of TLs I saw done with the mkII were nothing less than phenomenal)
Outdoor/rock climbing shots
Small videos
Everyday walk around camera
The occasional wedding
And hoping to get into stock photography...

I know the D800 is supposed to be amazing for landscapes, but I don't plan on cropping much due to it being a time-lapse on a dolly...so the extra MP is more of a hindrance to me I am thinking at this point. But the DR is very attractive. The canon lens are also a big factor, although I plan on shooting a lot on Zeiss lens, so how much does that factor weigh in?

So, you're starting from scratch, and you're shooting what I will be shooting, which direction do you go?

Thanks!

For your first DSLR, I would recommend a cheap D550 or something similar with the kit lens. Get used to how a DSLR works and build your craft before going into the deep end with pro gear like the 5D3.

i agree, unless you've got a fat wallet : D

the reason is, $3500 is just for the body. then you've got lenses, and those will cost you around $1200+++ each unless you're planning on using crappy kit lenses on your fancy new full frame camera.

 

[briansquibb]

Now, normally I wouldn't ask this on a site that could potentially be biased...however; with all the rigamarole, spec tossing, opinions and blatant fear I am thinking people might be pretty objective with my situation. As I said this would be my first DSLR(I know, either camera is way more camera than i'll even be able to utilize before the next upgrade occurs anyways), I have NO investment thus far on any series of lenses. I was 'set' on Canon because the only two pros i know use Canon...ive had Canon p+s cameras in the past and loved them compared to any others. I already preordered a mark iii, and at the same time discovered the D800. With that being said, i'm wondering what the majority of the experienced pros here would do in my situation. Starting from scratch which direction would you veer? I intend on shooting(in order of majority of):

Landscape(time-lapse videos, the higher DR is of significant value to me, although a lot of TLs I saw done with the mkII were nothing less than phenomenal)
Outdoor/rock climbing shots
Small videos
Everyday walk around camera
The occasional wedding
And hoping to get into stock photography...

I know the D800 is supposed to be amazing for landscapes, but I don't plan on cropping much due to it being a time-lapse on a dolly...so the extra MP is more of a hindrance to me I am thinking at this point. But the DR is very attractive. The canon lens are also a big factor, although I plan on shooting a lot on Zeiss lens, so how much does that factor weigh in?

So, you're starting from scratch, and you're shooting what I will be shooting, which direction do you go?

Thanks!

For your first DSLR, I would recommend a cheap D550 or something similar with the kit lens. Get used to how a DSLR works and build your craft before going into the deep end with pro gear like the 5D3.

i agree, unless you've got a fat wallet : D

the reason is, $3500 is just for the body. then you've got lenses, and those will cost you around $1200+++ each unless you're planning on using crappy kit lenses on your fancy new full frame camera.

I think he should buy what he wants. Expensive is a relative term, perhaps 20k isn't expensive to him.

I found that the better the body the easier it was to get good pictures as the technical side became easier leaving me to focus on the content, composition and lighting.

 

[cps_user]

as a wedding photog, I'd say get the 5d3 for wedding work.

36mp raw could slow down your workflow (working off a nas for example), higher iso is quite often very handy, you get the opportunity to get into the new radio flash system (think of portraits, reception, etc.), and the silent mode is just stunning. 22mpix is more than enough for full spread prints in a 12x12 or 14x11 album (which is about as large as a wedding album should ever be), and heck - you can still make great 1,5 by 1 meter prints as well if you need to.

For pure landscape work I'd say maybe not the regular D800, but D800e since you really want to fully use these 36mpixels. So tripod work there as well (it could very well be that minor hand shake is more visible with 36mpix files @100%). And the very best lenses of course

 

[Tijn]

Just don't forget to buy decent glass to go with whatever body you decide to buy. Glass might be as important, if not more important, than the camera body for being able to take decent pictures. And it's expensive, too. If you go for the 5d Mk3:

The 24-105L IS kit lens will be great as a walkaround (and great value too due to reduced kit price), the 70-300L IS or 70-200 f/2.8L IS II are the best flexible choices in the tele range. Weddings will require fast lenses which are a plus for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Getting a fast prime (Canon 50mm f/1.4, cheap, very sharp from f/2 onwards) will give you some low light ability as well. If you're very set on landscapes, consider the 16-35mm superwide-angle lens.

 

[studio1972]

Now, normally I wouldn't ask this on a site that could potentially be biased...however; with all the rigamarole, spec tossing, opinions and blatant fear I am thinking people might be pretty objective with my situation. As I said this would be my first DSLR(I know, either camera is way more camera than i'll even be able to utilize before the next upgrade occurs anyways), I have NO investment thus far on any series of lenses. I was 'set' on Canon because the only two pros i know use Canon...ive had Canon p+s cameras in the past and loved them compared to any others. I already preordered a mark iii, and at the same time discovered the D800. With that being said, i'm wondering what the majority of the experienced pros here would do in my situation. Starting from scratch which direction would you veer? I intend on shooting(in order of majority of):

Landscape(time-lapse videos, the higher DR is of significant value to me, although a lot of TLs I saw done with the mkII were nothing less than phenomenal)
Outdoor/rock climbing shots
Small videos
Everyday walk around camera
The occasional wedding
And hoping to get into stock photography...

I know the D800 is supposed to be amazing for landscapes, but I don't plan on cropping much due to it being a time-lapse on a dolly...so the extra MP is more of a hindrance to me I am thinking at this point. But the DR is very attractive. The canon lens are also a big factor, although I plan on shooting a lot on Zeiss lens, so how much does that factor weigh in?

So, you're starting from scratch, and you're shooting what I will be shooting, which direction do you go?

Thanks!

For your first DSLR, I would recommend a cheap D550 or something similar with the kit lens. Get used to how a DSLR works and build your craft before going into the deep end with pro gear like the 5D3.

Nothing wrong to start from FF if OP can afford

absolutely true!!! it will actually be more economical to buy top end rather than buying a crop then upgrade later. Whatever you need get it NOW otherwise you'll miss the shots ;D

for me the deciding factor will be if you can ignore cross hatches or banding noises then go with canon as you will have vast choice of lenses. the difference between competing models are small it's just a matter of your preference. before I bought my first canon camera I was using my cousins' nikon D60 and I liked it but it was taken by a burglar so I had no choice but to buy a new camera. It was a tough one since I've wanted the D700 but after comparing canon lenses vs nikon lenses, I decided to go canon thinking that my mates are with canon as well and that I could borrow some stuff whenver I need it...I wanted a FF camera but I ended up with 50D since I've heard rumors about 5d3 (that's 3yrs. ago) and now that 5d3 is here, d800 is also here so I was waiting again for another couple of months for some reviews and hopefully hands on tests before I could decide which one.

If he wants to do weddings, he will need 2 cameras anyway, and 2 main lenses. Getting the cheapest one first makes a lot of sense. It is quite possible that he may find photography to be less interesting than he expected, in which case he has lost a lot less if he goes for the cheaper option to begin with.

Of course, if he has money to burn, sure get a 5D3 and a set of L lenses to go with it. It's totally up to him, but he did ask for advice.

 

[Hillsilly]

If you think about which system you'd prefer to buy into, the solution is obvious.

In Canon's favour:

More people use Canon. This means more opportunities to borrow things. (But also means people might want to borrow things from you).

Even though you're thinking of using Zeiss lenses, ultimately, you might not. Canon has a more extensive lens and accessory range. Whatever you want, there is generally a Canon lens to fill the gap. I'm not going to suggest Canon gear is better than Nikon (ok...it is!), but the Canon system is much more versatile.

Red is a much better colour than Yellow. And you won't feel embarrassed every time Ashton Kutcher comes on tv.

Lastly, you get to discuss things with all the cool people on the CanonRumors forum. (This fact alone should sway you towards the 5Diii.)

 

[Ivar]

I think some questions has to be asked:
* are you ready to pay more for a 5D3 for what it is (I think at this point it can be agreed the body only comparison is not really in the favor of Canon especially considering the price)?
* what lenses are you going to get? Not all is shiny on the Canon front and for sure Nikon isn't going to rest.
* Nikon has improved a lot since getting on the FF track, Canon has been rather on sleep. If this trend continues you might not want to be locked down with all the Canon lenses.
* At this point I don't think there is a big difference in users numbers whether Canon or Nikon

If I was starting from scratch, at least what concerns current offers, I'd go for Nikon.

If you think about which system you'd prefer to buy into, the solution is obvious.

In Canon's favour:

More people use Canon. This means more opportunities to borrow things. (But also means people might want to borrow things from you).

Even though you're thinking of using Zeiss lenses, ultimately, you might not. Canon has a more extensive lens and accessory range. Whatever you want, there is generally a Canon lens to fill the gap. I'm not going to suggest Canon gear is better than Nikon (ok...it is!), but the Canon system is much more versatile.

Red is a much better colour than Yellow. And you won't feel embarrassed every time Ashton Kutcher comes on tv.

Lastly, you get to discuss things with all the cool people on the CanonRumors forum. (This fact alone should sway you towards the 5Diii.)

 

[se7en]

Thanks again for all of the input. I preordered the 5d3 with the kit lens(24-105L)...along with a Zeiss 21mm f2.8(for landscape/video), 35mm 1.4L and the next lens I will get is the 70-200mm...and am considering the zeiss makro planner in 50mm...

Take care,
Nate