Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head

[V8Beast]

Now we finally have a somewhat scientific side-by-side comparison of the raw files from both bodies, courtesy of Imaging Resource.

5DIII samples:
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

D800 samples:
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A7.HTM

To make this comparo as precise as possible, I thought it made sense to compare the Nikons NEF files with no noise reduction applied to the Canon's CR2 files. Truthfully, I had a very hard time distinguishing the the 5DIII images from the D800 images. The noise, DR, and overall IQ are just so freakin' close. Maybe the 5DIII starts to edge ahead after ISO 3200, but it is the slightest of advantages. I tried to compare them at 51,200 and 102,400 as well, but IR must have forgotten to test the D800 at those ISO speeds ;D

DR wise, there is a noticeable advantage in the Nikon's shadow details, but again, it's only the slightest of advantages. Call me crazy, but I actually think the extra DR makes the Nikon's files look flatter. I also prefer the 5DIII's color reproduction, and the files look a tad sharper granted that might be attributable to the lenses. On a purely subjective level, to me the 5DIII's files just look better, but again, under identical shooting situations the two cameras produce nearly identical images.

After pixel peeping for about an hour, it really put into perspective what terrific tools each of these bodies are for creating fantastic art. It also put into perspective how silly it is to argue about the pros and cons of each body when it requires an hour of pixel peeping to attempt to distinguish any differences in IQ between them.

That's just my worthless opinion. Discuss

 

[psolberg]

Now we finally have a somewhat scientific side-by-side comparison of the raw files from both bodies, courtesy of Imaging Resource.

5DIII samples:
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

D800 samples:
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A7.HTM

To make this comparo as precise as possible, I thought it made sense to compare the Nikons NEF files with no noise reduction applied to the Canon's CR2 files. Truthfully, I had a very hard time distinguishing the the 5DIII images from the D800 images. The noise, DR, and overall IQ are just so freakin' close. Maybe the 5DIII starts to edge ahead after ISO 3200, but it is the slightest of advantages. I tried to compare them at 51,200 and 102,400 as well, but IR must have forgotten to test the D800 at those ISO speeds ;D

DR wise, there is a noticeable advantage in the Nikon's shadow details, but again, it's only the slightest of advantages. Call me crazy, but I actually think the extra DR makes the Nikon's files look flatter. I also prefer the 5DIII's color reproduction, and the files look a tad sharper granted that might be attributable to the lenses. On a purely subjective level, to me the 5DIII's files just look better, but again, under identical shooting situations the two cameras produce nearly identical images.

After pixel peeping for about an hour, it really put into perspective what terrific tools each of these bodies are for creating fantastic art. It also put into perspective how silly it is to argue about the pros and cons of each body when it requires an hour of pixel peeping to attempt to distinguish any differences in IQ between them.

That's just my worthless opinion. Discuss

wow that's really stunning. up to ISO3200 the D800 detail is just mindblowing. The 5DIII doesn't stand a chance there. But I must say the D800 is very low noise considering it's sheer resolution. I guess 36MP isn't too much after all given sensor advances.

Sampling down the 36MP images to 22 seems to greatly reduce the noise. I'll review them later with more time. thanks. From what I'd seen, it may be just me but I'd prefer the D800 images.

 

[3kramd5]

Shrug.

I can tell the difference when sized equivalently. The details I gotta give to the Nikon, particularly the red and green cloth. Elsewhere I can tell the difference most easily because the canon is way more contrasty (wonder if that's a default setting).

 

[justsomedude]

What's also amazing is the detail in the solid color areas. Check out the white painted wall behind the bottles and yellow paintbrush... you can make out the texture in the white painted wall for crying out loud. That's really unbelievable. As well as on the surface in front of the bottles - you can make out every little scuff and scratch.

I like to be fair and objective in my evaluation of image quality, and I really must tip my hat to Nikon. I never thought I'd see this kind of quality at 36MP on a FF sensor.

All's fair in love and megapixel wars.

 

[Orion]

I compared the D800NR3 (3200 iso) file to the sole 3200 iso from the Canon files. . . . (the mkIII file seems to have NR on)

the 5DmkIII is a ISO beast compared to the D800. You can still make out the green blobs on the D800 with the NR3 . . the Canon is CLEAN!

Even when the resolution is reduced to the 5DmkIII on the D800, it does not compare well to the 5DmkIII. You get mroe detail in the dark red cloth, but in the others the mkIII beats the D800 for clarity and colour.

 

[jaduffy007]

Now we finally have a somewhat scientific side-by-side comparison of the raw files from both bodies, courtesy of Imaging Resource.

5DIII samples:
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

D800 samples:
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A7.HTM

To make this comparo as precise as possible, I thought it made sense to compare the Nikons NEF files with no noise reduction applied to the Canon's CR2 files. Truthfully, I had a very hard time distinguishing the the 5DIII images from the D800 images. The noise, DR, and overall IQ are just so freakin' close. Maybe the 5DIII starts to edge ahead after ISO 3200, but it is the slightest of advantages. I tried to compare them at 51,200 and 102,400 as well, but IR must have forgotten to test the D800 at those ISO speeds ;D

DR wise, there is a noticeable advantage in the Nikon's shadow details, but again, it's only the slightest of advantages. Call me crazy, but I actually think the extra DR makes the Nikon's files look flatter. I also prefer the 5DIII's color reproduction, and the files look a tad sharper granted that might be attributable to the lenses. On a purely subjective level, to me the 5DIII's files just look better, but again, under identical shooting situations the two cameras produce nearly identical images.

After pixel peeping for about an hour, it really put into perspective what terrific tools each of these bodies are for creating fantastic art. It also put into perspective how silly it is to argue about the pros and cons of each body when it requires an hour of pixel peeping to attempt to distinguish any differences in IQ between them.

That's just my worthless opinion. Discuss

wow that's really stunning. up to ISO3200 the D800 detail is just mindblowing. The 5DIII doesn't stand a chance there. But I must say the D800 is very low noise considering it's sheer resolution. I guess 36MP isn't too much after all given sensor advances.

Sampling down the 36MP images to 22 seems to greatly reduce the noise. I'll review them later with more time. thanks. From what I'd seen, it may be just me but I'd prefer the D800 images.

Psol....You are not alone in your conclusion! And look at the d800 low iso dynamic range!!! Holy mother of god! Stunning. Just stunning. I'm guessing 1.5 to 2 stops more than 5d3 or D3s!

 

[jaduffy007]

I compared the D800NR3 (3200 iso) file to the sole 3200 iso from the Canon files. . . . (the mkIII file seems to have NR on)

the 5DmkIII is a ISO beast compared to the D800. You can still make out the green blobs on the D800 with the NR3 . . the Canon is CLEAN!

Even when the resolution is reduced to the 5DmkIII on the D800, it does not compare well to the 5DmkIII. You get mroe detail in the dark red cloth, but in the others the mkIII beats the D800 for clarity and colour.

You will be misled if you go by the jpegs...and make the conclusions you have above. Trust me...use the raws.

 

[jaduffy007]

The Canon images are ~9mb. How can these be RAW files?

The Nikon images are ~20mb.

Certainly not a fair comparison.

Unfortunately it appears canon has once again under rated their iso..as dxo mark has shown previously. Canon is 1/2 to 2/3 stop lower than advertised. Errrr.

 

[DanielW]

The Nikon images ~20MB are JPEGs! RAW images are 45+ MB!!!
Good time to start selling memory cards...

 

[3kramd5]

And look at the d800 low iso dynamic range!!! Holy mother of god! Stunning. Just stunning. I'm guessing 2 stops!

2?

It's certainly more than 2, but my display isn't good enough to evaluate it visually.

Unfortunately it appears canon has once again under rated their iso..as dxo mark has shown previously. Canon is 1/2 to 2/3 stop lower than advertised. Errrr.

The canon images look *brighter* to me than the nikon images. Shrug.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

The Canon images are ~9mb. How can these be RAW files?

The Nikon images are ~20mb.

Certainly not a fair comparison.

Unfortunately it appears canon has once again under rated their iso..as dxo mark has shown previously. Canon is 1/2 to 2/3 stop lower than advertised. Errrr.

I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion. :/

One thing I'll note is that you cannot judge the relative ISO sensitivity of these two cameras based on these photos. Look at the reflections of the lights in the bottles. If you look closely, you'll see that the upper-right light in the 5D III photos is much dimmer than the other lights. The shadows are different for the 5D III photos as well. There's less light in the 5D III photos, so they adjusted the exposure to compensate.

 

[awinphoto]

V8, Thanks for posting the links... I was taking a look earlier and I got to hand it both to Canon and Nikon... I can definitely see the extra DR in the nikon files, but boy do they get noisy around 3200 and beyond, especially in the shadows. They also look flatter than normal due to the extra DR as well. Kinda like old film. Also saturation looked a bit muted... I would be curious if anyone with the mcbeth color chart like the one used in the photos (i haven't used one in years since the film days) can have it scanned/tested so we can get accurate numbers to what the file colors really are so we can compare what they came out with to what reality is. That could be very telling one way or the other for the cameras. Low ISO's other than DR, i think both preformed admirably and am excited to see these in the wild and see how they compare and what work pro's can accomplish with these cameras.

 

[RedEye]

After working with a 2ti for the last seveal years, I can't tell you what a step up the 5dIII will be. It'll really change my capacity to shoot in almost every environment. So, with these photos, I think I'll probably end up with the 5dIII as I have pre-ordered, and then probably a higher MP camera sometime down the road.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
Hmm... Is Canon images NR on or off?? My DPP 3.11.4.10 unable to open the RAW file. Nikon images had NR0 to NR3, but Canon images only had one version.

Have a nice day.

 

[bvukich]

Hi,
Hmm... Is Canon images NR on or off?? My DPP 3.11.4.10 unable to open the RAW file. Nikon images had NR0 to NR3, but Canon images only had one version.

Have a nice day.

From my recollection and understanding (which may well be faulty) Canon never applies NR to RAWs, it only applies it to the in camera JPEG conversion. Whereas Nikon cooks the NR into the RAWs (even at NR0 there is some NR being applied).

 

[Ricku]

Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.

The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.

 

[Orion]

I compared the D800NR3 (3200 iso) file to the sole 3200 iso from the Canon files. . . . (the mkIII file seems to have NR on)

the 5DmkIII is a ISO beast compared to the D800. You can still make out the green blobs on the D800 with the NR3 . . the Canon is CLEAN!

Even when the resolution is reduced to the 5DmkIII on the D800, it does not compare well to the 5DmkIII. You get mroe detail in the dark red cloth, but in the others the mkIII beats the D800 for clarity and colour.

You will be misled if you go by the jpegs...and make the conclusions you have above. Trust me...use the raws.

well I looked at RAWs too, a few days ago. Both are amazing. You will get better ISO from the mkIII, but both cameras are top notch for thier respective fields. The D800 is a MP monster, and it is unfair to compare it to the mkIII, and vice versa, I think. Both camps have positie and negative traits. . . . but those are meaningless in the field. . . even taking into account that you can downsize the D800 images and get better iso than at full res and the crop factor.

ona side note: if Nikon had Canon glass, and the D800 would at least match the mkIII in ISO, I would switch. . . or at the very least have 2 systems, and enjoy bnoth worlds. . . as far as high MP goes, but Canon will coem out with one of their own.

 

[wickidwombat]

Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.

The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.

yeah I wouldnt worry about that, also check out the 50mm f1.4G its a great value for money lens it was my nikon favourite

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I prefer to compare high ISO images at low light levels and about 3000 kelvin. This is more realistic of the times I use high ISO (Low light). Using bright well balanced lights gives unrealistically good results at high ISO, so its hard to really know how they compare for my usage.

Of course, if you just crankup the ISO in good light, perhaps to capture a fast subject or freeze action, then bright light high ISO simulates that. Maybe they should do both to see if there is a difference.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.

The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.

It is, but there are a couple of usability issues with the Nikkor vs the "L." First is the focus breathing issue. At minimum focusing distance, the Nikkor has the angle of view of a 135mm lens. The difference is very noticeable.

The "L" behaves a bit more like a unit-focusing lens in this regard. Such dramatic focus breathing in a $2,500 lens is unacceptable to me.

And the Nikkor's lens hood is very poorly designed. You cannot set your lens down on the hood, like you can with the Canon.

I was briefly considering a move, too. Between the cost (nearly all of Nikon's professional lenses are more expensive than Canon's) and the issues with this lens and the 24G, in comparison to the equivalent "L's," quickly put that thinking to an end.

Not to mention having to learn a completely different user interface, Nikon's poorer reputation for customer service, etc.