p.2 #1 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
akclimber wrote:
I shoot with a 5D2, 5D3 & D800e. Here's a post from another site I submitted which may be helpful.
"I currently shoot with a 5D2, 5D3 & D800E.
First & foremost, at ISO 100 & 200 the image quality of the D800E blows the Canons out of the water - plain & simple. DR and detail are stunning. If you shoot a lot at these low ISOs you can't get better than the D800E's sensor. At those low ISOs, in a high DR scene, a shot that only needs one exposure with the D800 might very well need 2 with the Canon to capture clean shadows. At ISOs 400-800 the DR and IQ are generally about equal with the exception of more details for the D800E. At above ISO 800 the 5D3 starts to pull ahead in DR and maybe noise but I find the noise of the D800E files easier to deal with.
As for AF, I agree with others that the 5D3 has an edge.
As for ergonomics/shooting comfort overall I prefer Canon but not by much. The one design feature the D800E has that's inexplicably missing in the 5D series is a built-in viewfinder curtain. What is Canon thinking? And why neither cam has a flip out, tilting LCD screen is a real mystery.
Oh, and Canons liveview is way, way better than Nikon's.
As for build quality, the 5d3 is better. Same too for shutter noise/feel.
As for frame rate, I kinda like the D800 option of using a 1.2 crop to get 5-6 fps (resulting in a 24MP file) but it takes practice to mentally switch from a full frame POV to a smaller crop.
As for lenses, I've seen a lot of 24-105 vs 24-120 talk in the thread with folks saying the 24-105 is a lot better. I don't agree. I have & love them both for their usability and IQ and find them comparable. As for overall lens line-up, I prefer Canon for its amazing TSE lenses and L quality mid zooms like the 70-300 and 100-400 and 70-200 f/4 IS (but it looks like Nikon is about to announce its own 70-200 f/4 VR). On the wide end, Nikon has the wildly good 14-24 and useful 16-35 f/4 VR. I've rented a 14-24 to use on my 5D2 and wow, it's nice. I opted for a Zeiss 21 f/2.8 for the D800E but am still considering the 14-24 or 16-35 VR since I really like AF and handheld stuff.
As others have pointed out, your choice of body has everything to do with how you shoot and what you enjoy shooting. For ISO 100-200 use, the D800 smokes Canon for image quality and it's about equal up to ISO 800. The 5D3 might be a slightly better general use DSLR but not by much and only if you use higher ISOs and need a little better fullframe frame rate or slightly better low light AF.
If you can, rent one and find out for yourself how it'll work for your needs.
Good luck!
Oh, and BTW, my D800E does unfortunately have the left side AF problem (still need to send it in for repair). But on the other hand, my 5D3 exhibits wild light leak thru the viewfinder when I'm using liveview (really bad - not using the annoying/stupid external curtain isn't an option). Sigh, nothing's perfect."...Show more →
Thanks for that insight. How far ahead would you say the 5dIII is at high iso? 1600+ . . .
Charts make it look like you don't see much of a difference until past 3200, but don't know what real life experience is like.
p.2 #2 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
AKclimber just posted the most balanced D800/5DMII (or Canon/Nikon) comparison post ever. I haven't shot a 5DMII, but as a dual system owner, I agree 99% with what he said.
My comments are:
Noise: To me, Nikon noise is very different from Canon noise. Nikon noise is fine, grainy b/w specks. Canon noise is blotchy color noise. Nikon noise cleans really easily (and doesn't look all that bad if you just leave it). Canon noise is harder to clean.
Build quality: I'd say its a wash. I do like Canon ergonomics (grip shape) better. Button arrangements, I just think its a slightly different philosophy, and I don't really prefer either. Canon is more focused (lots of concentrated buttons on the right hand - leaves left hand free for zooms), while Nikon is more distributed between the l/r hand.
Interesting note on the viewfinder curtain: It stuns me that it's not on the 5DMIII. In my opinion, a pro camera *must* have this. However, it's really only a big deal for people who do long exposures.
p.2 #5 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
I went and tried another D800 yesterday, and the images looked greenish
Not sure if the culprit was the (infamous) green LCD issue, or a white balance issue...but the AF - even the outer points - worked well.
p.2 #6 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
moonpeep wrote:
Thanks for that insight. How far ahead would you say the 5dIII is at high iso? 1600+ . . .
Charts make it look like you don't see much of a difference until past 3200, but don't know what real life experience is like.
(this question assumes you're shooting raw)
Hi,
Regarding noise, man, as pointed out above, Nikon noise is finer grained/"tighter", b/w kinda noise, easier to clean than the Canon's and "nicer" looking when you have to leave it so it's tough to really say how far ahead the Canon is. I've used both a bunch at ISOs 800 & 1600 and noise-wise I'd give the edge to Canon but not by much. At 3200 I'd definitely give the edge to Canon tho (but I'm noise-a-phobic and wouldn't really want to shoot either at 3200). And I've honestly only shot the 5D3 very few times at ISO 3200 for anything meaningful and only test shots with the D800. Real world, realistically, it's nearly a wash at or below ISO 1600. I'd be more concerned with AF accuracy at low light and fps, etc. But if forced to choose between both cams at ISO 1600, I'd have to choose the 5D3. Sorry to be sorta vague but it's just a really tough, and in many ways a subjective call. Oh, and yeah, I shoot RAW. For noise reduction I most often use Neat Image but have been known to mess around with just ACR or even Topaz for certain things.
p.2 #8 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
ronno wrote:
I went and tried another D800 yesterday, and the images looked greenish
Not sure if the culprit was the (infamous) green LCD issue, or a white balance issue...but the AF - even the outer points - worked well.
Greenish RAW files or on the LCD? I think this is interesting. My RAW files aren't greenish and the LCD seems OK. I'll try and pay more attention to this and report back. Sadly, my left AF is still useless tho I'll be sending it in for repair very soon. I'd be sorely tempted by one of the recently available D800 refurbs if I didn't already own one. Probably have fixed AF points and latest firmware and individually checked out to be OK.
p.2 #9 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
I found this thread to be very interesting but perplexing. I am seriously considering a switch from Canon to Nikon and have been researching the **** out of the camera body and lens options. Some people here are stating that the 5D M3 has less noise than the D800 at higher ISOs, yet all the analysis I have seen indicates that the D800 smokes the 5D M3. Similarly, some posts in this thread are saying that starting at 800 to 1600 ISO the DR is better on the 5D M3, yet when one checks the various analysis out there, the D800 is 2.6 stops better at 100 ISO and maintains at least a 1.18 stop advantage through the entire ISO range of the 5D M3. Have the posters on here found other reputable sources that they are relying on or are the comments based on their own experiences and subjective observations with their own copies?
Please note that this is a sincere question and not an attempt to antagonize anybody.
p.2 #10 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
EverLearning wrote:
I found this thread to be very interesting but perplexing. I am seriously considering a switch from Canon to Nikon and have been researching the **** out of the camera body and lens options. Some people here are stating that the 5D M3 has less noise than the D800 at higher ISOs, yet all the analysis I have seen indicates that the D800 smokes the 5D M3. Similarly, some posts in this thread are saying that starting at 800 to 1600 ISO the DR is better on the 5D M3, yet when one checks the various analysis out there, the D800 is 2.6 stops better at 100 ISO and maintains at least a 1.18 stop advantage through the entire ISO range of the 5D M3. Have the posters on here found other reputable sources that they are relying on or are the comments based on their own experiences and subjective observations with their own copies?
Please note that this is a sincere question and not an attempt to antagonize anybody....Show more →
Regarding the DR of the 2 cams, my experience seems to agree with the DxOMark sensor tests and if I recall correctly, the tests Lloyd Chambers has done on his Diglloyd site.
To choose between the 2 cams would require some serious photographic soul searching regarding what is most important for the way (and what and under what circumstances) one shoots, not just in relation to cam features and abilities but also in lens availability (overall, for example, I prefer Canon with their killer TSEs and mid to longish range L quality zoom selection), software availability (Magic Lantern for Canon only, various remote controls for iPhone/iPads and Drioids), one's normal print sizes, etc.
Here's the quick story of how I ended up with a D800: I bought a 5D3 thinking I could live with Canon yet again not greatly advancing its sensor tech, not improving DR and only slightly improving shadow noise. I shoot a lot of things, from fast moving eagles, bears & whales, to landscapes, to still lifes to architecture to the occasional portrait. I figured the 5D3 offered added fps and I could continue to use my TSE for architecture and landscapes and my 100-400 & 500 for critters. I used the 5D3 a bunch for swans and whales and architecture and it was pretty nice - the AF was fast and accurate and the fps made it an OK critter cam. The DR was a disappointment but it wasn't like I didn't know that going in. One day tho, I was out shooting some handheld stuff in a situation where a tripod would have been difficult to use, both physically and creatively, so I couldn't rely on combining different exposures. I spent an evening shooting my subject and became more and more frustrated with the lack of usable DR. That night I decided to order a D800 and the next day I found one. For me, the DR thing is what drove me over the edge. For somebody else, maybe the fps will mean choosing a 5D3 or the 36MP detailed files will mean choosing D800e, etc. For me, at the ISOs I use most, I wanted the absolute best IQ/DR I could get in a cam I was going to use for mostly non critter stuff. I'd love it if the 5D3 had the D800e sensor inside (and viewfinder curtain), trust me!
p.2 #12 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
akclimber wrote:
Hi,
Regarding noise, man, as pointed out above, Nikon noise is finer grained/"tighter", b/w kinda noise, easier to clean than the Canon's and "nicer" looking when you have to leave it so it's tough to really say how far ahead the Canon is. I've used both a bunch at ISOs 800 & 1600 and noise-wise I'd give the edge to Canon but not by much. At 3200 I'd definitely give the edge to Canon tho (but I'm noise-a-phobic and wouldn't really want to shoot either at 3200). And I've honestly only shot the 5D3 very few times at ISO 3200 for anything meaningful and only test shots with the D800. Real world, realistically, it's nearly a wash at or below ISO 1600. I'd be more concerned with AF accuracy at low light and fps, etc. But if forced to choose between both cams at ISO 1600, I'd have to choose the 5D3. Sorry to be sorta vague but it's just a really tough, and in many ways a subjective call. Oh, and yeah, I shoot RAW. For noise reduction I most often use Neat Image but have been known to mess around with just ACR or even Topaz for certain things.
Thanks for the feedback. My shooting is classic landscape with an additional focus on high iso night time landscapes. That's where I'm trying to figure out exactly what my differences are.
So I do care about iso 6400 and etc, but won't spend the majority of my time there. (certainly not a noise-a-phobe... I push my rebels past 3200 at times)
DXOMark wise I believe the d800 is better at comperable isos through 3200... though I'm more interested in real world handling of the files and what they'll look like after post. I just need to get some RAWs from both and run them through LR4.
I'm not at all afraid of playing with files in post to maximize their potential. The fact that I find myself often pushing shadows ought to be enough to nudge me in the direction of the d800.
p.2 #13 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
ronno wrote:
EverLearning, the consensus seems to be that after 1600 or so, the Canon wins in terms of DR and noise. Below that the D800 wins.
Also, the Canon seems to be way ahead in terms of high ISO video.
I've read that it's best to shoot at 1600 max on the d800 and then to push in post as you need... you retain more dynamic range to work with. (something about 1600 + on the d800 just being digital gain or whatnot)
p.2 #15 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
Great post akclimber. The D800 looks like a real keeper but Canon still seems to have the edge in selection of 'pro' glass. Since you can't go "best of breed" for every piece, it comes down to putting together the best overall kit to meet one's personal needs.
Ronno, I can't comment at all on video as it is not something I will use except for training purposes (record, show, delete). Regarding, the DR though, I wonder where this concensus is coming from. I have been to at least two sites (dxomark and comcast(?)) that show the D800 being way ahead in the lower ISO and still well over a stop ahead through the whole range of the 5D MIII. Same thing re ISO noise. So either the scientific analysis that I have seen is flawed (or deliberately biased) or people are making emotion-based statements about the technology they have already significantly invested in.
p.2 #17 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
Ronno, please take a look at comcast and tell me that it doesn't show a wide gap between the two. I would also be interested in hearing your theory for these disparaties in analysis. As an interesting aside, the comcast analysis shows the 7D as very close to the 5D MIII for DR. Follow this link (ignore the reference to the D70 in the link; you can pick whatever cameras you want):
p.2 #18 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
Honestly I don't want to spend time analyzing charts, but I know that measuring dynamic range is not an exact science. Different methods yield different results. It does seem that DxO has the most reliable methods, and their findings seem to match what people say in the real world.
p.2 #19 · Questions for those moved from Canon to D800
I moved from Canon 1DsIII and 1D IV back to Nikon (left after D2X) and for what I shoot I am happy.
I shoot nature stuff exclusively. Landscapes and critters. So I did not have TSE lenses, but I did have 800mm IS, 500mm IS
What I like about 800E:
The eyepiece curtain (but I had that on 1 D's)
High IQ low weight
Great micro contrast in newer zoom lenses - looks like Zeiss in many respects
Pop up flash is useful for catch light in eye on cloudy day.
All Nikon zoom glass below 70mm is better than the Canon equivalent......
16-35VR is awesome compared to any Canon offering and that is with VR off.
24-70 better than any Canon zoom (28-70, 24-70 and 24-105) and slightly better than the Contax 24-85N that was my go to zoom.
Nikon Flash system is better to my taste.
What I miss from Canon:
70-200mm f4 IS
100-400 IS better than Nikon 80-400
300mm f4 IS
400mm DO or f5.6
The weight of new Canon Big telephotos - 9.8 Lbs for 800mm and 8.5Lbs for the new 600mm f4. I would not buy the 800L again, but I was really excited about the prospects of the 600mm IS II. Unfortuantely I gave up on Canon before they actually started shipping.
What I won't miiss from Canon is having to use Zeiss, Contax, or Voigtlander lenses to have decent performace below 70mm. I had Zeiss 21mm, 25mm, that have both been effectively replaced by the 16-35 VR, and the Contax 24-85N, and 70-700mmN if you really wanted nice micro contrast..
My hopes from Nikon:
70-200mm f4 VR looks real - hope IQis great
300mm f4 VR? Maybe? - strong rumour or a 400mm f5.6 (no rumour)
Desperately want--- an 8.8 Lb 600mm f4 VRIII and a foot that doesn't look like a crane boom
I am 85 years old and i have never seen at the fm forums anybody as rude as this Canadian!