HUGE difference between the 5d Mark 3 and D800 RAWs... I mean... HUUGEE

[sarangiman]

I'm very excited by the prospects of the 5DIII AF, which hopefully means I can focus more accurately with the 85/1.2 in the f/1.2-f/2 range. And nail off-center composition focus better w/ the 35/1.4 where focus & recompose doesn't work due to the large angular shift.

I'm also excited at not having to use E-TTL Pocket Wizards with Canon flashes... b/c they only really work well with the 430EX II.

This means a world of difference to me in terms of people/event photography.

I just wish it were at least comparable to the D800 in terms of low ISO DR & low banding in shadows so that some of my landscapes would benefit without having to resort to HDR. And maybe it will be... we have to wait for real world DR tests, in my opinion.

 

[awinphoto]

Yeah, JustinTArthur, that's what I'm seeing too. Posted this on another thread but it's relevant here: I don't seem to come to the same conclusion as people claiming that while the D800 has higher resolution & DR, the 5DIII holds up better at higher ISOs.

Here are my comparisons of 5DIII vs D800 at ISO 25,600:
http://cl.ly/F1ud/5DIII_vs_D800-ISO25600.png
http://cl.ly/F2Ui/5DIII_vs_D800-ISO25600-2.png

I don't see any difference between the two cameras at ISO 25,600. Both RAWs were opened in ACR 6.7, identical settings, then D800 was downsized to 5760px horizontal (same as 5DIII) using 'Bicubic' (not sharper, not smoother).

These are 100% crops.

If anything, the D800 looks a little cleaner to me but, really, it's a wash. Minus the fact that D800 has better resolution & DR.

Honestly I would've expected better ISO performance for the 5DIII given the higher inherent SNR of each pixel, which should decrease shot noise. But maybe read noise (higher for Canon?) has that much of an effect...

Also dont forget that ACR is just a beta raw, and as I mentioned in the past, it used to take adobe weeks to come up with a raw conversion for the newly released (not announced) canon cameras... and even with that there would be additional patchwork they would send to update the ACR to be cleaner/smoother... For all we know DPP and nikons software could be even cleaner/better at the raw conversions and it will be then that we can see the full potential of these two camera... but as I guess... down-sampling the D800 to the 5d3 would make the ISO's very close to call.

 

[Marsu42]

no sony to shovel extra money into R&D

... exactly! But why would I want to pay for this if I don't own Canon shares or have heaps of Canon gear lying around?

They should better get their R&D money back from the pro bodies and lenses like they used too, or they risk that the large group of semi-pros or well-off amateurs will switch and won't buy Canon's lenses either. Canon doesn't seem to loose money (yet), btw...

 

[awinphoto]

no sony to shovel extra money into R&D

... exactly! But why would I want to pay for this if I don't own Canon shares or tons of Canon gear lying around?

They should better get their R&D money back from the pro bodies and lenses like they used too, or they risk that the large group of semi-pros or well-off amateurs will switch and won't buy Canon's lenses either.

Last I heard from Canon, the 5d3, 7D are considered "pro bodies" and were put in the same class as the 1d bodies... Whether they are and who they're geared for are two separate things all together... also see the new 24-70 price... it looks like they are getting their R&D money back from pro bodies and lenses...

 

[meli]

Well class leading AF, 100% VF, accelerometers, higher sensitive sensors for ISO, digic 5+, 6FPS, in camera HDR, more robust body and weather sealing, faster response times, 2 cards, no sony to shovel extra money into R&D, this doesn't come for free... Let alone damage to facilities, possible insurance claims and or negative effects thereof... all that gets passed on to the consumer in some way shape or form... Sucks but the improvements puts this camera in a whole new class of camera compared to the 5d2.

Your inability to see the discrepancy between price/product and 4yrs R&D/product just amazes me.

ps. Claiming the Thailand event is counterproductive, the competition had even bigger damages

 

[awinphoto]

Well class leading AF, 100% VF, accelerometers, higher sensitive sensors for ISO, digic 5+, 6FPS, in camera HDR, more robust body and weather sealing, faster response times, 2 cards, no sony to shovel extra money into R&D, this doesn't come for free... Let alone damage to facilities, possible insurance claims and or negative effects thereof... all that gets passed on to the consumer in some way shape or form... Sucks but the improvements puts this camera in a whole new class of camera compared to the 5d2.

Your inability to see the discrepancy between price/product and 4yrs R&D/product just amazes me.

ps. Claiming the Thailand event is counterproductive, the competition had even bigger damages

I wasn't even referring to thailand but now that you mention it. I'm not saying that Canon has suffered more damage compared to other competitors, but be it as it may, progression is progression any way you slice it... The fact is the price is what it is. I cannot tell you exactly what pricing and research and what percentage of AF R&D went into the 1dx vs the 5d3, I cannot tell you why they priced it what they did, but in the end, it is what it is. Your reaction is pretty similar to what my wife said when I broke the news to her, and I know other semi pro's and pro's who will be holding off on the camera until they have the money to swing the purchase. We all would love a 1dx in a 5d body at a sub $3000 price, but that isn't what we were dealt. I understand your frustration but there's nothing I can do about it other than buy the camera because for my photography, it suits my needs.

 

[WoodysGamertag]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40912195



Can we stop now. It's pretty much a wash....

I preordered my 5D and I've been torturing myself by reading forum posts about how terrible it is ever since. It's made me question my decision. Is a pair of L lenses and three others enough to keep me on this horrible platform?

Seeing this made me feel a lot better. To be honest, it's really going to be about what the picture/video is of and not what you took it with. Thanks.

 

[Marsu42]

Last I heard from Canon, the 5d3, 7D are considered "pro bodies" and were put in the same class as the 1d bodies... Whether they are and who they're geared for are two separate things all together...

Personally, I think this is marketing crap. Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear. After all, this is what the red ring and white lens campaign is for. But except maybe for landscape and semi-pro portrait/wedding, every pro I ever saw at events in Berlin had a 1D body, sometimes an older one. Most of them have Nikon anyway. Maybe some will get the 5d3, but the fps imho might be too slow for events.

 

[WoodysGamertag]

Personally, I think this is marketing crap. Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear. After all, this is what the red ring and white lens campaign is for. But except maybe for landscape and semi-pro portrait/wedding, every pro I ever saw at events in Berlin had a 1D body, sometimes an older one. Most of them have Nikon anyway. Maybe some will get the 5d3, but the fps imho might be too slow for events.

Interesting. I met a pro photog at a UFC even and she used a pair of 7Ds with 70-200L and 24-70L lenses.

I'm sort of a minor league celeb so last week I was in Hollywood on a shoot. The video stuff was all some kind of Panasonic camera (medium format?) and the still work was a Canon 7D with a 24-70L lens. On a related note, it was my first time getting makeup for a shoot with a pro makeup artist. That was super cool. They had a guy who's job it was to clean the bottom of my shoes before I went on stage. That was just awkward. I'm not really special enough for that kind of treatment.

The only other pro I know does weddings with a 5Dii. So yeah, based on my little bit of exposure I'd say that people make their living with 7D and 5D's.

 

[Marsu42]

Interesting. I met a pro photog at a UFC even and she used a pair of 7Ds with 70-200L and 24-70L lenses.

Well, that's why I marked my comment "personally" and said the observations were from events "in Berlin" which might be more saturated w/ 1d bodies due to being the capital. If you like, I take it all back - there's really no need for a 7d vs 1d exchange here.

However, I stand by my argument that Canon labeling the 7d and 5d "pro" like the 1d is generated by marketing strategy as is the red ring and big white lens campaign.

 

[awinphoto]

Last I heard from Canon, the 5d3, 7D are considered "pro bodies" and were put in the same class as the 1d bodies... Whether they are and who they're geared for are two separate things all together...

Personally, I think this is marketing crap. Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear. After all, this is what the red ring and white lens campaign is for. But except maybe for landscape and semi-pro portrait/wedding, every pro I ever saw at events in Berlin had a 1D body, sometimes an older one. Most of them have Nikon anyway. Maybe some will get the 5d3, but the fps imho might be too slow for events.

To some extent, you are right, it is marketing, but then again, in CPS, which is geared for pro photographers, in the USA, before they switched to the points system, they had the silver,gold, and platinum membership. Silver had to be pro, xxd bodies or better, plus lenses just to qualify... Gold, same requirements but fee's assessed to get extra goodies... platinum you had higher fee's but needed a 7d, 5d2 or 1d body to even qualify... Take it for what it's worth, but they kinda view the XD and XXD class as the main factor between a pro body and semi pro/ameature body. Right or wrong, marketing or not, it is what it is. Regarding seeing 1d bodys at events... well no crap... that's the ultimate body for most situations... the 5d2 never was built to do sporting events and such... The 7D was but is crop and has it's own stigmas attached to it as well. Many pro's use and only use 5d's and 7D's professionally, me included. 1d's, while awesome cameras, grab a lot of attention, high price points, and unless i'm in a situation where a 7D or 5d3 cannot suffice, I have no need for a 1d body to get me by... When that time comes, I will cross that bridge. But with the 70-200 II, 24-70 II, Canon 5d3, they are making up their losses in R&D... I wouldn't be surprised to see the cheaper priced gear get updated with higher priced gear, if not anything but to catch up to nikons prices... In the end it's all about competition and unless maybe JVC, Samsung, or some other major brand teams up with Canon like Nikon and Sony, Canon will have to work harder to advance beyond nikon. It's all about $$$

 

[awinphoto]

Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear.

Also, we all know, having pro gear doesn't make anyone a "professional" or even proficient let alone take decent photos. Being professional is about knowing your gear, knowing what gear you need to make the shots you want, and make money doing it at the same time. =)

 

[AJ]

I just had a look at the comparison.

The Nikon images shown are contrastier. This could be because of lens or processing. More contrast gives an illusion of more sharpness. A fair comparison would have an equal histogram.

That said, the Nikon samples are just a tad sharper. I think the extra megapixels do help a bit. So, perhaps there's room for a future high megapixel camera.

In all, though, I suspect that on a 18"x24" print you're going to have a very tough time telling these two cameras apart.

 

[Marsu42]

Also, we all know, having pro gear doesn't make anyone a "professional" or even proficient let alone take decent photos.

Indeed: The other category of pros I know take their pictures with a compact camera or completely outdated dslr, then edit them extremely professionally in Photoshop, add good self-marketing and then sell this for a couple of thousand bucks... but in the comment above, I was thinking of tech pros that don't have to give too much thought about getting a 5d or a 1d.

I think the extra megapixels do help a bit.

Please watch out for sharp or heavy objects flying toward you in the near future :->

 

[mauro.canon]

some streets...photo with D800 (full size and raw)

http://nikond4d800.fotopolis.pl/index.php?n=14580

ex
http://files.fotopolis.pl/download/pw-d800-plen12.JPG

400 iso...f16...I see...noise (and dust)

400 iso..must be clean! .

and compare
http://nikond4d800.fotopolis.pl/index.php?n=14565

 

[stve]

I just had a look at the comparison.

The Nikon images shown are contrastier. This could be because of lens or processing. More contrast gives an illusion of more sharpness. A fair comparison would have an equal histogram.

That said, the Nikon samples are just a tad sharper. I think the extra megapixels do help a bit. So, perhaps there's room for a future high megapixel camera.

In all, though, I suspect that on a 18"x24" print you're going to have a very tough time telling these two cameras apart.

You need to look at the raw images to properly judge. The D800 NEF opened in Lightroom 4 shows a huge amount of detail compared to viewing the jpeg in a browser.

 

[Joe J]

Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear.

Also, we all know, having pro gear doesn't make anyone a "professional" or even proficient let alone take decent photos. Being professional is about knowing your gear, knowing what gear you need to make the shots you want, and make money doing it at the same time. =)

+1 If you don't even have the ability take similar decent photos with an AE-1 and a roll of Provia as with a 1DX, you shouldn't consider yourself "professional" or proficient at taking photos. Expensive camera equipement has never made anyone a "pro", unless you are using your overblown credit card purchase for status to get a job.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

I preordered my 5D and I've been torturing myself by reading forum posts about how terrible it is ever since. It's made me question my decision. Is a pair of L lenses and three others enough to keep me on this horrible platform?

Seeing this made me feel a lot better. To be honest, it's really going to be about what the picture/video is of and not what you took it with. Thanks.

That's because you've been listening to a lot of people who, to be honest, don't really know 36 vs. 22 MP is not going to make the difference between a camera that's usable and one that isn't but people get themselves in a frenzy etc etc... and pour over JPEG files rather than waiting for real tests. It just feeds into the marketing machines, which if I'm honest Nikon is better at.

It's the same with high ISO. I've heard people say the d3s and d700 "destroy" the 5dii. The d3s is 8/10ths of a stop better and the d700 is 1/3rd of a stop better. These are not "destroy" level stats - especially the comparison with the d700. 1/3rd of a stop is not even noticeable yet I've had discussions with "photographers" who claim the d700 is the high ISO king and the 5dii sucks.

I've said it before, but the difference between 22 and 36 MP is about a third extra resolution. So, if you were printing at 300dpi, most people would get an extra few inches on their maximum size print. Scaled, I'm unsure if many people could tell the difference, and by this I mean if you didn't have them side by side and asked which camera they were printed from, they couldn't tell you. Even side by side it's not certain. That means there will be no significantly business advantage to having the d800 (for most photographers). In fact, I'm not even sure most people would notice the difference between a 12mp d700 and a 36mp d800..

Certainly, for me, the difference is less than the difference a great lens will make - who wants more resolution when the lens can't resolve it and you just have greater resolution blurry details?

Canon rule the roost when it comes to lenses (except for the 12-24). I wouldn't consider switching to Nikon for that reason alone.

Photographer > Lenses > Body (for most photographers).

 

[Positron]

Personally, I think this is marketing crap. Of course Canon would like every well-off amateur with a 7d or 5d to feel like they are almost professionals since they got alleged pro gear. After all, this is what the red ring and white lens campaign is for. But except maybe for landscape and semi-pro portrait/wedding, every pro I ever saw at events in Berlin had a 1D body, sometimes an older one. Most of them have Nikon anyway. Maybe some will get the 5d3, but the fps imho might be too slow for events.

Interesting. I met a pro photog at a UFC even and she used a pair of 7Ds with 70-200L and 24-70L lenses.

I'm sort of a minor league celeb so last week I was in Hollywood on a shoot. The video stuff was all some kind of Panasonic camera (medium format?) and the still work was a Canon 7D with a 24-70L lens. On a related note, it was my first time getting makeup for a shoot with a pro makeup artist. That was super cool. They had a guy who's job it was to clean the bottom of my shoes before I went on stage. That was just awkward. I'm not really special enough for that kind of treatment.

The only other pro I know does weddings with a 5Dii. So yeah, based on my little bit of exposure I'd say that people make their living with 7D and 5D's.

When I see galleries of photographers at newsworthy events, sports events, and the like, they're almost all using 1D or D3 series bodies, but I get the impression that the majority of those photographers have that equipment bankrolled by whatever organization they are with; while there are people out there who can afford a 1D Mark IV and a 400mm f/2.8, the reality is that most of us will never be able to afford it unless we do something extreme like taking a downgrade on a car or home. I know a fair number of professional photographers, that run the gamut from fine art landscape, to wedding, to freelance journalism, to full-time journalism, to full-time sports, and one rule holds true for every single one. The ones who are employed as full-time photographers use flagship bodies which were paid for by their company, and the ones who are self-employed use non-flagship bodies which were paid out of their own pockets.

 

[Maui5150]

I preordered my 5D and I've been torturing myself by reading forum posts about how terrible it is ever since. It's made me question my decision. Is a pair of L lenses and three others enough to keep me on this horrible platform?

Seeing this made me feel a lot better. To be honest, it's really going to be about what the picture/video is of and not what you took it with. Thanks.

That's because you've been listening to a lot of people who, to be honest, don't really know 36 vs. 22 MP is not going to make the difference between a camera that's usable and one that isn't but people get themselves in a frenzy etc etc... and pour over JPEG files rather than waiting for real tests. It just feeds into the marketing machines, which if I'm honest Nikon is better at.

It's the same with high ISO. I've heard people say the d3s and d700 "destroy" the 5dii. The d3s is 8/10ths of a stop better and the d700 is 1/3rd of a stop better. These are not "destroy" level stats - especially the comparison with the d700. 1/3rd of a stop is not even noticeable yet I've had discussions with "photographers" who claim the d700 is the high ISO king and the 5dii sucks.

I've said it before, but the difference between 22 and 36 MP is about a third extra resolution. So, if you were printing at 300dpi, most people would get an extra few inches on their maximum size print. Scaled, I'm unsure if many people could tell the difference, and by this I mean if you didn't have them side by side and asked which camera they were printed from, they couldn't tell you. Even side by side it's not certain. That means there will be no significantly business advantage to having the d800 (for most photographers). In fact, I'm not even sure most people would notice the difference between a 12mp d700 and a 36mp d800..

Certainly, for me, the difference is less than the difference a great lens will make - who wants more resolution when the lens can't resolve it and you just have greater resolution blurry details?

Canon rule the roost when it comes to lenses (except for the 12-24). I wouldn't consider switching to Nikon for that reason alone.

Photographer > Lenses > Body (for most photographers).

You make far too much sense and are far too rational for this site...

Please consider yourself officially notified of being on probation.

In the future, please feel free to voice hysterics, complain that Canon does not listen, the prices are too high, the MP too small, the DR non-existant and how ( ) Nikon ( ) Sony (please select one or more) are kicking Canon's butt and that you are switching...

Now back to this regularly scheduled thread.