The F%^&ing Nikon D800 vs. Canon 5D mkIII Shootout
The 5D3 video handily beats the D800 at ISO6400 and wins by a laughable margin at ISO12,800 and up. The D800 looks good to ISO1600 and close to ISO3200 but starts losing noticeably in darker areas by ISO6400 and just turns to junk beyond junk above there, the 5D3 holds together better above ISO3200 to an almost unimaginable degree. (then again you may ask do most people shoot at higher than ISO3200? at times yeah, but it's never really ideal and I'd prefer awesome, perfect ISO100-1600 than 6400+). If you did super low light stuff the 5D3 is clearly the way to go by a million miles.
But man what the heck did Canon do to the 5D3 resolution? The D800 isn't even all that sharp but the 5D3 is just mush (at first when you look a the women on the ground you think the weird checkboard of different colors is just D800 moire but her jacket later gets revealed to have that and the 5D3 doesn't even pick it up at all, it looks 100% white and red? where the heck did the other color checkers go? mushed 100% away!).
What was the whole 22MP for 3x3 about if they get such mush? Where is the mush coming from? It has simply super weak micro-contrast until you get to scales far, far, far below 1920x1080. Luckily it is free enough of moire/aliasing that it takes sharpening well, but most video programs have very old sharpening that is prone to haloes so it's hard to bring back the micro-contrast ideally (and even then the actual res is still a bit low).
Did they gimp it that much to save the C300?? I don't know what's going on. The micro-contrast and res are total let downs.
And where is the cropped video mode? Why no 2x2 sampled mode at 1.6x crop????
Granted the sharpened 5D3 isn't too far behind D800 detail (not that that says much) and with much less moire I think it's better than the D800 for video.
The 5D3 video handily beats the D800 at ISO6400 and wins by a laughable margin at ISO12,800 and up. The D800 looks good to ISO1600 and close to ISO3200 but starts losing noticeably in darker areas by ISO6400 and just turns to junk beyond junk above there, the 5D3 holds together better above ISO3200 to an almost unimaginable degree. (then again you may ask do most people shoot at higher than ISO3200? at times yeah, but it's never really ideal and I'd prefer awesome, perfect ISO100-1600 than 6400+). If you did super low light stuff the 5D3 is clearly the way to go by a million miles.
But man what the heck did Canon do to the 5D3 resolution? The D800 isn't even all that sharp but the 5D3 is just mush (at first when you look a the women on the ground you think the weird checkboard of different colors is just D800 moire but her jacket later gets revealed to have that and the 5D3 doesn't even pick it up at all, it looks 100% white and red? where the heck did the other color checkers go? mushed 100% away!).
What was the whole 22MP for 3x3 about if they get such mush? Where is the mush coming from? It has simply super weak micro-contrast until you get to scales far, far, far below 1920x1080. Luckily it is free enough of moire/aliasing that it takes sharpening well, but most video programs have very old sharpening that is prone to haloes so it's hard to bring back the micro-contrast ideally (and even then the actual res is still a bit low).
Did they gimp it that much to save the C300?? I don't know what's going on. The micro-contrast and res are total let downs.
And where is the cropped video mode? Why no 2x2 sampled mode at 1.6x crop????
Granted the sharpened 5D3 isn't too far behind D800 detail (not that that says much) and with much less moire I think it's better than the D800 for video.
