Street photography, neither.
Landscape, 800E (or 800, frankly I can't tell much of a difference, and I've peeped my arse off).
Product, pretty much any modern camera, though if you get really serious with TSE lenses, the Canon's have the better live view for focusing, though I'm sure both workable for products.
Are all landscapers shooting at 100 ISO ? If so, then the D800(E) and even the D6x0 have better value regarding DR. But if you have to raise the ISO, the DR advantage will act like ice under sun.
Oh I treat myself as a landscaper and I often have to bump the ISO (400 to 800) in order to keep a fast enough speed (e.g to fix foliage blur on windy days). Ok I could open the aperture but I often need greater DoF and the best capabilities of the lens from border to border.
Then the clear advantage the D800 had no longer exists. But its weakness takes the lead : Nikon's LiveView is at best a PITA ("ni fait, ni à faire") and I use LiveView many times (although starting from 1Dx/5D3, I trust the AF enough to reduce my use of LV).
Another point regarding the DR advantage of the D800. Let's assume it is about 3 EV (actually a bit less). I can compensate it easily with exposure bracketing (and a camera with fast bursts like the 1Dx greatly enhances it) and a gain of +4 to +6 EV.
Yes that's right one can recover more and better shadows from a D800. I experimented it but honestly I've found the results too flat, requiring me to add more contrast or move the black point up. And I'm not a huge fan of contrasty photos !
Regarding the 36 Mp that should rule the world. Interesting for huge cropers or big prints. And pixel peepers and HDD collectors too !
I have both system and have use both system since 1978.I have also tested dark rooms equipments, scanners, lenses, cameras, moreover, I have access to all the camera brands and lenses that I want to test, any questions about: A puzzling comment. Have you actually used either system or I doubt he's used AF in anger or a supertele. ?
Larate wrote:
Are all landscapers shooting at 100 ISO ? If so, then the D800(E) and even the D6x0 have better value regarding DR. But if you have to raise the ISO, the DR advantage will act like ice under sun.
Oh I treat myself as a landscaper and I often have to bump the ISO (400 to 800) in order to keep a fast enough speed (e.g to fix foliage blur on windy days). Ok I could open the aperture but I often need greater DoF and the best capabilities of the lens from border to border.
Then the clear advantage the D800 had no longer exists. But its weakness takes the lead : Nikon's LiveView is at best a PITA ("ni fait, ni à faire") and I use LiveView many times (although starting from 1Dx/5D3, I trust the AF enough to reduce my use of LV).
Another point regarding the DR advantage of the D800. Let's assume it is about 3 EV (actually a bit less). I can compensate it easily with exposure bracketing (and a camera with fast bursts like the 1Dx greatly enhances it) and a gain of +4 to +6 EV.
Yes that's right one can recover more and better shadows from a D800. I experimented it but honestly I've found the results too flat, requiring me to add more contrast or move the black point up. And I'm not a huge fan of contrasty photos !
Regarding the 36 Mp that should rule the world. Interesting for huge cropers or big prints. And pixel peepers and HDD collectors too ! ...Show more →
well then you need a tripod and a static motive, I can easily take one exposure, expose after high lights so they are intact and then make two copies from the raw file , one developed after the shadows and one after the highlights and put them together, freehand and moving subject
Try to do that with a Canon who has 10-15 times higher read out noise + banding at base iso compared to d800
Regarding to flat results, it is easy to do partiell contrast adjustments in PS, better to work with a soft , flat picture than a contrasty from the beginning
Mikael Risedal wrote:
Interesting that so many myths are presented here, one is that Canon have so much better AF than Nikon, another is about the big whites when most big whites seems to be jealous of the " big black" .
"sorry I could not resist it"
I could toss a coin and be happy using either system if I'm honest. I very nearly went for a D800 after release, but didn't in the end. Mainly because I don't need 36MP, and realistically I'd have to upgrade my laptop as it's only just okay performance wise. Not to mention the hassle selling what I have. I didn't like how Nikon dealt with the AF concerns either.
If I was starting again (say I magically just had the monetary value of all my kit ), I would very likely go for the D800, as it is a camera that would last me for years. Hell my main camera now is the 1Ds2 and look how old that is! It's this time of year when I have to break out the flash that I crave high ISO
I use both Canon and Nikon and I would recommend the D800(e), if Canon comes out with something better then switch, if not, you still have the best landscape camera on the market. For landscapes, I find the ability to push D800 sensors invaluable. You have more latitude with the files. For street photography, I prefer Canon colors but the sensor quality trumps that and I use mostly Sigma lenses so lens offerings are a non-issue.
jj_glos wrote:
I could toss a coin and be happy using either system if I'm honest. I very nearly went for a D800 after release, but didn't in the end. Mainly because I don't need 36MP, and realistically I'd have to upgrade my laptop as it's only just okay performance wise.
I can see the currently used hardware as a practical issue when moving towards high MP sensors. This said, technology is advancing, and any PC or notebook is technologically "outdated" after 4-5 years anyway - of course you can still use it but newer software will always push towards faster computers with more memory also. Same is true for digital sensors - 36-40 MP is by far not the end. We reach a point where better resolution goes against benefit in fps speed for example. The market starts to diversify here - a camera with lower but mostly sufficient resolution and faster speed for event/action/wildlife photographers, while landscape and fine art photographers settle and/or hope for higher MP/better DR sensors as priority.
I consider a PC upgrade meanwhile nearly as important as having a decent good camera at least.
One of the recent trends in PC performance has been a significant focus in using graphics processors as 'co-processors' for highly parallel work, like the image processing like that done in Adobe and similar apps.
At this point it's actually the software that needs to catch up, but the potential here is undeniable. Even Intel has jumped on this bandwagon, and note that the new Mac Pro opts for multiple graphics cards instead of multiple CPUs. CPUs are uniquely ill-suited for the kind of work that Apple expects Mac Pro users to be doing .
retrofocus wrote:
I can see the currently used hardware as a practical issue when moving towards high MP sensors. This said, technology is advancing, and any PC or notebook is technologically "outdated" after 4-5 years anyway - of course you can still use it but newer software will always push towards faster computers with more memory also. Same is true for digital sensors - 36-40 MP is by far not the end. We reach a point where better resolution goes against benefit in fps speed for example. The market starts to diversify here - a camera with lower but mostly sufficient resolution and faster speed for event/action/wildlife photographers, while landscape and fine art photographers settle and/or hope for higher MP/better DR sensors as priority.
I consider a PC upgrade meanwhile nearly as important as having a decent good camera at least. ...Show more →
I don't have a problem upgrading the PC if I need to, but I don't need 36MP files. I don't shoot landscapes and I rarely print over 16x10. It would be a nice to have, not a need to have. Not that that's always stopped me in the past!
I think I've decided not to buy anything new until well into next year now. I want to see how the A7 pans out and what others may bring to the table.
ggreene wrote:
Apple is seriously putting its focus on OpenCL with the new Mac Pro and the AMD cards. Adobe is suppose to be transitioning to it.
We can only hope so. Lightroom is dead slow in comparison to the competition, both from an editing standpoint and from a rendering standpoint, and even Intel's built-in graphics has OpenCL-capable processing available.
molson wrote:
When both cameras were new, there were literally dozens of threads on this topic.
If your primary interest is landscapes, the D800E offers superior resolution of fine details and greater dynamic range in RAW captures. The acuity is noticeably better than the D800, so the extra $300 for the D800E is a no-brainer.
The 5D Mark III has superior focusing, metering, handling, and actually delivers better acuity (sharpness) per pixel than the D800, and Canon has better lenses in general (with a few notable exceptions).
I've owned the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III, as well as the D800 and D800E.
So if you HAD to chose only one, with no regard to what you are going to shoot, which would it be.
Mikael Risedal wrote:
well then you need a tripod and a static motive,...
Try to do that with a Canon who has 10-15 times higher read out noise + banding at base iso compared to d800
Regarding to flat results, it is easy to do partiell contrast adjustments in PS, better to work with a soft , flat picture than a contrasty from the beginning
Oh I'm sorry, I've forgotten to say I'm a landscaper and thus I very often use a tripod. And it is well known that landscapes are fast-moving subjects nowadays !
Anyway, I don't see the meaning of your comparison at base ISO only since:
a. It's a well-known fact and I wrote it at the beginning of my message.
b. I also wrote that I often need to raise the ISO and then it's a fact too that the DR advantage of the D800 is not so obvious at 800 ISO.
Oh a tip for you : when you raise the ISO, it's always better to bracket the exposure at full burst (e.g 10 img/s) than blending several developments of the same raw. Because the noise will be lower.
Is it better to work with a soft, flat picture than a contrasty one from the beginning ? Absolutely. But can we say that flat results are the beginning ? Huh huh...
Haven't read the whole thread - and don't plan to - but a few thoughts...
Canon and Nikon both make excellent cameras and lenses so you won't go wrong with either brand. In general, switching (either direction) is rarely a good idea. You buy into a system of camera, lenses, batteries, and more - and while one brand may be ahead of the other in some ways at a given point in time, over the long term there are few differences of significance. If Company A has something this year or month that is better than Company B, the odds are that the tables will be turned next year.
So if you are already invested in one or the other brand, any potential advantages from switching are likely to be erased within a short period of time and likely to have a much smaller effect than you might imagine even in the short term.
Regarding the D800 and D800e question, I like to say that if...
- you are a photographer with no existing investment in a DSLR system who needs the highest current sensor resolution, and...
- you shoot specific subjects that benefit from highest possible resolution, and...
- you are a very careful and highly competent technician, and...
- you regularly make prints at very large sizes that push the envelope of what is possible from full frame DSLR cameras, and...
- you want a small increase in potential size of extremely large prints...
the D800/d800e is this year's highest resolution DSLR system.
I know of exactly one person who is in the category I described above. This person is a well-known landscape photographer who makes large and beautiful prints, who has gradually moved from LF film to MF digital, and who previously did not own a DLRS system. He was looking for a system for a certain aspect of his photography that might be better accomplished with a smaller (compared to MF digital!) system, and he settled on the D800e for his rather specialized purposes. But it is very import to consider that he hit all of my points listed above.
When it comes to sensor resolution, there are several things to keep in mind:
- Nikon (and the interesting new Sony models) currently have higher resolution sensors than Canon.
- Sensor resolution is very, very rarely a significant factor for most photographers - being largely limited to those shooting carefully from the tripod and regularly producing fine art prints in a size range that might be larger than 24" x 36".
- Other factors may be more important than sensor resolution for most photographers.
- You can expect that "lead" in sensor resolution to seesaw back and forth among manufacturers over a time scale of a year or two.
I own a 5D2, 5D3 & D800E. My quick, bulletized thoughts are below (I've not read the thread so sorry if this is redundant or unduly controversial)
Buy a D800e if you:
1) Want the best sensor in and image quality from a DSLR, especially at ISOs up to about 400 (but even past that it's about a wash).
2) Need or want high DR or hate Canon's banded and blocked up shadows.
3) Need or want in-camera, easy to use intervalometer and/or timelapses
4) Need or want a built in viewfinder curtain
5) Need or want the highest resolution sensor in a DSLR
6) Already own Nikon lenses
7) Like the idea of having in-camera cropping available
8) Convert to B&W or heavily manipulate images in PS, etc. (for whatever reason, the D800 files make tremendous B&W images - yep, better than my 5D2 and 3 - and take heavy manipulation better)
9) Want or need a built flash
10) Want or need a seemingly more sane/accurate flash/lighting system
Buy a 5D3 if you:
1) Shoot video
2) Want a decent live view function
3) Want to use 3rd party apps to control the camera's functions either in-camera with Magic Lantern or via a phone or tablet (for whatever reason, it appears Canon's are easier for developers to figure out).
4) Want a ton of added functionality via Magic Lantern
5) Shoot with Canon's terrific 17 and 24 TSEs
6) Use alt lenses
7) Need 6 fps
8) Shoot multiple exposures (5D3 has more functionality/creative possibilities in this area vs the D800E)
akclimber wrote:
I own a 5D2, 5D3 & D800E. My quick, bulletized thoughts are below (I've not read the thread so sorry if this is redundant or unduly controversial)
Buy a D800e if you:
1) Want the best sensor in and image quality from a DSLR, especially at ISOs up to about 400 (but even past that it's about a wash).
2) Need or want high DR or hate Canon's banded and blocked up shadows.
3) Need or want in-camera, easy to use intervalometer and/or timelapses
4) Need or want a built in viewfinder curtain
5) Need or want the highest resolution sensor in a DSLR
6) Already own Nikon lenses
7) Like the idea of having in-camera cropping available
8) Convert to B&W or heavily manipulate images in PS, etc. (for whatever reason, the D800 files make tremendous B&W images - yep, better than my 5D2 and 3 - and take heavy manipulation better)
9) Want or need a built flash
10) Want or need a seemingly more sane/accurate flash/lighting system
Buy a 5D3 if you:
1) Shoot video
2) Want a decent live view function
3) Want to use 3rd party apps to control the camera's functions either in-camera with Magic Lantern or via a phone or tablet (for whatever reason, it appears Canon's are easier for developers to figure out).
4) Want a ton of added functionality via Magic Lantern
5) Shoot with Canon's terrific 17 and 24 TSEs
6) Use alt lenses
7) Need 6 fps
8) Shoot multiple exposures (5D3 has more functionality/creative possibilities in this area vs the D800E)
Great post. Good to hear from someone who ACTUALLY has used both cameras. Seems like many people have opinions on equipment that they never shot with. I value people with hands on experience rather than people who gain their experience from reading posts on the internet.
Larate wrote:
Oh I'm sorry, I've forgotten to say I'm a landscaper and thus I very often use a tripod. And it is well known that landscapes are fast-moving subjects nowadays !
Anyway, I don't see the meaning of your comparison at base ISO only since:
a. It's a well-known fact and I wrote it at the beginning of my message.
b. I also wrote that I often need to raise the ISO and then it's a fact too that the DR advantage of the D800 is not so obvious at 800 ISO.
Oh a tip for you : when you raise the ISO, it's always better to bracket the exposure at full burst (e.g 10 img/s) than blending several developments of the same raw. Because the noise will be lower.
Is it better to work with a soft, flat picture than a contrasty one from the beginning ? Absolutely. But can we say that flat results are the beginning ? Huh huh...
if you use a tripod why are you shooting at 800iso when you have the best DR around base iso normally ? make no sense if you not use a Canon off course and then we are talking about 10 stops DR around 800iso and not 14 as in a Nikon at base iso
a tip for you, ask Canon to buy Sony sensor instead, then you can handhold your camera and take one shoot and expose after the high lights, or if you want to use a tripod and use it as your Canon so in every case you have a better sensor regarding resolution, color depth, DR etc than you have now
The 5D Mark III has superior focusing, metering, handling, and actually delivers better acuity (sharpness) per pixel than the D800, and Canon has better lenses in general (with a few notable exceptions).
Handling is subjective
show me one test there Canons AF is generally better than Nikon including all parameters
show me facts about sharpness/pixel and not default internal sharpening
Regarding lenses there are many from both companies who are really good /bad
and last , metering? please explain in what way Canon has a better metering
), I would very likely go for the D800, as it is a camera that would last me for years. Hell my main camera now is the 1Ds2 and look how old that is! It's this time of year when I have to break out the flash that I crave high ISO 
.