Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              8              10       11       end
  

Archive 2012 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review

  
 
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #1 · p.9 #1 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


I must confess that I like Canon's approach better.

1. Given the choice of better DR at low ISO or better high ISO I'll happily take the last.
2. I don't need high MP camera.
3. I like the 5D3 cross sensor placement around the frame better.
4. I haven't shot with the D800 but the silent mode in the 5D3 is nothing short of phenomenal.

Couple these with the fact that I like the EF bayonet better than the F one (more friendly to old MF lenses) and that Canon has some lenses that Nikon lacks (e.g. 17 TS) and you can understand why I am not at all envy of my Nikonian friends. Just happy for them.

As I see it, the 5D3 is a more versatile tool than the D800. Therefore, even if Canon would make a D800 I'd still prefer the 5D3. I was never thrilled of the 5D and 5D2 and always considered them as a great sensor wrapped inside a mediocre body. Now things has changed. So much so that I feel the 5D3 is actually the 3D we've been yearning for years.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Apr 23, 2012 at 06:22 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #2 · p.9 #2 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


chez wrote:
But isn't that the point here. You have to add more pixels to the 5d3 image to make a 30x24 print, so comparing the two at 36 mpix makes perfect sense. Actually the best comparison is making large prints from each as that is your intended output from these cameras. But since it is hard to compare prints on the web, uprezing and pixel peeping is the next best alternative. I'd love to see both cameras uprezed to make a 30x24 print at 300dpi and compare those images at 100%.


I understand, but like I said, we all know more megapixel = more details anyway so what's the point?

And as I also said, different monitors have different pixel pitch and resolution, so different people will see these photos differently.

For example, my 2560 x 1440 27" monitor has the pixel pitch of 233 Ám and 109 pixels per inch. I would see the photo differently to someone with 1920 x 1080 27" monitor which has 311 Ám and 81 pixels per inch.

It's totally different to seeing the photo in print because 30x24 print at 300dpi would look the same to everyone.



Apr 23, 2012 at 06:25 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #3 · p.9 #3 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


Yakim Peled wrote:
I must confess that I like Canon's approach better.

1. Given the choice of better DR at low ISO or better high ISO I'll happily take the last.
Yakim.


although the D4 and D800 give you both at once

at this point I'd rather the 5D3 had 3 stops better low ISO than 2/3rd stop better high ISO (not that I mind this latter part any ).

at this point there is a lot more room left for canon to improve low iso than high iso


Edited on Apr 23, 2012 at 09:16 PM · View previous versions



Apr 23, 2012 at 06:31 PM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #4 · p.9 #4 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


n0b0 wrote:
I understand, but like I said, we all know more megapixel = more details anyway so what's the point?

And as I also said, different monitors have different pixel pitch and resolution, so different people will see these photos differently.

For example, my 2560 x 1440 27" monitor has the pixel pitch of 233 Ám and 109 pixels per inch. I would see the photo differently to someone with 1920 x 1080 27" monitor which has 311 Ám and 81 pixels per inch.

It's totally different to seeing the photo in print because 30x24 print at 300dpi would look the same to
...Show more

That is where you are wrong. In print, you will see more detail from the D800 as it captures more detail to start with and you have to interpolate less to achieve that print size. I've done the tests with a 16 mpix and 22 mpix image and the results are very noticeable. Much more so than say looking at the image on a monitor.

I print large and have a pretty good handle on image detail and the effects of uprezing the image. The less you have to uprez, the more detail in the final photo. That is not debatable as far as I am concerned.



Apr 23, 2012 at 06:34 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #5 · p.9 #5 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


chez wrote:
The leap Nikon has made in DR is truly impressive and for a landscape photographer, you better believe it you will notice the difference in photos.


Hence why I wrote "Don't for one second think I wouldn't rather a Sony sensor in the 5D III".

But you still ignore the point, it does not matter how much you whinge, the 5D III ain't gonna change. So what are you going to do about it?



Apr 23, 2012 at 06:39 PM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #6 · p.9 #6 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


Pixel Perfect wrote:
Hence why I wrote "Don't for one second think I wouldn't rather a Sony sensor in the 5D III".

But you still ignore the point, it does not matter how much you whinge, the 5D III ain't gonna change. So what are you going to do about it?


I am going to rent a D800 along with a 14-24 lens for a trip to the Rockies to see how it performs. Might sell off my Canon landscape gear and just keep the 7d for sports and wildlife. I am also hopeful Canon can produce something comparable to the D800 or they'll be forfeiting the future landscape and studio photography to Nikon. I have no love for either Canon or Nikon. I'll go with whatever allows me to produce the best photos possible.




Apr 23, 2012 at 06:45 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #7 · p.9 #7 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


chez wrote:
That is where you are wrong. In print, you will see more detail from the D800 as it captures more detail to start with and you have to interpolate less to achieve that print size. I've done the tests with a 16 mpix and 22 mpix image and the results are very noticeable. Much more so than say looking at the image on a monitor.

I print large and have a pretty good handle on image detail and the effects of uprezing the image. The less you have to uprez, the more detail in the final photo. That is not debatable
...Show more

Sorry if you misunderstood my post, but it seemed that you've ignored my first paragraph anyway.

Would this make it clearer?

n0b0 wrote:
I understand, but like I said, we all know more megapixel = more details anyway so what's the point?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And as I also said, different monitors have different pixel pitch and resolution, so different people will see these photos differently.

For example, my 2560 x 1440 27" monitor has the pixel pitch of 233 Ám and 109 pixels per inch. I would see the photo differently to someone with 1920 x 1080 27" monitor which has 311 Ám and 81 pixels per inch.

It's totally different to seeing the photo in print because 30x24 print at 300dpi would look the same to
...Show more

I was comparing prints to 100% crop pixel peeping on a display monitor and why I think using a monitor to look at 100% crop is not the best way.



Apr 23, 2012 at 06:52 PM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #8 · p.9 #8 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


n0b0 wrote:
Sorry if you misunderstood my post, but it seemed that you've ignored my first paragraph anyway.

Would this make it clearer?

I was comparing prints to 100% crop pixel peeping on a display monitor and why I think using a monitor to look at 100% crop is not the best way.


No, I saw what you wrote. It is the last piece that's says "what's the point". I am trying to reinforce the point that you'll get more detailed prints from the D800 when you print larger than 16x20. That is the point.



Apr 23, 2012 at 07:02 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #9 · p.9 #9 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


chez wrote:
No, I saw what you wrote. It is the last piece that's says "what's the point". I am trying to reinforce the point that you'll get more detailed prints from the D800 when you print larger than 16x20. That is the point.


We ALREADY KNOW 36MP files would have more details than 22MP, Captain Obvious.



Apr 23, 2012 at 07:09 PM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #10 · p.9 #10 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


n0b0 wrote:
We ALREADY KNOW 36MP files would have more details than 22MP, Captain Obvious.


Well you started by saying it is not fair to uprez the 5d3 to 36 mpix and what I am trying to say is that if we want to print large, then we need to uprez. Ideally, we would have 24x30 or 36x24 prints to compare as that is where the rubber hits the road, but we can't since this is the internet. The next best comparison would be each image resized to produce a 36x24 photo at 300 dpi. However, uprezing the 5d3 image to the native resolution of the d800 at least will highlight how much more detail the D800 will capture.

I know it is obvious the 36 mpix will contain more detail...but uprezing the 5d3 will show just how much more detail as pixels are not all equal. Things like the strength of the AA filter affect the quality of those pixels. So I see a very valid reason to show the differences in fine detail the two cameras can capture. You my take a different view...that is fine, but don't discount others who are interested in such results.



Apr 23, 2012 at 07:22 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #11 · p.9 #11 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


Chez, if you do a printout of 36 by 24 the difference between D800 to 5D III makes 205 to 156 dpi. What means 8 instead of 6 dots each millimeter. No person on this world is able to see this difference when his face is more then 40 centimeters away from the picture. One would need a pick counting glas to "count" the difference one inch away from the print. Who watches a 90 by 60 centimeter printout from a distance less then one meter?

36MP will contain more detail, right. But I would be surprised if anybody can SEE it without the help of magnifier/reading glas infront of the print. I do not discount those, who are interested in such results. I just do not understand, what "those" are talking about.

Sorry, Ralph



Apr 23, 2012 at 08:09 PM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #12 · p.9 #12 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


Ralph Conway wrote:
Chez, if you do a printout of 36 by 24 the difference between D800 to 5D III makes 205 to 156 dpi. What means 8 instead of 6 dots each millimeter. No person on this world is able to see this difference when his face is more then 40 centimeters away from the picture. One would need a pick counting glas to "count" the difference one inch away from the print. Who watches a 90 by 60 centimeter printout from a distance less then one meter?

36MP will contain more detail, right. But I would be surprised if anybody
...Show more

Ralph, have you ever done this type of test, printing different resolution at the same photo size? You would be surprised how much more detail you can extract out of the extra pixels. The D800 has 28% more pixels, so in general terms, all things equal, it should be able to produce a print 28% larger than the 5d3 at the same quality. Now take the D800e with no AA filter and the detail increases yet more. So yes, you can sure tell the difference in large prints. I typically print 30x24 and larger and I know what extra pixels, especially high quality pixels can do to the final print.

Do you print large? Just wondering because your response tells me no.



Apr 23, 2012 at 08:22 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #13 · p.9 #13 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


The resolution advantage is also limited by the glass quality. From my tests, when using the "same" Zeiss 21mm on both 22MP and 36MP bodies, the resolution advantage was visible in bigger paper sizes. (And on screen when the files were normalized)


Apr 23, 2012 at 08:34 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #14 · p.9 #14 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


@ chez:
I am not used to. I did a couple of fashion posters for a customer in 90x60 cm. They looked fantastic. But for me it was at the border. It was 8MP/99 dpi. I could NOT see any bad quality from 1 meter distance. But I "felt" uncomfortable. So I switched to 21MP. That is 156 dpi without cropping (what I like to prevent). What compares to a 12x18 printout in 300 dpi. I guess it will be enough for me for ever.

Your calculation is wrong. Indeed it is 65% more pixels (based on 22) and generates a 31% bigger print at same quality as far as I am still good at arythmetics.



Apr 23, 2012 at 08:51 PM
AJSJones
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #15 · p.9 #15 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


n0b0 wrote:
I was comparing prints to 100% crop pixel peeping on a display monitor and why I think using a monitor to look at 100% crop is not the best way.

But surely comparing A to B on a given monitor will lead to the same conclusion about A and B seen together on a different monitor - the comparison is valid in each case. Whether the perceived differences might show up in print is another matter. The ability to relate a 100% crop to possible appearance in print form comes with personal experience of one's monitor and printer, for sure.



Apr 23, 2012 at 09:21 PM
thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #16 · p.9 #16 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


chez wrote:
Your analogy to high end speakers does not fit quite yet. You can see a huge difference in dynamic range between the two cameras without even trying to hard. That is not the case with the high end speakers. The leap Nikon has made in DR is truly impressive and for a landscape photographer, you better believe it you will notice the difference in photos.


As Garyvot pointed out, one can easily apply chroma NR to recovered shadow details without severely affecting image quality, so I doubt it's noticeable after some careful post-processing.

Nikon made some improvement in low ISO DR (witness D4 performance) but Sony made even MORE improvement in low ISO DR (witness D800, D7000 performances). Canon = zero improvement in this department.



Apr 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #17 · p.9 #17 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


AJSJones wrote:
But surely comparing A to B on a given monitor will lead to the same conclusion about A and B seen together on a different monitor - the comparison is valid in each case. Whether the perceived differences might show up in print is another matter. The ability to relate a 100% crop to possible appearance in print form comes with personal experience of one's monitor and printer, for sure.


I agree, but the problem is, people here often argue based on 100% crop that they see on their monitor, which are most likely very different. Some might not even be calibrated. That in my opinion, renders the argument pointless.



Apr 23, 2012 at 10:13 PM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #18 · p.9 #18 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


The choice could be pretty simple:

1. Determine the average viewing distance that you believe that your prints will be viewed from.
2. Determine the average print size that you believe you will be printing at.
3. Determine the needed density/resolution of the print (e.g. 300dpi) in order to provide adequate viewing.
4. Calculate the needed sensor resolution needed to accomodate 1-3 above.

So often, we work in the wrong direction when analyzing a given situation.

It's improper to assume for example that 36mp will automatically provide any usable resolution advantage over 22mp until the final output medium, viewing distance, and needed density/resolution has been determined. Will 36mp provide any "resolution advantage" in 4x6 prints? Of course not.

For me, it's not the difference in sensor density which has caught my attention. It's the DR of the D800 and its ability to recover shadow details which has caused me to turn my head and take a closer look at the overall Nikon "system." I suspect that others think the same.



Apr 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM
jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #19 · p.9 #19 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


JimFox wrote:
I don't know that it would or should be a show stopper... I shoot primarily landscape and have never used Live View... I compose and focus the old fashioned way through the view finder... And funny, I am using my D800 almost every single day, I have 5k shots on it, and I find it the most useable camera I have ever used.

Jim


+1,000,000

Seriously, LV is a nice to have. I got it on my first 1D3 in 2007.. Haven't used it in so long I can't remember..

Anyone that thinks not having LV is a "show stopper" is missing something big. How many cameras, both film and digital, have been used to take amazing landscape shots for decades, all without LV? The real number is too high too count. What about all those amazing MF cameras that don't/didn't have LV?

The D800 is superior in almost every other way (based on specs and what I've seen) for landscape/studio/Black & White (this is huge with significantly better DR)/portrait/etc shooters. it doesn't mean that you can't make some great images with the Canon, but it's like the old days when you used inferior film instead of the best. Put inferior film in the best Contax/Leica/Canon/Nikon/whatever and you get.... less...

While 6 FPS, LV, *almost* - but NOT the same from what i've read - pro AF, make for a significantly improved camera that should have been released in 2008, the sad thing we're seeing is that Canon, IMO, definitely gives us inferior *film*.






Apr 23, 2012 at 10:30 PM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #20 · p.9 #20 · Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 Review


jamesf99 wrote:
+1,000,000

Seriously, LV is a nice to have. I got it on my first 1D3 in 2007.. Haven't used it in so long I can't remember..

Anyone that thinks not having LV is a "show stopper" is missing something big. How many cameras, both film and digital, have been used to take amazing landscape shots for decades, all without LV? The real number is too high too count. What about all those amazing MF cameras that don't/didn't have LV?

The D800 is superior in almost every other way (based on specs and what I've seen) for landscape/studio/Black & White (this is huge with
...Show more

The choice could be pretty simple:

1. Determine the average viewing distance that you believe that your prints will be viewed from.
2. Determine the average print size that you believe you will be printing at.
3. Determine the needed density/resolution of the print (e.g. 300dpi) in order to provide adequate viewing.
4. Calculate the needed sensor resolution needed to accomodate 1-3 above.

To repeat, so often, we work in the wrong direction when analyzing a given situation.

It's improper to assume for example that 36mp will automatically provide any usable resolution advantage over 22mp until the final output medium, viewing distance, and needed density/resolution has been determined. Will 36mp provide any "resolution advantage" in 4x6 prints? Of course not.

For me, it's not the difference in sensor density which has caught my attention. It's the DR of the D800 and its ability to recover shadow details which has caused me to turn my head and take a closer look at the overall Nikon "system." I suspect that others think the same.

As for Liveview, to each their own. A large percentage of photographers DO rely on it heavily TODAY, not when it wasn't analogously available back in the good 'ole film days...



Apr 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM
1       2       3              8              10       11       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              8              10       11       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.