Nikon D800 vs Canon 5d3 sample images.
- Thread starter sanj
- Start date
- Status
K
kede
Guest
Just seeing the sample images (and I'm not giving conclusion) I admit.
All the sample I've seen from the 5D3 looks way too soft. It can be 2 things : First is post prod NR. Second is 5D3 NR. If It's the 5D3 NR they use it wayyyy too much.
Ok nice, you see no noise at 1600 ISO or even 6400 but it ruin the quality.
It does exactly the same as Neat Video.
Second, as I look to the image, it look photoshoped! In some of them I can see clearly bad photoshop!
I think that we really have to wait unofficial pictures.
(sorry for my english ^^)
All the sample I've seen from the 5D3 looks way too soft. It can be 2 things : First is post prod NR. Second is 5D3 NR. If It's the 5D3 NR they use it wayyyy too much.
Ok nice, you see no noise at 1600 ISO or even 6400 but it ruin the quality.
It does exactly the same as Neat Video.
Second, as I look to the image, it look photoshoped! In some of them I can see clearly bad photoshop!
I think that we really have to wait unofficial pictures.
(sorry for my english ^^)
Upvote
0
B
Brad Trent
Guest
I'm confused.....are you saying there are side-by-side comparisons of the two cameras, or are you comparing the images released by Nikon and Canon? If the later, then so what? until you can look at the same scene photographed by both cameras, using simliar lenses, and simliar post-processing corrections, any comparison is kinda meaningless.
BT
BT
Upvote
0
Brad Trent said:
Totally agree, also need the original RAW images without any NR. I am totally surprised that Canon and Nikon fail miserably at providing such information and that the photographic community lets them get away with murder and misinformation.
Upvote
0
Hi, a bit off topic but I didn’t want to start a new just for this. There was a post and link given at some point in the mêlée pre 02/03 to a web site where the guy compared Canon & Nikon sensors when the same image is pushed. Was a photo looking out a window so very high DR. Can anyone help me with that link again please?
Upvote
0
Brad/Renato.
Sometimes it is not necessary to see the same image side by side to compare. That is necessary only when the difference is small.
In this case the difference is so obvious that there is no need to put the images side by side, IMHO.
Sanjay
Sometimes it is not necessary to see the same image side by side to compare. That is necessary only when the difference is small.
In this case the difference is so obvious that there is no need to put the images side by side, IMHO.
Sanjay
Upvote
0
yep. I heve already post some my thoughts about those samples in other topic, but now i realize that there is a topic about it so...
I am a canon user from 1 year. I switched from Nikon. Bad decision-YES!. I waited for 5d3 in order to made my final decsion to stay or go away from Canon.
Speaking about the main topic...
When I firstly saw a 5d3 sample I was in shock-how is it possible? It looks like crap from good high mpix compact camera, not a 3500$ dlsr. There is no sharpness at all. Everything looks crappy and very soft, even photos developed from Raws (animal photo). Every photo looks like after strong in camera pp. Please take a closer look on eyebrows, lashes, eyes, hair. Guys-it's drama. Than I took a look on D800 (nor E) samples-amazing. I am not a tech guys, but photographer, but from I have seen the decision is obvious and clear. I think thats not about resolution, it's about whole things related with image processing and sensor. 5d3 photos lacs details and sharpness, they look strange in 100% view. What is strange also is that I think that photos from my 5d2 looks better in terms of sharpness and detail. I am frustrated due to being already invested in Canon gear, but I know I will probably sell me lens and switch back to Nikon even losing some money. I would be very happy to see other point of views, especially from more advanced or professional photographers.
I am a canon user from 1 year. I switched from Nikon. Bad decision-YES!. I waited for 5d3 in order to made my final decsion to stay or go away from Canon.
Speaking about the main topic...
When I firstly saw a 5d3 sample I was in shock-how is it possible? It looks like crap from good high mpix compact camera, not a 3500$ dlsr. There is no sharpness at all. Everything looks crappy and very soft, even photos developed from Raws (animal photo). Every photo looks like after strong in camera pp. Please take a closer look on eyebrows, lashes, eyes, hair. Guys-it's drama. Than I took a look on D800 (nor E) samples-amazing. I am not a tech guys, but photographer, but from I have seen the decision is obvious and clear. I think thats not about resolution, it's about whole things related with image processing and sensor. 5d3 photos lacs details and sharpness, they look strange in 100% view. What is strange also is that I think that photos from my 5d2 looks better in terms of sharpness and detail. I am frustrated due to being already invested in Canon gear, but I know I will probably sell me lens and switch back to Nikon even losing some money. I would be very happy to see other point of views, especially from more advanced or professional photographers.
Upvote
0
sanj said:
Same opinion here. Followed by marketing, people are happy because new AF, but no one took a look at samples . It's drama for me. There is nothing to compare with D800. I waited for 5D3, having a 5 lens from Canon, but now I decided to sell it and switch, unfortunately. Shame for Canon in my opinion.
Upvote
0
A
ashe
Guest
These images look really sharp http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/ .
In this image you can see the details of the models leg http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/08.jpg
Pretty impressive if you ask me.
Ashe
In this image you can see the details of the models leg http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/08.jpg
Pretty impressive if you ask me.
Ashe
Upvote
0
I do expect the nikon to produce more technically impressive RAWs but I expect the canon to offer some more latitude in difficult shooting conditions.
However, I think it is silly to compare them on their respective strong points. Many canon fanboys will chant: "see, at ISO 51K, it blows the D800 out of the water". Only to be greeted with nikon fanboys please to remind them that "well, at ISO 400, it shoots the 5DmkIII out of the sky".
The 5DIII can't match the detail of the nikon, period. get over it. It wasn't meant to do that. Just as the D800 wasn't meant to be a night vision camera and it will be a poor tool for that.
A more relevant comparison would be on how much these cameras can do to offset their drawbacks. For instance, will the cleaner images of the 5DIII record more detail? or will the scaled down images of the D800 show less perceived noise.
That's more interesting than creating a comparison where you know who the winner is before you started.
However, I think it is silly to compare them on their respective strong points. Many canon fanboys will chant: "see, at ISO 51K, it blows the D800 out of the water". Only to be greeted with nikon fanboys please to remind them that "well, at ISO 400, it shoots the 5DmkIII out of the sky".
The 5DIII can't match the detail of the nikon, period. get over it. It wasn't meant to do that. Just as the D800 wasn't meant to be a night vision camera and it will be a poor tool for that.
A more relevant comparison would be on how much these cameras can do to offset their drawbacks. For instance, will the cleaner images of the 5DIII record more detail? or will the scaled down images of the D800 show less perceived noise.
That's more interesting than creating a comparison where you know who the winner is before you started.
Upvote
0
Just seeing the sample images (and I'm not giving conclusion) I admit.
All the sample I've seen from the 5D3 looks way too soft. It can be 2 things : First is post prod NR. Second is 5D3 NR. If It's the 5D3 NR they use it wayyyy too much.
Ok nice, you see no noise at 1600 ISO or even 6400 but it ruin the quality.
Aside from the possible bad judgment and/or low talent of the people Canon chose to shoot their samples, I've come to almost the same conclusion as you have, but I'm just not quite as sure as you are, and I would like to see images from raw, shot by a good photographer and processed in DPP by a good craftsman before I could be. If, under those conditions, the results from raws look great, then I'd have to say that Canon has rolled up a big fat fail with its 5DIII in-camera Jpg processing.
But, there is another possiblity that is something I have deduced from the available specs and samples, plus statements by those associated by Canon with the 5DIII release. It's possible that Canon, in order to satisfy the potential video users of this camera who had previously complained about the bad aliasing and moire on 5DIII video, has used a much stronger AA filter on this camera to help cure it, and that the softness you see in the released Jpegs is mostly from this. There are two other points that can support this. One is that Canon is offering the unprecedented function of supposedly deconstructing the effect of the AA filter in the latest version of its raw software converter, DPP, to be released with the camera. Why do this now, unless it is especially relevant to the 5DIII? Although this might be their software answer to the Nikon D800 without AA filter, I doubt Canon could have developed this software function in the short time after which they likely learned of Nikon's plans. Also, in looking at many of the Canon 5DII samples, I noted an unusually low level of moire in many of the samples, several of which I know would certainly have displayed some level of moire if shot with my 1DsIII. I hope I am wrong about this, but I am afraid that I may well be correct in my deduction.
Second, as I look to the image, it look photoshoped! In some of them I can see clearly bad photoshop!
I think that we really have to wait unofficial pictures.
Most likely what you are seeing, and I too, at first, suspected as possibly some sort of horrible Photoshop work, is rather the awful effects of using the new in-camera HDR function, which, at different settings results in effects that range from bad to absolutely pathetic. This function needs either to be vastly improved or deleted from the firmware ASAP.
Regards,
David
All the sample I've seen from the 5D3 looks way too soft. It can be 2 things : First is post prod NR. Second is 5D3 NR. If It's the 5D3 NR they use it wayyyy too much.
Ok nice, you see no noise at 1600 ISO or even 6400 but it ruin the quality.
Aside from the possible bad judgment and/or low talent of the people Canon chose to shoot their samples, I've come to almost the same conclusion as you have, but I'm just not quite as sure as you are, and I would like to see images from raw, shot by a good photographer and processed in DPP by a good craftsman before I could be. If, under those conditions, the results from raws look great, then I'd have to say that Canon has rolled up a big fat fail with its 5DIII in-camera Jpg processing.
But, there is another possiblity that is something I have deduced from the available specs and samples, plus statements by those associated by Canon with the 5DIII release. It's possible that Canon, in order to satisfy the potential video users of this camera who had previously complained about the bad aliasing and moire on 5DIII video, has used a much stronger AA filter on this camera to help cure it, and that the softness you see in the released Jpegs is mostly from this. There are two other points that can support this. One is that Canon is offering the unprecedented function of supposedly deconstructing the effect of the AA filter in the latest version of its raw software converter, DPP, to be released with the camera. Why do this now, unless it is especially relevant to the 5DIII? Although this might be their software answer to the Nikon D800 without AA filter, I doubt Canon could have developed this software function in the short time after which they likely learned of Nikon's plans. Also, in looking at many of the Canon 5DII samples, I noted an unusually low level of moire in many of the samples, several of which I know would certainly have displayed some level of moire if shot with my 1DsIII. I hope I am wrong about this, but I am afraid that I may well be correct in my deduction.
Second, as I look to the image, it look photoshoped! In some of them I can see clearly bad photoshop!
I think that we really have to wait unofficial pictures.
Most likely what you are seeing, and I too, at first, suspected as possibly some sort of horrible Photoshop work, is rather the awful effects of using the new in-camera HDR function, which, at different settings results in effects that range from bad to absolutely pathetic. This function needs either to be vastly improved or deleted from the firmware ASAP.
Regards,
David
Upvote
0
It's okay but it's far from mindblowing. Whenever artificial light in involved and you can shoot at base ISO with the lens stopped down a bit, you can get that kind of sharpness even with a rebel and a kit lens. Seriously.ashe said:
In fact Canon's sample image actually seems a bit soft to me. That might be caused by diffraction (shot at f/16), the RAW converter settings or the JPG compression.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing the 5D3. It's just that I've seen sharper pictures from lesser setups and therefore don't think this image does the camera justice.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
