jamesf99 wrote:
I hope you're not defensive about it, but Nikon just produced a better (for many/most people) camera, at a better price point, and the market is responding. it's really that simple.
It may be a better camera as you say, but I think the initial Amazon sales are being driven by pent-up demand. The D800 is a HUGE upgrade over the D700. For most Nikon users the D800 represents their first entry into the world of high-resolution, full frame image and video capture, something Canon has had for several years.
The big improvements of the 5D Mark III are usability features (better AF, greater weather sealing, improved metering, etc.), and not image quality. Many of these improvements will be compelling to Canon users, but not in the way that the D800 improvments are compelling to the Nikon camp. Lots of photojournalists and event shooters will love the upgrade to the 5D Mark III; for landscape and studio shooters, the improvements are relatively minor.
You could argue that Canon missed the boat by not moving the image quality forward appreciably in this generation, and I would agree. But it's likely that strong initial sales of the D800 are upgrade sales to existing Nikon customers at this point.
jamesf99 wrote:
FYI - For those that don't already know it, DPR long ago ceased being an "Independent" site/organization and is wholly owned by Amazon, who has an interest in both cameras selling well. I'm not sure how much the DPR review will affect sales at the $3k/+ level, but it might..
+1....DPR is in the business of making all camera reviews sound as positive as they can be so that no prospective buyers are too disappointed. It is laughable though that both cameras would get an identical 82 rating.
AGeoJO wrote:
Scoring point by claiming victory over the other brand? Jaime, you lost me here.
Referring to the never-ending brand wars - mainly online - amongst people whose primary goal in photography is agonizing over who has the better camera system. This is primarily a Canon vs Nikon battle, but can be seen again in other formats.
There are hundreds of people over at DPReview right now gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair out because these two cameras were given the same "rating" when most think the D800 is better. Any rational person would just laugh at them, but to the brand-fanatics, the question of who is "best" is serious business indeed.
garyvot wrote:
It may be a better camera as you say, but I think the initial Amazon sales are being driven by pent-up demand. The D800 is a HUGE upgrade over the D700. For most Nikon users the D800 represents their first entry into the world of high-resolution, full frame image and video capture, something Canon has had for several years.
No surprise there. I suppose if I were Nikon, I would expect my users to flock to the upgrade like white on rice, whether they were D700, or D3x users..
On the other hand, the majority of those buying the 5d3 are already Canon users and Canon is pleased that so many people are locked into their system. Other wise, it could get ugly. Real ugly...
The big improvements of the 5D Mark III are usability features (better AF, greater weather sealing, improved metering, etc.), and not image quality. Many of these improvements will be compelling to Canon users, but not in the way that the D800 improvments are compelling to the Nikon camp. Lots of photojournalists and event shooters will love the upgrade to the 5D Mark III; for landscape and studio shooters, the improvements are relatively minor.
You could argue that Canon missed the boat by not moving the image quality forward appreciably in this generation, and I would agree. But it's likely that strong initial sales of the D800 are upgrade sales to existing Nikon customers at this point....Show more →
There's no doubt the 5d3 is a much improved camera. It's close to what the 5d2 should have been (but with better AF now) almost 4 years ago with the same basic sensor and for once a upgraded body/features (still, some sandbagging is going on as we all know), all wrapped up with a new, higher price. Again, I'd guess that 95+% of buyers are already in the Canon camp, and not defectors from another mfg.
I would also venture to guess that most people looking to buy a $3000+ camera already have a fair investment in glass anyway. These are not $600 Rebels here.
ChrisRD wrote:
I just skimmed through the review quickly...a couple of things that struck me as a bit odd in the 'conclusions'...
First, they seem to be criticizing the high ISO IQ of the camera. I think most who have used one would agree it's sort of a strong point of the 5D3. It's ironic to me that in their review of the 5D2 they seemed very happy with its high ISO IQ...and with the successor model where Canon seems to have upped the performance a bit further they're not happy...?
Second, they were quite critical of the 5D3 JPEGs siting as one of the negatives in their conclusions that "Destructive noise reduction results in mushy JPEGs, even at base ISO". Interestingly...when they reviewed the 1D4 they praised the JPEGs saying "Excellent JPEGs that make the most of the camera's resolution"
...but when I compare the 5D2/5D3/1D4/1D3 JPEGs with their studio scene comparison tool the 5D3 seems to compare very favorably to the others...including the 1D4...?
They are just getting with the times. Canon does have mushy jpgs and it transfers to video, where there is no RAW file to develop to get the fine micro-detail. They are too obsessed with waxy look and afraid of nice, tight natural 'grain' look and prefer to put all power into waxy look instead.
I think we have reached the point where improvements in terms of AF and high ISO performance etc outweigh more MP...the image quality between canon and nikon cameras at this point is hard to distinguish...what differentiates is the lens lineup and the issues like AF and ISO performance etc that I mentioned......I had the 5dc and the 5d2 and I think the 5d3 is a giant step forward and a far better camera....
AGeoJO wrote:
You know what? The 7D beats the crap out of both at..... 84% . Pentax K-5 scored "better" at 83%.
Kidding aside, I also believe that the review was spot on regardless of the score.
Interestingly the D3s and 1D IV both scored 89%! Maybe they really can't bring themselves to give one or the other a higher score for fear of the flame wars.
Rickuz wrote:
Agreed. There is absolutely no point in being sensitive about which camera is better.
I am invested into Canon, and I will continue to shoot Canon for now, but that does not stop me from realizing that Nikon really did "win" this round. The new exmor sensor is simply amazing!
But this just means that Canon will have to try harder for their next sensor, which I am sure they will.
Interesting, because while I also agree Nikon (well Sony) have the sensor tech to beat now, as far as a complete system Canon still dominates with a much better array of glass with few exceptions. Also I'd say the 5D III AF is superior, it shoots faster, has a much better LV. The 5D III is the better all rounder IMO, the D800 the better specialist tool. Each have a few features that the other should, each has weaknesses, both are terrific.
But it's glass that would mainly stop me ever going wholly over to Nikon.
He has no clue about image quality. And mixes up posterization with fixed pattern banding, radius of sharpening, detail actually captured vs large scale contrast, uses jpgs as the primary 'even' comparison basis, etc. etc.
And may be blind.
Yes, this sensor technology is very impressive, and I'm not trying to rationalize anything away. But really, how many captures do we do where we have to push the shadows 4-5 stops, as in that example? (Which is vs. the 5D Mark II, BTW, not the 5D3.)
Being able to do this really says nothing about the pros and cons of these cameras in normal shooting situations. Having more dynamic range is a good thing, but if your work never involves such radical file manipulation, then it really is a theoretical advantage.
In the vast majority of work that I do the dynamic range of the 5D Mark III is more than sufficient. I know this because I have *never* needed to manipulate even my 5D2 files in this manner to create a finished image, nor do I feel my pictures suffer from excessive shadow noise and loss of detail.
I understand there are photographers who seek after the highest possible image quality and there is a pride of ownership in a having camera that can objectively be called "the best" from an IQ perspective. For those guys, Nikon wins this round (it would do so for resolution alone, even if DR was the same).
But I will tell you that after just a day with the 5D Mark III, as a total package it may just be the best camera I have used, and I have recently owned both Canon and Nikon pro gear. Heck, the Silent drive modes alone would be enough to compell me to upgrade for certain jobs, not to mention the autofocus, metering, lack of banding and pattern noise, and improved high ISO dynamic range and color accuracy. And anyone who shoots JPEGs for a living should be all over this camera (medium JPEGs at ISO 6400 are astonishing). But I digress...
garyvot wrote:
Yes, this sensor technology is very impressive, and I'm not trying to rationalize anything away. But really, how many captures do we do where we have to push the shadows 4-5 stops, as in that example? (Which is vs. the 5D Mark II, BTW, not the 5D3.)
Being able to do this really says nothing about the pros and cons of these cameras in normal shooting situations. Having more dynamic range is a good thing, but if your work never involves such radical file manipulation, then it really is a theoretical advantage.
In the vast majority of work that I do the dynamic range of the 5D Mark III is more than sufficient. I know this because I have *never* needed to manipulate even my 5D2 files in this manner to create a finished image, nor do I feel my pictures suffer from excessive shadow noise and loss of detail.
I understand there are photographers who seek after the highest possible image quality and there is a pride of ownership in a having camera that can objectively be called "the best" from an IQ perspective. For those guys, Nikon wins this round (it would do so for resolution alone, even if DR was the same).
But I will tell you that after just a day with the 5D Mark III, as a total package it may just be the best camera I have used, and I have recently owned both Canon and Nikon pro gear. Heck, the Silent drive modes alone would be enough to compell me to upgrade for certain jobs, not to mention the autofocus, metering, lack of banding and pattern noise, and improved high ISO dynamic range and color accuracy. And anyone who shoots JPEGs for a living should be all over this camera (medium JPEGs at ISO 6400 are astonishing). But I digress......Show more →
It's not really so radical, you just think it is because you've trained yourself to automatically not even think of shooting in all the tons of scenarios where that could come into play. That said, sure there are tons of other shots you can take where it won't matter but it's trivial to come up with scenarios where it helps all the same.
But yeah there are tons of nice improvements, even little UI things like the C1-C3 modes can now continuously auto-update, sooo nice.
garyvot wrote:
Yes, this sensor technology is very impressive, and I'm not trying to rationalize anything away. But really, how many captures do we do where we have to push the shadows 4-5 stops, as in that example? (Which is vs. the 5D Mark II, BTW, not the 5D3.)
Being able to do this really says nothing about the pros and cons of these cameras in normal shooting situations. Having more dynamic range is a good thing, but if your work never involves such radical file manipulation, then it really is a theoretical advantage.
In the vast majority of work that I do the dynamic range of the 5D Mark III is more than sufficient. I know this because I have *never* needed to manipulate even my 5D2 files in this manner to create a finished image, nor do I feel my pictures suffer from excessive shadow noise and loss of detail.
I understand there are photographers who seek after the highest possible image quality and there is a pride of ownership in a having camera that can objectively be called "the best" from an IQ perspective. For those guys, Nikon wins this round (it would do so for resolution alone, even if DR was the same).
But I will tell you that after just a day with the 5D Mark III, as a total package it may just be the best camera I have used, and I have recently owned both Canon and Nikon pro gear. Heck, the Silent drive modes alone would be enough to compell me to upgrade for certain jobs, not to mention the autofocus, metering, lack of banding and pattern noise, and improved high ISO dynamic range and color accuracy. And anyone who shoots JPEGs for a living should be all over this camera (medium JPEGs at ISO 6400 are astonishing). But I digress......Show more →
Although I mostly agree about the DR issue, I think subconsciously we avoid trying to be too adventurous with pushing the shadows. We'll work around the contrast issues or put up with darker regions. If I had the shadow DR of the D800 I would be able to do things I don't even contemplate now and it would be a valuable asset. Wedding photographers work with terrible high contrast scenario all the time and for them pushing shadows 4-5 stops is routine. For landscape work it would mean say not having to takes two exposures and blend them if I could push a shadow 5 stops and not have to worry about noise or banding.
I won't be switching to Nikon, but I'm envious of this ability and hope Canon get their act together sooner rather than later.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Although I mostly agree about the DR issue, I think subconsciously we avoid trying to be too adventurous with pushing the shadows. We'll work around the contrast issues or put up with darker regions. If I had the shadow DR of the D800 I would be able to do things I don't even contemplate now and it would be a valuable asset. Wedding photographers work with terrible high contrast scenario all the time and for them pushing shadows 4-5 stops is routine. For landscape work it would mean say not having to takes two exposures and blend them if I could push a shadow 5 stops and not have to worry about noise or banding.
I won't be switching to Nikon, but I'm envious of this ability and hope Canon get their act together sooner rather than later....Show more →
Agreed. 2.5 stops advantage in dynamic range can be very handy.
I've told myself I won't be upgrading my cameras for the next 5 years. By then, if Canon is still lagging behind in this important department, I fully intend to dump all my current gear and switch to something else. Even the Olympus OM-D with its 2x crop sensor has wider dynamic range than anything offered by Canon at this moment. What a shame. Besides, I find it hard to resist the 305 g weight of the Panny 12-35 mm f/2.8 OIS lens.
skibum5 wrote:
They are just getting with the times. Canon does have mushy jpgs and it transfers to video, where there is no RAW file to develop to get the fine micro-detail. They are too obsessed with waxy look and afraid of nice, tight natural 'grain' look and prefer to put all power into waxy look instead.
Canon is very noise sensitive.......and apparently they decided it was more cost affective to invest R&D on mushy jpgs then R&D on new sensor tech.....this should not surprise anyone as it seems to me Canons marketing dept. has run their R&D dept. for some time now....
. Maybe I am too *bleep* old-fashioned to appreciate that and I have to limit myself to only implied profanity 