Tool - D810 vs. 5D Mk3

[Sunnystate]

Same here it is a painful chore to go through his videos all the way to the end, in my opinion she does not help much in the over all feel. Its like watching pretentious and annoying cutsy home videos of people we don't know or care about.

There is something about this guy, that makes me unable to watch any of this videos through. I honestly don't know what it is, and it has nothing to do with his brand preferences (the first video of his I watched was entirely Canon related, and I still couldn't get through it)...I think it's the way he talks. I dunno...just can't watch him.

 

[wickidwombat]

Same here it is a painful chore to go through his videos all the way to the end, in my opinion she does not help much in the over all feel. Its like watching pretentious and annoying cutsy home videos of people we don't know or care about.

There is something about this guy, that makes me unable to watch any of this videos through. I honestly don't know what it is, and it has nothing to do with his brand preferences (the first video of his I watched was entirely Canon related, and I still couldn't get through it)...I think it's the way he talks. I dunno...just can't watch him.

I agree i couldn't imagine paying money to watch their 9 hours of video they are peddling at the end!

on the cameras one thing that really interests me is the face detect metering the d810 had man that awesome i seriously hope canon do something similar.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'm sorry to hear you had that experience. And I don't want to sound like I'm criticising you - but I do wonder if there's a logical link between the technology and practitioners' professionalism.

I have no experience of film photography beyond point-and-shoot family/holiday snapshots from my younger days, so maybe I'm missing a lot. But I don't think good quality digital photography is easy, nor can it be mastered (especially with a DSLR) in minutes. There are cowboys in every field - and I suspect there always have been. And it seems that most of what makes wedding photography challenging is beyond the camera - it's about scouting the location, talking to the clients and understanding their needs, getting to the venue on time, having backup equipment/assistants, and producing a package (nowadays likely in book form) that merits the occasion (thinking about it, I suppose most types of photography rely on a lot more than the camera and strict photographic technique, but anyway). Given how much people spend on weddings, and wedding photographers these days, surely (at the better end) things have improved? Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but my grandparents' expectations were very limited (they were only allowed 6 shots due to rationing, and they were just snaps, nothing fancy) - whereas a recent friend's wedding involved (after much research on the best photographer for their needs) a separate shoot on location, video, a glossy hardback book, etc.

Why would shooting on film make someone more professional? Were film cameras much more expensive? I suppose proper photographers would have a darkroom, but if you were slapdash in those days, maybe you'd get someone else to do it?

Just lots of questions arise when people compare the pre-digital era with today, I hope you don't mind

Not at all, I was probably not clear. I have nothing against technology, and more than half of my photography experience happened after the digital era. So I know very little of pre-digital era to be able to compare. All I am saying is that the low barrier to entry into professional photography hurts both the real pros as well as the consumers. Why does digital allow a lower barrier to entry? At least 2 reasons:

1. Availability of preview- my photographer often snapped multiple images with the same setting. It's cheap with digital to shoot multiple shots, and preview allows you to fix mistakes. A film photographer who has to give something to the clients at the end of the job, will have to know what settings work or else he might have a completely useless roll.

2. Option of multiple ISOs and post processing- can you imagine a photographer with little or no idea of lighting (as mine was, sadly) walk in with a roll of film and be confident that it will work?

As you said- good quality digital photography isn't easy. Good photography will demand the same hard work and talent but produce far better results in the digital age. However, anybody with a dSLR can now start a business and charge pennies to attract customers. Without the tools above, someone would need at least a minimal training to use film SLRs. Along the way, he would hopefully learn something about composition, the necessary shots, the necessary people who you need to take pictures of.

The solution, of course, is for the customers to be more careful of whom they hire.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I was a victim of this low barrier to entry when we hired a photographer for my wedding who basically took mediocre snapshots all night long.
...He took terrible images, missed half of our families (there isn't a picture of my parents with us), had to be threatened with legal action to recover the images, and never delivered the albums.

Made just about the same experience recently at the wedding of my best friend's son. In this case the wedding photographer they hired didn't miss anyone and delivered the young couple thousands of - really bad - snapshots. I already noticed during the wedding that this guy must have no feel for good images. Fortunately my wife grabbed her Nikon and I my 5D3 + 85/1.2 II (only) when we started, so we both filled in a bit. It turned out that the young couple is so happy about having our much better images besides this "pro" 's crab (the bride's parents have paid for), in particular they love the images I shot with the 85.

Now those are my - of course very personal - 50 cents: I am so much in love with my 5D3+85/1.2 combo (besides other great Canon lenses) that I'd never change systems as long as Sonikon does not offer anything that equals the 85/1.2 king of bokeh. Plus the 5D3's AF system really shines with this superfast lens beast. Btw comparing a 5D3 with the D810's latest features is not really fair, because the 5D3 is a 3 yrs old camera, and technology is rapidly progressing. If you always want the latest camera technology, you'd have to change systems about every six months...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Disagree if you may, but give the man his due.

No. And here's why.

Again (Dilbert), nobody argues that the Noink doesn't have better DR. But - and it's a big "but" - his test has used a single converter (Lightroom) which, good as it is in many respects, does not allow you to pull up Canon shadows cleanly the way that some other converters can.

DPP, for example, has an almost miraculous ability to "add DR" in the shadows compared to Lr; Optics Pro is good too, albeit not as good as it could be in reaching into just the shadows.

Capture One 7 is also vey capable.

The point is that the supposed huge gulf between these cameras can be significantly narrowed simply an by intelligent choice of converter.

That this test used a converter which does not favour Canon shadows (at x00% view, anyway - FFS) tells you far more about the converter than it does about the camera, and for a supposedly pro tester/photographer to utterly ignore the significance of choice of converter in getting the best out of a camera's files, is risible.

You don't test well by testing in some supposedly equal playing field (in this case a commonly-used converter); you test in such as way as to get the best out of each camera, and that will often necessitate different converter choices.

Ergo, this "test" proves nothing about what the 5D Mk III can do compared with the D810, just what it did do in a half-arsed effort which seems more intended to bring attention to the testers than to the cameras...

 

[zim]

DPP, for example, has an almost miraculous ability to "add DR" in the shadows compared to Lr; Optics Pro is good too, albeit not as good as it could be in reaching into just the shadows.

That's really interesting Keith, I've recently moved from DPP to Optics Pro mainly for Prime which I think is fantastic but I didn't realise I may be losing out on pulling shadows. Admitedly the only time I can think of wanting to pull shadows recently was about a 1-1/2 stops (oops my bad!) so I'm not sure if any differences would show at that? Must give it a try.

Regards

 

[PhotoCat]

I agree i couldn't imagine paying money to watch their 9 hours of video they are peddling at the end!

on the cameras one thing that really interests me is the face detect metering the d810 had man that awesome i seriously hope canon do something similar.

Yup, Face-detect metering in viewfinder mode. It was there in D800 too and that was 2 years ago!

 

[mackguyver]

I agree i couldn't imagine paying money to watch their 9 hours of video they are peddling at the end!

on the cameras one thing that really interests me is the face detect metering the d810 had man that awesome i seriously hope canon do something similar.

Yup, Face-detect metering in viewfinder mode. It was there in D800 too and that was 2 years ago!

It's in the 1D X...

 

[jdramirez]

The fact is rising tide lifts all boats.
I am not concerned one bit about videography for myself, yet the fact that Canon seems to fall behind in prosumer or low end pro videography behind Panasonic and Sony is unfortunately going to affect revenues. If Canon decides not to bring what is now standard or expected to sub-10K cameras it will definitely affect their bottom line. 5DII used to be the definitive line in HDSLR filming, now GH4 and A7s are much better it seems. Even Black Magic was said to be better than the 5DIII.
Similarly, Nikon has brought lots of great new features in the D810. I am not concerned that my 5DIII doesn't have it, but I would like Canon to bring out a camera that does have all those features so they don't lose customers. A high-res high-DR sensor would certainly help.
I would like Canon to flourish because it will affect me indirectly and allow me to use the great equipment they bring out. I am concerned that Canon's business strategy (which often overrides market surveys for big companies) might be too conservative.

I agree 110%. Sony absolutely has plans to take marketshare from Canon and Nikon. The question is will Canon respond or keep nickel and diming us with incremental updates?

Sony has a lens problem. The other issue with AF and other rough edges would take maybe two or three new generations of cameras to work out. I think we will see Canon and Nikon users switching in big numbers.

Do people not remember the 5d mkii? The mkiii is a revolution in auto focus and low light performance... nickel and dime in the rebel line... sure... but the 1dx is reportedly amazing and the mkiii is borderline great. How soon we forget.

 

[raptor3x]

That this test used a converter which does not favour Canon shadows (at x00% view, anyway - FFS) tells you far more about the converter than it does about the camera, and for a supposedly pro tester/photographer to utterly ignore the significance of choice of converter in getting the best out of a camera's files, is risible.

You don't test well by testing in some supposedly equal playing field (in this case a commonly-used converter); you test in such as way as to get the best out of each camera, and that will often necessitate different converter choices.

Ergo, this "test" proves nothing about what the 5D Mk III can do compared with the D810, just what it did do in a half-arsed effort which seems more intended to bring attention to the testers than to the cameras...

I just did a comparison between LR5.6 and DPP4 and am not seeing this huge difference in shadow noise that you're describing. Can you show some examples?

 

[Loswr]

Btw comparing a 5D3 with the D810's latest features is not really fair, because the 5D3 is a 3 yrs old camera, and technology is rapidly progressing. If you always want the latest camera technology, you'd have to change systems about every six months...

There have been several comments to that effect in this thread, and I totally disagree. It's perfectly fair to compare Nikon's current high-end FF body to Canon's current high-end FF body.

The 'unfairness' is the biased comparison in the linked video. Comparing only at ISO 100, that smells like DxO's BS (but then, lots of people – including some pros – seem to like that smell). Someone asked about performance at ISO 12800, he said he'd post samples but that the D810 was better...yet he didn't post samples. No follow through, or he couldn't back up his statement with images? A 63% hit rate with 5DIII Servo tracking of a subject walking slowly toward you in bright light (even his wife knew that wasn't a 'sports/action' test!)? Maybe...if you gimp the test by using an AF mode not recommended for moving subjects. Even then, that seems too low...but maybe that's due to the lens, as I've read that Nikon makes their AF algorithms available to 3rd party lens makers while Canon does not.

So, while it's fair to compare them, performing a biased comparison doesn't help anyone. Well, that's not true – it helps him earn money...and a reputation worthy of Ken Rockwell.

The reviewers takeaways on the 5DIII vs D810...the D810 is vastly superior, but: "If you have a Mark III and you're not a pro, it's probably not worth switching," and, "If you're putting photos on Facebook...it probably won't make much difference." Sheesh.

 

[mackguyver]

Btw comparing a 5D3 with the D810's latest features is not really fair, because the 5D3 is a 3 yrs old camera, and technology is rapidly progressing. If you always want the latest camera technology, you'd have to change systems about every six months...

There have been several comments to that effect in this thread, and I totally disagree. It's perfectly fair to compare Nikon's current high-end FF body to Canon's current high-end FF body.

The 'unfairness' is the biased comparison in the linked video. Comparing only at ISO 100, that smells like DxO's BS (but then, lots of people – including some pros – seem to like that smell). Someone asked about performance at ISO 12800, he said he'd post samples but that the D810 was better...yet he didn't post samples. No follow through, or he couldn't back up his statement with images? A 63% hit rate with 5DIII Servo tracking of a subject walking slowly toward you in bright light (even his wife knew that wasn't a 'sports/action' test!)? Maybe...if you gimp the test by using an AF mode not recommended for moving subjects. Even then, that seems too low...but maybe that's due to the lens, as I've read that Nikon makes their AF algorithms available to 3rd party lens makers while Canon does not.

So, while it's fair to compare them, performing a biased comparison doesn't help anyone. Well, that's not true – it helps him earn money...and a reputation worthy of Ken Rockwell.

The reviewers takeaways on the 5DIII vs D810...the D810 is vastly superior, but: "If you have a Mark III and you're not a pro, it's probably not worth switching," and, "If you're putting photos on Facebook...it probably won't make much difference." Sheesh.

I haven't even watched the video, but I knew the source (and stand by my post at the beginning of this thread), so I'm not surprised to hear my suspicions confirmed.

 

[Etienne]

My 5D3 still rocks. Images are great, AF hit rate is high, video is great, all my Canon lenses are rock solid top-notch. Spend many $1000 and lots of time switching to Nikon? You've got to be kidding! It would be quicker and cheaper to buy a 1Dx and blow away the D810 in every way but resolution (but I don't need that either), or wait a few months and blow away the D810 with a shiny new 5DIV. Most professionals will tell you that switching brands is a fools game. Of course there may be exceptions from time to time on specific needs, but not in general all-round use.

I think Canon will blow away the competition soon, and the leapfrog game will continue. They will answer Sony's A7 line, they will further refine dual pixel AF, they will continue to expand the impressive lens lineup.

 

[PhotoCat]

Yup, Face-detect metering in viewfinder mode. It was there in D800 too and that was 2 years ago!

It's in the 1D X...

Cool! In addition to non-flash portraits, does the 1DX face-det metering work with e-TTL flash as well? (just curious, since D800 & D4 claim to do that)

 

[Sporgon]

These sort of reviews always follow the same pattern. The Canon is underexposed so the data is a little dense. Then they lift heavy shadow low lights to mid tone. Voila ! Job done.

Working in the wrong AF mode. ??? or more probably : Or from their point of view :-[

It's all about not working with the 5DIII.

 

[jdramirez]

My 5D3 still rocks. Images are great, AF hit rate is high, video is great, all my Canon lenses are rock solid top-notch. Spend many $1000 and lots of time switching to Nikon? You've got to be kidding! It would be quicker and cheaper to buy a 1Dx and blow away the D810 in every way but resolution (but I don't need that either), or wait a few months and blow away the D810 with a shiny new 5DIV. Most professionals will tell you that switching brands is a fools game. Of course there may be exceptions from time to time on specific needs, but not in general all-round use.

I think Canon will blow away the competition soon, and the leapfrog game will continue. They will answer Sony's A7 line, they will further refine dual pixel AF, they will continue to expand the impressive lens lineup.

98% of the time when I miss, it is my fault... not the mkiii's. I like that... what I need to do though is improve my practical execution though my practical knowledge is pretty decent.

I suppose my point is that I'm more than satisfied with the mkiii's performance... so much so that if the mkiv came out tomorrow and I could swap for free... I'm not sure I would bite.

 

[raptor3x]

Someone asked about performance at ISO 12800, he said he'd post samples but that the D810 was better...yet he didn't post samples. No follow through, or he couldn't back up his statement with images?

To be fair, the DPReview comparison between the 5D3 and the D810 backs this up. The D810 seems about equal to the 6D in terms of high ISO RAWs.

 

[Maui5150]

The 'unfairness' is the biased comparison in the linked video. Comparing only at ISO 100, that smells like DxO's BS (but then, lots of people – including some pros – seem to like that smell).

I think next time you should watch the video more closely - Most of the time Phony was shooting at ISO 64.

Portrait shots etc Canon and ISO 100 and Nikon at ISO 64.

If he wanted a real honest comparison, having ISO the same might have helped. Never saw any clips of the "Sportrait" shots from the canon side, but notices settings were 1/1000 F/2.8 and Auto ISO. Would have been interesting to see comparison with a PROPER AF set up as well as Shutter Priority mode and ISO 100

But from what I was seeing, a lot of times Nikon was set at ISO 64

 

[Loswr]

Someone asked about performance at ISO 12800, he said he'd post samples but that the D810 was better...yet he didn't post samples. No follow through, or he couldn't back up his statement with images?

To be fair, the DPReview comparison between the 5D3 and the D810 backs this up.

Except that DPR 'testing' is based on default ACR conversions, and like most 'high ISO tests' they are not 'low light tests' because they're shot in bright light with a very fast shutter, which has significant implications for the relative noise contributions.

 

[mackguyver]

Yup, Face-detect metering in viewfinder mode. It was there in D800 too and that was 2 years ago!

It's in the 1D X...

Cool! In addition to non-flash portraits, does the 1DX face-det metering work with e-TTL flash as well? (just curious, since D800 & D4 claim to do that)

Not sure, and I don't think it's documented anywhere, but I would imagine so. To be perfectly clear - Canon's documentation on the 1D X feature that does this is extremely limited. All we really know for sure is that it's a 100,000 pixel sensor that detects colors and faces and uses that information for metering and motion in normal viewfinder/ phase-detect AF mode. What I know from actual use is that it works extremely well for portraits and even wildlife.