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

[briansquibb]

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?"

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.

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.

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,

It would be interesting to see how the 1DX matches up against the D800 in terms of IQ. Apart from the obvious mps difference I wonder which would be better for those that want low res output ie 16 x 10 @ 720dpi

 

[zee]

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.

Not sure about Nikon's supposedly poorer reputation for customer service...I work at a retail store in Canada and my experience with them has been excellent.

Once I dropped my Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens off a tripod since it wasn't secured properly...the back where it mounts broke right off, was quoted $600 parts & labour for repair...Nikon ended up fixing it for free even though it was my fault.

Haven't had to take my 5DII in for service yet so I can't compare their service to Canon but in my experience, Nikon's service has been excellent.

 

[moreorless]

14-24/2.8 kills Canon's wide-angle zooms.

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.

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.

To me that seems to sum up the different views of both companies, its obviously a bit of a generalisation but the impression I get is that Canon have a clear divide between the "money is no object" hardware and offering value at the lower end of the market while Nikon on the other hand seem to target somewhere inbetween those two ends a bit more often.

Nikon's business plan does I'd say tend to target the subset of people who are most represented on photo forums, that is amatures after high end quality but within a reasonable budget.

 

[WarStreet]

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,

+1 The AF and 6fps are the 2 most important aspect (for me) of this new camera. Both cameras are great and I would be happy with any of them, since each camera has their own strong points.

I still need to replace my broken printer, otherwise I would like to try printing some samples at low and high iso's and see how they perform. From my eyes, seems they won't be far from each other, possibly with an edge for D800 at low iso's and edge for the 5DIII on high iso's. For me image quality it is not just more detail (MP), or less noise, but the combination of these two, together with DR, converted into a final print. For small size web images, both of them exceed the requirements.

 

[yunusoglu]

The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...

I've taken a good look at ISO3200 images and the D800 is clearly superior at all noise reduction settings. At base ISO there's no competition of course... So, what exactly are we talking about?

This is no situation that Canon and Nikon have focused on different stuff and these are two different cameras aiming at different types of photographers. The situation is; the cheaper camera is better than the more expensive one except for the differences of 2fps bust speed and number of AF points.

If the 5D3 was priced around $2500, I could go with that. I'd say the D800 was a bit better but the 5D3 was a bit cheaper but there's nothing and absolutely nothing with the 5D3 that I can justify Canon's move.

 

[Ivar]

+1

The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...

I've taken a good look at ISO3200 images and the D800 is clearly superior at all noise reduction settings. At base ISO there's no competition of course... So, what exactly are we talking about?

This is no situation that Canon and Nikon have focused on different stuff and these are two different cameras aiming at different types of photographers. The situation is; the cheaper camera is better than the more expensive one except for the differences of 2fps bust speed and number of AF points.

If the 5D3 was priced around $2500, I could go with that. I'd say the D800 was a bit better but the 5D3 was a bit cheaper but there's nothing and absolutely nothing with the 5D3 that I can justify Canon's move.

 

[Alker]

The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...

I've taken a good look at ISO3200 images and the D800 is clearly superior at all noise reduction settings. At base ISO there's no competition of course... So, what exactly are we talking about?

This is no situation that Canon and Nikon have focused on different stuff and these are two different cameras aiming at different types of photographers. The situation is; the cheaper camera is better than the more expensive one except for the differences of 2fps bust speed and number of AF points.

If the 5D3 was priced around $2500, I could go with that. I'd say the D800 was a bit better but the 5D3 was a bit cheaper but there's nothing and absolutely nothing with the 5D3 that I can justify Canon's move.

Well what about:

All kind of TS-E lenses

What about:

Canon EF800mm F5.6

And

What if you already have:
70-200 II
24-105
70-300 L
17-40 L
etc.
etc.

What is the issue ?????
You want people to switch gear everytime when another brand DSLR seems better ?
Really makes no sense to me.


So that's why I buy the 5d Mark III.
And guess what ? ...........It is even a camera where you can take pictures with.

Yes and we all know it is 500 euro more
And if you don't like it don't buy it

I have had it with the Canon vs. Nikon SAGA

 

[yunusoglu]

Well what about:

All kind of TS-E lenses

What about:

Canon EF800mm F5.6

And

What if you already have:
70-200 II
24-105
70-300 L
17-40 L
etc.
etc.

What is the issue ?????
You want people to switch gear everytime when another brand DSLR seems better ?
Really makes no sense to me.

So that's why I buy the 5d Mark III.
And guess what ? ...........It is even a camera where you can take pictures with.

I have had it with the Canon vs. Nikon SAGA

No, no, no... This is nothing about the Nikon vs. Canon saga and I don't have even the slightest intention of switching to Nikon. I've stated before under some other topics that I've too much invested in Canon gear to jump ship. I'm just complaining because I'm a little jealous and I was very much hoping for and upgrade but now I have to stick to my 5D Mark IIs under these circumstances.

This is all out of disappointment. That's all...

 

[simonxu11]

The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...

I've taken a good look at ISO3200 images and the D800 is clearly superior at all noise reduction settings. At base ISO there's no competition of course... So, what exactly are we talking about?

This is no situation that Canon and Nikon have focused on different stuff and these are two different cameras aiming at different types of photographers. The situation is; the cheaper camera is better than the more expensive one except for the differences of 2fps bust speed and number of AF points.

If the 5D3 was priced around $2500, I could go with that. I'd say the D800 was a bit better but the 5D3 was a bit cheaper but there's nothing and absolutely nothing with the 5D3 that I can justify Canon's move.

Well what about:

All kind of TS-E lenses

What about:

Canon EF800mm F5.6

And

What if you already have:
70-200 II
24-105
70-300 L
17-40 L
etc.
etc.

What is the issue ?????
You want people to switch gear everytime when another brand DSLR seems better ?
Really makes no sense to me.

So that's why I buy the 5d Mark III.
And guess what ? ...........It is even a camera where you can take pictures with.

I have had it with the Canon vs. Nikon SAGA

?????.....................Canon has winder range of lenses, nobody denies that! But yunusoglu was comparing two bodies.

 

[Alker]

I'm just complaining because I'm a little jealous

Don't be jealous.
The next Canon DSLR may change everything who knows.

And why jealous ?
The 5D Mark III can do the job just as easily as the Nikon D800
I can hardly believe that the Nikon D800 can do things which the 5D Mrk III cannot do and abcourse the other way around.

 

[Alker]

The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't? Apart from the $3500 price tag of course...

I've taken a good look at ISO3200 images and the D800 is clearly superior at all noise reduction settings. At base ISO there's no competition of course... So, what exactly are we talking about?

This is no situation that Canon and Nikon have focused on different stuff and these are two different cameras aiming at different types of photographers. The situation is; the cheaper camera is better than the more expensive one except for the differences of 2fps bust speed and number of AF points.

If the 5D3 was priced around $2500, I could go with that. I'd say the D800 was a bit better but the 5D3 was a bit cheaper but there's nothing and absolutely nothing with the 5D3 that I can justify Canon's move.

Well what about:

All kind of TS-E lenses

What about:

Canon EF800mm F5.6

And

What if you already have:
70-200 II
24-105
70-300 L
17-40 L
etc.
etc.

What is the issue ?????
You want people to switch gear everytime when another brand DSLR seems better ?
Really makes no sense to me.

So that's why I buy the 5d Mark III.
And guess what ? ...........It is even a camera where you can take pictures with.

I have had it with the Canon vs. Nikon SAGA

?????.....................Canon has winder range of lenses, nobody denies that! But yunusoglu was comparing two bodies.

That's my point.
You can complain about the 5D and it's more price, but we all know this.
I know you are talking about the DSLR bodies, but those bodies won't work very good without lenses

Also his question was : The thing I don't get is; what exactly does the 5D3 have that the D800 doesn't?
Well for me the lensens.

 

[stve]

The 5DIII has longer exposure times at all ISO's compared to the Nikon , whenever I use high ISO it's hand held in poor lighting & the slowest shutter speed I can get away with so in the real world under poor lighting the D800 is going is going to deliver sharper pictures.
The biggest plus point for the 5DIII seems to be smaller file sizes if you have an old computer & slightly faster frame rate.
Big plus points for the D800 resolution & dynamic range & price.

Both look to be great cameras but I'm amazed by the image quality of the D800 at base ISO which I use the most.

 

[yunusoglu]

I'm just complaining because I'm a little jealous

Don't be jealous.
The next Canon DSLR may change everything who knows.

And why jealous ?
The 5D Mark III can do the job just as easily as the Nikon D800
I can hardly believe that the Nikon D800 can do things which the 5D Mrk III cannot do and abcourse the other way around.

Well, when it comes down to getting the job done, the 5D Mark II is still fine, I'm making a living with it...

Given Canon's history of DSLRs; the fisrt sub-$1000 DSLR - 300D, the amazing 1Ds Mark III, probably the most popular camera - the 5D Mark II, maybe I had big expectations, I don't know...

I'm disappointed that I've lost a potential upgrade option. Now I have to wait longer or sell my car for a MF camera to achieve a serious IQ difference in my work.

 

[Alker]

I'm disappointed that I've lost a potential upgrade option.

You are saying you don't see an approvement over de 5D Mark II ??
Come on.

The DR 11.5 or 12 difference is not going to save you, nor the resolution.
Some will say they need the 36MP......

I would really like to see there portfolio and why they think that 22mp is not enough.

If you make money by photography and it is true that you need 36 MP then you would already have moved to MF.

 

[jrista]

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!

Sorry, but Canon has NEVER added NR to their RAWs. The 5D III RAW files do not appear to have any NR when I open them with ACR, either. When it comes to sharpness, I doubt any sharpness was applied...the 5D III has a weaker low-pass (AA) filter than its predecessors, so its going to be sharper strait out of the camera. As for color rendition, I also have a high quality screen that is fully calibrated, and the D800 photos look rather saturated. Fundamentally, thats just tone curves (picture styles) that are applied by the camera when saving JPEG, and RAW converters when post-processing. You can change the default tone curves for both cameras and swap the "color fidelity" story there...its not something baked into either camera. When talking about the unmodified pixel data from a bayer sensor array, the final IQ and color quality have little to do with anything other than mathematics.

Also, to be factual, its actually Nikon that bakes NR into their RAWs at higher ISO's and longer exposures (thats been rather well known for some time.)

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

I'm disappointed that I've lost a potential upgrade option.

Or you can look at it as a 3000$ gift from Canon.

 

[Alker]

I'm disappointed that I've lost a potential upgrade option.

Or you can look at it as a 3000$ gift from Canon.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

The 5DIII has longer exposure times at all ISO's compared to the Nikon , whenever I use high ISO it's hand held in poor lighting & the slowest shutter speed I can get away with so in the real world under poor lighting the D800 is going is going to deliver sharper pictures.
The biggest plus point for the 5DIII seems to be smaller file sizes if you have an old computer & slightly faster frame rate.
Big plus points for the D800 resolution & dynamic range & price.

Both look to be great cameras but I'm amazed by the image quality of the D800 at base ISO which I use the most.

The 5D III has longer exposure times because the lighting is different. Look at the reflections of the lights in the bottles; you can see that one of the lights is much dimmer in the 5D shots than it is in the D800 shots. The shadows bear this out, too.

You cannot make any judgment about the relative ISO sensitivity of the two cameras based on these photographs.

 

[yunusoglu]

I'm disappointed that I've lost a potential upgrade option.

You are saying you don't see an approvement over de 5D Mark II ??
Come on.

The DR 11.5 or 12 difference is not going to save you, nor the resolution.
Some will say they need the 36MP......

I would really like to see there portfolio and why they think that 22mp is not enough.

If you make money by photography and it is true that you need 36 MP then you would already have moved to MF.

Oh come on Alker...
I don't need high DR, I don't need high resolution, what do I need then?
Ability to shoot in candle light with 6 fps?
Body-wise; DR and resolution makes 90% of the IQ...
That's exactly what everybody needs!

I've been making frequent visits to my Phase One dealer here in Istanbul and the best price I got so far for the MF body, a 80mm. lens and a IQ40 digital back is €18.000+VAT! A trip to Denmark would probably save me from the VAT but how about the other lenses? After switching to Profoto, I'm unfortunately short of affording a MF system...

The 5D III has longer exposure times because the lighting is different. Look at the reflections of the lights in the bottles; you can see that one of the lights is much dimmer in the 5D shots than it is in the D800 shots. The shadows bear this out, too.

You cannot make any judgment about the relative ISO sensitivity of the two cameras based on these photographs.

Please help me understand this.
So what you're saying is; 5D3 would outperform the D800 big time if the lighting conditions were the same, right? Well I mean, it has to be 'big time' to justify the 22MP sensor vs. the 36MP, right?

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

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!

Sorry, but Canon has NEVER added NR to their RAWs.

From a recent interview with Chuck W:

AH: The EOS 5D Mark II was considered the benchmark of overall image quality in the Canon lineup. Apart from improvements in noise reduction by DIGIC5+ processor, what improvements has Canon made to the CMOS image sensor itself relative to the 5D Mark II?

CW: Three main areas of image quality-related improvement on the EOS 5D Mark III image sensor compared to the EOS 5D Mark II are:

· Gapless Microlenses: This feature increases the amount of light received by each photodiode compared to the gapped microlenses used on the 5D Mark II’s image sensor.

· New Photodiode Structure: The photoelectric conversion rate of each photodiode has been improved.

· On-Chip Noise Reduction: Canon’s proprietary technology in this area, which was first shown on the EOS D30 Digital SLR in the year 2000, has steadily improved over the years.

http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/AH_CW_interview/