Here we go again: 5DIII vs. D800 raw files head-to-head
- Thread starter V8Beast
- Start date
- Status
Stephen Melvin said:
Canon lens prices seem to be well more expensive that their Nnikon counterparts if you just look at the newer models like the 70-200,, f/2.8 MK II, and the 24-105mm L. The 200-400mm L with its built-in TC is going to make the $7500 of the nikon 200-400mm Zoom look like peanuts.
So prices are getting pretty much the same. However, Nikons reputation for service, and now their refusing to sell parts to small local dealers is user unfriendly to a extreme.
No wonder Canon seems so confident about raising prices. I'm going to give the 5D MK III a good trial, I think it will be the right one for me, but some of the features on the Nikon bodies look very nice. If it weren't for the poor support and the unnecessary 36mp, I might be pretty convinced.
Upvote
0
bvukich said:
I believe Nikon cooks it in only for longer exposures, I forget the cut-off, something like a number of seconds long.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
The 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is the same price or cheaper than the VR II Nikkor. (It's currently $100 cheaper.)
The 24-105 f/4L IS USM is much cheaper than the 24-120 VR II Nikkor, and the Nikkor isn't as good. (The Canon is currently $200 cheaper at B&H.)
The 24 f/1.4L II is $600 cheaper than the 24G Nikkor, and it's a better lens.
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Yeah, I'm with you. Also, in this area, Canons outnumber Nikons at least 10-to-1 in professional hands. I shoot a lot of events, and I almost never see Nikons. Last fashion show I shot, I saw one entry-level Nikon and one D300. Saw about a dozen 5D Mk II's plus various other Canons. I was a little surprised to seen any Nikons at all.
My point being, we lend each other equipment from time to time. If I wanted a piece of Nikon gear, I'd have to rent or buy it.
Upvote
0
I have a 5D2 and a 5D3 on order, and I'm not about to switch to Nikon. But damn, those ISO 100 images from the D800 make the 5D3 look like a toy. They look more like medium format quality. The colours are just night and day, looking at them on a wide gamut monitor. Ok, I only checked out the jpegs but the 5D files are over sharpened and subtle as a brick in comparison. Even the high ISO files are decent on the D800 and more honest than the heavily NR Canon images. I'm annoyed that Canon is adding noise reduction to the RAWs (I downloaded some RAWs yesterday, before the D800 files were up), because it stops us from squeezing every last drop of detail out of them in post.
The 5D3 is more than good enough for my purposes - mostly weddings (stills + video). And the features / usability are great. But well done Nikon!
The 5D3 is more than good enough for my purposes - mostly weddings (stills + video). And the features / usability are great. But well done Nikon!
Upvote
0
After a while it starts sounding a little anal here and not very visual. We all know photographers who shoot crap with the best gear and others who are amazing at making pictures and processing files with lesser gear.
It reminds me of people who have the best stereo equipment money can buy but don't own much of a music collection.
I like my Canon gear a lot, and if my co-workers have better Nikon gear, all the better for them.
Like someone said, for all the praise for Nikon, the sidelines are crowded with Canon shooters.
For all the complaints about the Canon 5D MK ll, it has been hugely popular around the world for years, and the buzz surrounding the MK lll release is extraordinary.
It reminds me of people who have the best stereo equipment money can buy but don't own much of a music collection.
I like my Canon gear a lot, and if my co-workers have better Nikon gear, all the better for them.
Like someone said, for all the praise for Nikon, the sidelines are crowded with Canon shooters.
For all the complaints about the Canon 5D MK ll, it has been hugely popular around the world for years, and the buzz surrounding the MK lll release is extraordinary.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Looks like the cut-off is at 1/4 sec, at least for the cameras tested below.
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p4.html
The article also sparked my memory... I originally came across this information while researching cameras for astrophotography. I saw numerous people suggest staying away from Nikon, but most of them had only a tenuous grasp on why. After some additional research, I came across this.
Upvote
0
sarangiman said:
Download some RAWs and see for yourself. The high ISO images are practically noise-free but very mushy. That is noise reduction, and it's not even subtle. Compare with the Nikon RAWS, where there is tons of noise but also more detail and contrast at high ISOs.
Upvote
0
I could say I understood this before Nikon came out with the AF-S 24/1.4 & 35/1.4, but I just don't get it anymore.
14-24/2.8 kills Canon's wide-angle zooms.
85/1.4 beats Canon's 85/1.2 IMHO b/c it has 9 aperture blades (which means circular OOF highlights well beyond f/1.6, which is where Canon's 85/1.2 starts imparting octagonal shape to OOF highlights) & less CA on the sides & focuses faster & yields 18-point sunstars & has a more standard 77mm filter and is lighter and... etc.
Nikon 24/1.4 has like 1 stop of vignetting in the corners. Canon's has like 3.
If you compare most MTF charts of primes, Nikon has higher MTF wide open than Canon (and usually you buy primes to shoot them wide open or thereabouts).
So please someone explain to me why Canon glass is better. I'd really like to understand this sentiment that I commonly hear thrown around... I think each brand has different glass that is better suited for one individual over another. But generally, both offer good options. For my particular needs, it'd seem Nikon's glass might suit be better. But to each his/her own.
I am heavily invested in Canon, but for one considering the switch, the only barriers/reasons not to switch I see are: (1) The investment/hassle of switching; (2) Canon's AF may be superior due to extra sensitivity at f/2.8 (does that lead to more accuracy/precision? I'd like some quantitative tests, which I will do shortly when I have both a 5DIII & a D800 in my hands) & extra cross-type sensors. I would add Canon's new flashes as a reason to stick with Canon, but at least E-TTL Pocket Wizards work with Nikon flashes, AFAIK, without frying them or incredible radio interference (something I have a little experience with).
Upvote
0
In analyzing this particular set of images from the Canon 5DIII and the Nikon D800, there are two conclusions that seem irrefutable:
1. At ISO100, the Nikon D800 has noticeably superior images out of the camera, due primarily to greater detail and dynamic range.
2. At ISO6400, the Canon 5DIII has noticeably superior images out of the camera, due primarily to significantly less noise.
That's what the speculation has been all along, and this one set of images bears this out. The 5DIII is the better low light tool, and the D800 is the detail/landscape/portrait king.
You can argue that noise reduction can be improved in post, whereas detail and dynamic range cannot, so maybe the D800 wins.
But it's funny, because when my jaw drops at an amazing image in the galleries on fredmiranda.com, I don't start drilling down to the pixel level to figure out why. I think, "Amazing light, great composition, outstanding quality." I don't think, "Oh, that must have been taken by Nikon or Canon" but instead, "Why is that photographer so much better than I am?"
For all the "switchers" out there (or pretend switchers), I can't fathom that you would dump your glass and familiarity with a UI to make a change from Canon to Nikon (or vice-versa), when both tools look to by quite exceptional. Also, if you are inclined, browse the forums of nikonrumors.com. It's funny to see how many of them are complaining that D800 75MB raw files are just too unwieldy for their workflow, and hoping Nikon will release a 20-24 megapixel option for them. For them, the grass is greener when there is low light. For you, the grass is greener when there is more detail.
1. At ISO100, the Nikon D800 has noticeably superior images out of the camera, due primarily to greater detail and dynamic range.
2. At ISO6400, the Canon 5DIII has noticeably superior images out of the camera, due primarily to significantly less noise.
That's what the speculation has been all along, and this one set of images bears this out. The 5DIII is the better low light tool, and the D800 is the detail/landscape/portrait king.
You can argue that noise reduction can be improved in post, whereas detail and dynamic range cannot, so maybe the D800 wins.
But it's funny, because when my jaw drops at an amazing image in the galleries on fredmiranda.com, I don't start drilling down to the pixel level to figure out why. I think, "Amazing light, great composition, outstanding quality." I don't think, "Oh, that must have been taken by Nikon or Canon" but instead, "Why is that photographer so much better than I am?"
For all the "switchers" out there (or pretend switchers), I can't fathom that you would dump your glass and familiarity with a UI to make a change from Canon to Nikon (or vice-versa), when both tools look to by quite exceptional. Also, if you are inclined, browse the forums of nikonrumors.com. It's funny to see how many of them are complaining that D800 75MB raw files are just too unwieldy for their workflow, and hoping Nikon will release a 20-24 megapixel option for them. For them, the grass is greener when there is low light. For you, the grass is greener when there is more detail.
Upvote
0
J
jhop
Guest
Two words why I will be staying with Canon regardless what Nikon does: Ashton Kutcher. Any company that decides to hire this guy to represent product is suspect to me! It's only a matter of time before he is caught in a conversion van molesting something other than himself!
Upvote
0
E
erfon
Guest
Stephen Melvin said:
yeah, new canon lenses might start off the same, but eventually they will drop in price. nikon lenses won't — they'll always be expensive.
that's because nikon just implemented a "universal pricing policy" where their authorized retailers are forced to charge nikon's MSRP. if they don't, nikon stops selling to them.
this ridiculous new policy is one of the reasons that, after 8 years with nikon, my first full frame camera will be the mark iii.
canon's lenses seem extremely affordable to me, and i can tell you, in my experience, have much more beautiful bokeh.
Upvote
0
sarangiman said:
Look, the Nikon 14-24mm is a great lens. The problem is, it has almost 4% barrel distortion at 14mm. For someone like me, who shoots architectural stuff almost always at f/8 or smaller, and for whom the widest fov is critical, it just doesn't cut it next to the Canon 14mm.
Canon's vignetting decreases significantly by f/8 or f/11, and in any case, it is very easily fixed in post.
When you fix 4% barrel distortion, unfortunately, you lose the fov advantage that 14mm might have because part of the image has to be thrown away.
So, it really depends on the application.
On a side note, Guys, how are you viewing these RAWS ???? I have updated Lightroom 3 and PS5 and it says the Nikon file is 'incompatible??? Can someone help??
Upvote
0
woodymirag said:
Precisely. I just don't see either of these bodies giving their handlers a big enough edge over the other where the tech specs would be what separates a mediocre image from a great image.
I'm guilty of this myself, as I pre-ordered a D800 when the rumor mill was swirling with some very underwhelming 5DIII specs. Then Canon shocked me by putting a near-1Dx caliber AF system and a 6 FPS burst rate in the 5DIII, addressing my two biggest gripes with the 5DII. The dual card slots, weather sealing, and improved ISO are just icing on the cake. Before the 5DIII was announced, I thought the D800 would blow it out of the weeds. However, after seeing some real sample pics between the two, the difference in IQ between them is so insignificant for my shooting needs that I'm reconsidering my plans to test both bodies out side by side, and may just cancel my D800 order outright. My 5DIII pre-order is probably going to show up on my doorstep first anyway
For this round of the mid-range DSLR war, I'll concede that Nikon appears to have delivered the overall winner. Even so, the D800's advantages aren't that substantial for my style of shooting and Nikon hasn't distanced itself enough from Canon to put up with the hassle of switching systems,
Upvote
0
- Status
