Ralph Conway wrote:
Why less DR? I expected more. And I guess it would have less noise at higher ISO, too.
Read noise scales with pixel size so at equal sensor technology you get slightly lower read noise as you shrink the pixels. The difference isn't much at these scales. As for High ISO, if anything the D800 should finally dispel the notion that smaller pixels mean noisier images. The D800/5DM3/D4 are all within 1/3 stop of each other for High ISO noise yet they represent three different pixel sizes (36MP/22MP/16MP).
Thanks Fred. Always good to see one more report and I didn't know about Nikon's LV issue until now.
It's pretty clear to me that Nikon has won this round, and by a huge margin. Glass aside (the only thing keeping many of us *temporarily* in the Canon camp) if you're a landscape, studio (portrait, still life, food, etc), or even just a casual shooter, it's not even a contest. DR has been a weak link in all bodies - even Nikon - until now. Complaints were few because for 5d/2 shooters, there were so many other deficiencies, and great IQ, that things like AF, build quality, etc. were heard more often. Besides, most of us thought they would work that issue out soon. Seems like Sony did..
Many of us know that combining two shots doesn't always work, shooting with ND grad filters can be a pain, and even with proper exposure it's more often than not a decision on which DR compromise to make. Since I hate blown highlights, I err downward, which puts me at even more of a disadvantage with Canon.
Many landscape and studio shooters I know have concluded that if you shoot at ISO 1600 or below most of the time, or don't need high FPS, or want to print large, professional prints, the choice is easy. Of course switching is not easy for those that have been at this a long time, but moving to a dual system looks like the best segue I can see.
I'd like to see more D800 vs. D800E vs. 5d3 comparisons. I think with the D800E (I'm guessing) it's going to look even worse for Canon and their $3500, 2008-1/2 camera, but if they drop the price $800- $1,000 then they can be competitive.
The problem on Nikon side is the lenses for landscapes. If you want tilt-shift, FM noted the softness and CA. CA is correctable in post, but softness is not.
thw2 wrote:
A camera that has poorly implemented live view is a serious no-no for landscape work. This is particularly true when precise focus is crucial for a high pixel count camera. I have zero experience with studio work so I cannot comment on it.
I am surprised Fred's copy of the 14-24 f/2.8 lens has poor corner performance. Not sure if the 36 MP sensor is finally revealing the lens weakness or Nikon QA is just as unreliable as Canon's.
The live view on my 5Dc is even worse but I still manage, just.
Thanks for the review, Fred. You will get use to the Nikon system; just give it some time. You made an excellent point about print size and resolution. If there is no discernible difference between 22 and 36 mega pixel images in a 17x22 inch print - then 99% of photographers should be fine with either system. Of course, other factors will drive sales of both the 5DmkIII and D800 anyway. BTW...your canon 5D mk III images in the review are stunning...particularly the sharpness of the web versions. I'd love to learn your processing for sharpness - if you care to share it.
Excellent review and very nice photos to go with it.
I just wanted to point out that the color noise in the 5D3 files can be almost fully eliminated if you use Canon's own DPP software but the FPN will remain.
Very nice thanks for sharing the review and images.
form wrote:
The problem on Nikon side is the lenses for landscapes. If you want tilt-shift, FM noted the softness and CA. CA is correctable in post, but softness is not.
The only lens Nikon has which is worthy of landscapes is the 14-24 f/2.8. You could mount some Zeiss, but then the issue of manual focus comes up again.
The D800 is great, and if I was a Nikon shooter, I'd go for it. The 5DIII is just plain fun to use. I enjoy it immensely.
By the way, I think Apple's RAW converter is better than Adobe's for the 5DIII.
matejphoto wrote:
Great review!
I am a Canon shooter and I love my Canon lenses. I might buy the 5Dm3 for the better AF. But honestly, if D800 had a EF mount I would buy that instead.
I find this mostly interesting from historical perspective:
In 2007 Nikon introduced first FF camera (D3) while Canon has had digital FF for 5! years. In those times I would say Canon had way better sensors than everyone else.
5 years later Nikon/Sony has definitely surpassed Canon in sensor technology.
I am curious what next 5 years will bring.
I find it telling that a few months before Nikon introduced their FF in 2007 that a Canon exec was talking to reporters at a show in Europe and when asked about what they planned to do to move FF forward and to add speed to FF bodies and so on, he said they intended to do nothing! and went on about how they were years if not decades ahead of Nikon for FF sensor tech and they were the total kings of hill so they saw no need to do anything but sit and rest and look down on everyone else from their high perch and just milk their current stuff, they had no need to do anything since they were so remarkably far ahead.
I got a really bad feeling when I heard that and started posting all sorts of things in forums trying to wake them up. That sort of talk from execs usually happens a few years before a company gets hit with a rude awakening.
form wrote:
The problem on Nikon side is the lenses for landscapes. If you want tilt-shift, FM noted the softness and CA. CA is correctable in post, but softness is not.
and their video still has moire
and for something like say indoor sports where you can frame as desired and don't need to crop the 5D3 with 6fps at FF does much better
skibum5 wrote:
I got a really bad feeling when I heard that and started posting all sorts of things in forums trying to wake them up. That sort of talk from execs usually happens a few years before a company gets hit with a rude awakening.
I tweeted Fred Miranda's review to Canon
( https://twitter.com/#!/Canon )
and intend to do so for every such thoughtful and excellent review that I find.
The management of Research in Motion basically said the same thing, their products were amazing and the public was simply ignorant.
Lehman Brothers, Home Depot, Fannie/Freddie, Hewlett Packard, how does management get paid so much money to screw a company up? How do they even obtain their positions when they're manifestly incompetent? I want to be paid millions of dollars by a company to make bad photos and issue press releases that my photos are great, it's the viewer that's ignorant. Then get paid millions of dollars to stop making photos, because they really do suck, and retire to my private island in Turks Caicos.
skibum5 wrote:
I find it telling that a few months before Nikon introduced their FF in 2007 that a Canon exec was talking to reporters at a show in Europe and when asked about what they planned to do to move FF forward and to add speed to FF bodies and so on, he said they intended to do nothing! and went on about how they were years if not decades ahead of Nikon for FF sensor tech and they were the total kings of hill so they saw no need to do anything but sit and rest and look down on everyone else from their high perch and just milk their current stuff, they had no need to do anything since they were so remarkably far ahead.
I got a really bad feeling when I heard that and started posting all sorts of things in forums trying to wake them up. That sort of talk from execs usually happens a few years before a company gets hit with a rude awakening.
pookipichu wrote:
I got a really bad feeling when I heard that and started posting all sorts of things in forums trying to wake them up. That sort of talk from execs usually happens a few years before a company gets hit with a rude awakening.
Your fault. Why didnīt you fly over, told them their incompetence and charged them for 750.000 $?
Others did an get payed, I am sure. For them it is peanuts.
Do you really think they decided themselfs to stay at actual sensor power?
They where told they are world leader. And that their gear misses reliability and focus competence in the midrange compared to competitors. The result we have NOW. A great camera. But overcome i resolution and DR by Nikon. What do you think what the same guys told them 3 years ago?
"You have great stuff, but you are wide behind the standard. You are still lucky, because you have a bride established base. But you have to giv them what your competitors offer, better something large over it. Nikon did not think about the needs of their customers. They just created something new for the future like Canon did with 5D II. Canon instead thought about users complaines, but not one step further.
All succesfull companies in the last 100 years stuck in their success and killed themselfs by feeling responsible for their stockholders not for their products and users.
That is the only cause why new companies like red start succesfull in a market they have never been in before.
Without Jobs (and I do not like him) apple will be down within a decade (they already have been, cried for help and called him back), if they do not change this way of management.
I knew someone who had enough of an inside view of Motorola and how the management simply sat on their original Razr (mobile phone) lead; they simply did not see Apple as a threat. The engineers saw the impending trainwreck, the management did not.
I worked for Commodore. Same game 20 years ago. I remember times when people founded companies to fullfill a goal. Today "managers" are bought to increase shareholders income. And exchanged if they do not. Nobody cares about fullfilling a companies or products goal.
Thanks for all the comments. I'm glad you enjoyed the field report. I'm still testing both cameras. I just got a new copy of Nikon's 24mm PC-E. I will be testing it against the Canon 24mm TS-E and post my results soon!
DocsPics wrote:
Fred, thanks for taking the time and putting forth the effort in providing this balanced and useful writeup. Any plans for a similar discourse when the 1D-X is released?
The 1D-X does not seem to be geared towards landscape photography but I am planning on testing it out as well.
Commodore as Commodore Business Machine ?. VIC 64 ?.
Ralph Conway wrote:
I worked for Commodore. Same game 20 years ago. I remember times when people founded companies to fullfill a goal. Today "managers" are bought to increase shareholders income. And exchanged if they do not. Nobody cares about fullfilling a companies or products goal.
