I am amused by people who must have a winner,= what I have is the best. I have 11 L lenses waiting for a high resolution camera from Canon with at least the same DR as my Nikon d800 and with at least the same resolution.
I who have both Nikon and Canon and work with them daily can only say, it is time for Canon to respond with a camera who not takes 12pictures/sec and 18Mp resolution and inferior DR, Im not shooting birds flying in the sky and sports, Im working with products photo . So where are the high resolution camera from Canon?
Nowhere - and probably not in the future either with Canons sensor lines and "all in house thinking" regarding 24x36mm sensors
Mikael Risedal wrote:
I am amused by people who must have a winner,= what I have is the best. I have 11 L lenses waiting for a high resolution camera from Canon with at least the same DR as my Nikon d800 and with at least the same resolution.
I who have both Nikon and Canon and work with them daily can only say, it is time for Canon to respond with a camera who not takes 12pictures/sec and 18Mp resolution and inferior DR, Im not shooting birds flying in the sky and sports, Im working with products photo . So where are the high resolution camera from Canon?
Nowhere - and probably not in the future either with Canons sensor lines and "all in house thinking" regarding 24x36mm sensors...Show more →
Well, clearly you must have the camera with the highest resolution and low ISO DR, so you have the D800. Apparently Canon never built the camera that you need and never promised you one. Yet for some reason you bought all of those Canon lenses. Is this somehow Canon's fault? Obviously Canon is working on their own schedule and is not in a hurry to fill the high megapixel niche. Nikon took their time with a lot of products.
zlatko wrote:
Well, clearly you must have the camera with the highest resolution and low ISO DR, so you have the D800. Apparently Canon never built the camera that you need and never promised you one. Yet for some reason you bought all of those Canon lenses. Is this somehow Canon's fault? Obviously Canon is working on their own schedule and is not in a hurry to fill the high megapixel niche. Nikon took their time with a lot of products.
well, then its time for Canon to build a new camera, we are many who are waiting for a high resolution camera.
ZachOly wrote:
The only thing I ever hear about the D800 is "shadows".
I must be the only photog out there who also never boosts the shadows beyond, maybe a 1/2 stop. Anymore than that and I get a weird, quasi, HDR look.
If you're using Nikon and relying on matrix metering, it's not uncommon to need to boost your shadows a full stop or more. I've found Canon's metering to be a lot more reliable, so much less exposure correction is normally required in post-processing (depending on your subject and lighting, of course... so YMMV).
jerbear00 wrote:
I wonder if there are not a lot of threads because the group who buys these cameras are likely already lens committed to a system? Therefore they stick to a brand.
I have a 5D3 and have personally never shot Nikon. The D800 does interest me and I like what Nikon is offering lately. Without experience my bad opinion is below:
5d3 :: best allaround camera ever.
D800:: best FF sensor/dynamic range??
Landscape: D800
Product: either... If light is good doubt I need anywhere near this much camera
Street/action: 5D3
I've shot the D800 but not 5D3 (I do have a 6D) and I'd agree with these statements. Though I'd probably give Nikon the edge in product photography due to the higher res.
A few things that I experienced with the D800. Live view sucks compared to Canon. If it gets darkish, live view on the Nikon degenerates into a mess, while Canons do not. Build quality could be better. My 6D feels almost on par, and that camera has a lot more plastic than the Nikon. My Canons nail WB and exposure better. And as a system: Nikon quality control blows. I've had issues with several Nikkor lenses I purchased. And I briefly had a D600, which was an oilspot nightmare. IMO NIkon handled that extremely poorly (they should have done a recall, but instead just came out with a new camera). Not cool. Nikon may have the upper hand with sensors, etc. but these things must be looked at as a system and I would not buy another Nikon anytime soon.
I have several buddies that have switched from Canon to Nikon recently. One went from 5D3 to D800/E and one from 5D2 to D600. The biggest "wow" factor was the DR. Not needing to bracket shots for shadows and highlights is something I look forward to.
A lot of people talk about HD space and not needing 36MP. The D800 has the ability to record in smaller NEF resolution (24MP i do believe). So not needing to bracket frees up space. So instead of having 32 or 64GB cards filled with a bunch of bracketed shots, it will be filled with more variation of subjects - if that makes sense.
Myself, I have no loyalty to either system. I have no camera or lens at the moment, but will be picking up an 800E + 14-24 in the next few months, as it will work best for what I shoot.
molson wrote:
If you're using Nikon and relying on matrix metering, it's not uncommon to need to boost your shadows a full stop or more. I've found Canon's metering to be a lot more reliable, so much less exposure correction is normally required in post-processing (depending on your subject and lighting, of course... so YMMV).
the life is easier than so
you have a motive, the motive has a great DR, you chose to exposure after the high lights, no clipping in any channel to maintain color resolution in the high lights, then adjust the raw file after your personally way to se/look at the motive, lifting shadows, middle tones etc.
Try to do that with any Canon in a comparison with d800 and same exposure, time and f-stops.
You will be suprised what you can se or not regarding details and no banding
1) both cameras are in par with ISO. Any differences are the result of aggressive noise reduction in 5d3 JPEGs.
2) they both have awesome AF systems, but only the 1dx has a spot tracking mode. The d800 also has this feature AND it can track faces.
3) the d800 viewfinder is good, though a little less refined as the 5d3, but not at all "crap" or up useable like some people would have you believe.
4) d800 has superior IQ in every respect. Colors and tonal gradations are superior. The canon files simply don't hold up to manipulation and require multiple exposures and more data to get an image that you can pull out of ONE d800 file.
5) the difference between 4fps and 6 is insignificant, and you can shoot 6 on the d800 in dx mode with the d4 battery.
6) both cameras have great lenses and, unless you're an L lens snob, you already know that sigma's offerings for each camera outperform the factory equivalents.
4) d800 has superior IQ in every respect. Colors and tonal gradations are superior. The canon files simply don't hold up to manipulation and require multiple exposures and more data to get an image that you can pull out of ONE d800 file.
5) the difference between 4fps and 6 is insignificant, and you can shoot 6 on the d800 in dx mode with the d4 battery.
6) both cameras have great lenses and, unless you're an L lens snob, you already know that sigma's offerings for each camera outperform the factory equivalents.
I don't mean to sound offensive but I can only describe your post as hysterical bullshit.
The AF systems are far from the same.
The Nikon forums everywhere have complaints from numerous users regarding poor AF performance.
Sorry they are far from similar.
If you get a good one your ok but as evidenced by numerous complaint posts that is problematic at best.
Talk up D800 AF all you like user complaints speak louder than posts praising it and there are far more of them.
D800 IQ is only superior if you choose to boost shadows by more than two stops.
Ie you are trying to shoot a HDR image in one shot or you buggered the exposure.
These shots will not look natural or well exposed unless used very tactfully.
The ability to boost shadows is an advantage but nothing like the amount of noise generated by the subject.
From the noise generated you would think all we photograph is shadows..
I would rather have a great AF system than shadow pushing more than two stops. No amount of pushing will save a OOF image on a sensor which requires more accuracy not less.
As for lenses if you have used both systems you already know why people have chosen Canon.
All the D800 has to offer is shadow recovery at extreme values and higher res if you can find a lens to take advantage of it which many of Nikons offerings can not.
If you want to blow an image up to 48" and your lucky enough to be shooting with something like a 14-24 you will get some great images. The 5DMk3 is just as capable and in many situations more capable offering better FPS,better AF completely superior live view enabling far more opportunities to get better images than simply when you need crazy shadow recovery.
If all we photographed was shadows id heartily recommend the D800 but the histogram is composed of far more than just shadows..
If you like Nikon buy the D800 if you like Canon get a Mk3 both are equally capable of superb images..
I think a lot of folks way over-think this whole issue. Both Nikon and Canon make excellent full frame cameras, along with lenses and flash units and the rest.
if you don't already own a brand, your choice might be one or the other depending upon your particular needs. For some photographers in this unlikely category, Canon's AF, service, lenses, and so forth might be more important. For others the higher MP resolution of the D800/D800e might push them in that direction. Whichever such a person gets, it will be a fine camera - with its own set of pluses and minuses. In the field, you can make tremendous photographs with gear from either brand.
But such people - needing a high end DSLR system and not owning any DSLR gear yet - are a rare breed. I've met exactly one.
If you already own one brand or the other, while envying certain features of the other brand is understandable (yes, I look forward to a higher MP Canon body), switching brands is almost never a sensible decision. Brand A may be better on some counts now and Brand B on others, but in this continuous game of catch-up and then one-upmanship that is the camera industry the advantage will almost always swing back and forth between brands on a regular basis. Trying to switch to keep up is a (very expensive) lost cause, and the potential change in the quality of your photographs will generally range from non-existent to trivial.
And if anyone thinks that this thread has a hope of a chance of resolving the (strange) question of whether Brand A or Brand B is "best," don't hold your breath.
1) both cameras are in par with ISO. Any differences are the result of aggressive noise reduction in 5d3 JPEGs.
Agreed
2) they both have awesome AF systems, but only the 1dx has a spot tracking mode. The d800 also has this feature AND it can track faces.
I think the 5D3 acquires focus a tad faster
3) the d800 viewfinder is good, though a little less refined as the 5d3, but not at all "crap" or up useable like some people would have you believe.
Agreed
4) d800 has superior IQ in every respect. Colors and tonal gradations are superior. The canon files simply don't hold up to manipulation and require multiple exposures and more data to get an image that you can pull out of ONE d800 file.
Very much agree!
5) the difference between 4fps and 6 is insignificant, and you can shoot 6 on the d800 in dx mode with the d4 battery.
Disagree re 4 vs 6 fps for action. But heck, with a D800, just dial in 1.2 crop (which is 24 MP) and you have 5 fps.
6) both cameras have great lenses and, unless you're an L lens snob, you already know that sigma's offerings for each camera outperform the factory equivalents.
I dunno about that cause I haven't tried the Sigma alts.
dehowie wrote:
The AF systems are far from the same.
The Nikon forums everywhere have complaints from numerous users regarding poor AF performance.
Sorry they are far from similar.
If you get a good one your ok but as evidenced by numerous complaint posts that is problematic at best.
Talk up D800 AF all you like user complaints speak louder than posts praising it and there are far more of them.
D800 IQ is only superior if you choose to boost shadows by more than two stops.
Ie you are trying to shoot a HDR image in one shot or you buggered the exposure.
These shots will not look natural or well exposed unless used very tactfully.
The ability to boost shadows is an advantage but nothing like the amount of noise generated by the subject.
From the noise generated you would think all we photograph is shadows..
I would rather have a great AF system than shadow pushing more than two stops. No amount of pushing will save a OOF image on a sensor which requires more accuracy not less.
As for lenses if you have used both systems you already know why people have chosen Canon.
All the D800 has to offer is shadow recovery at extreme values and higher res if you can find a lens to take advantage of it which many of Nikons offerings can not.
If you want to blow an image up to 48" and your lucky enough to be shooting with something like a 14-24 you will get some great images. The 5DMk3 is just as capable and in many situations more capable offering better FPS,better AF completely superior live view enabling far more opportunities to get better images than simply when you need crazy shadow recovery.
If all we photographed was shadows id heartily recommend the D800 but the histogram is composed of far more than just shadows..
If you like Nikon buy the D800 if you like Canon get a Mk3 both are equally capable of superb images.....Show more →
OK, I own and use a 5D2, 5D3 and D800e (my first Nikon). I've posted a bunch about this issue and will continue to do so
Let's see, first off, the sensor on the D800 produces more superb images in more circumstances then the 5D3. Period. No fanboy-ism involved - just the truth.
The AF systems are near equal with the 5D3 acquiring focus faster I think.
The IQ of the D800 sensor isn't only better in the shadows - it's better by 2+ stops overall and for whatever reason produces better B&W. It also produces higher rez images with higher DR (yes, better shadows but also better highlights). And can produce better prints because of these things.
Oh, and yes, you can indeed produce more natural looking images with one exposure with the D800 than with the 5D3. It's all about DR. Not sure why this is even in question. Our eyes take in and process far more DR than any sensor. The closer we get to that the better. Any funky looking results are the product of poor or intentional processing.
Boosting shadows with a file from the D800 does not increase noise in the image, neither does boosting shadows with a 5D3 file if you know what you're doing. But boosting shadows in a 5D3 file produces banding & noise in those shadows without extreme noise/banding reduction software measures. With a D800 file, it's hard to produce any ugly artifacts in shadows when boosting.
As for lenses, yes each system has its keepers and an advantage with Canon is you can use Nikon (and other lenses) with adapters.
As for your statement that "All the D800 has to offer is shadow recovery at extreme values and higher res if you can find a lens to take advantage of it which many of Nikon's offerings can not", please see my other responses. Your statement is frankly pure BS (I'm admittedly in a bad holiday mood so pardon my directness/honesty).
As for your statement that "If you want to blow an image up to 48" and your lucky enough to be shooting with something like a 14-24 you will get some great images. The 5DMk3 is just as capable and in many situations more capable offering better FPS,better AF completely superior live view enabling far more opportunities to get better images than simply when you need crazy shadow recovery." Well, the 5D3 does have much better live view and marginally better fps but that's where you should have stopped. Please see my responses above addressing some of these other issues. It's obvious you have no first hand experience using a D800.
Regarding this: "If all we photographed was shadows id heartily recommend the D800 but the histogram is composed of far more than just shadows." I agree that a histogram is composed of more than shadows. It is composed of a wider DR than either camera can record but the D800 can record far more than the 5D3. Again, a simple fact.
Mikael Risedal wrote:
the life is easier than so
you have a motive, the motive has a great DR, you chose to exposure after the high lights, no clipping in any channel to maintain color resolution in the high lights, then adjust the raw file after your personally way to se/look at the motive, lifting shadows, middle tones etc.
Try to do that with any Canon in a comparison with d800 and same exposure, time and f-stops.
You will be suprised what you can se or not regarding details and no banding
I've taken many thousands of images with 5d Mark II's and Mark III's, and have yet to see a single incidence if the mythical banding unicorn. While I do prefer (and own) the Nikon D800/d800e now, I never really found fault with Canon's (lack of) dynamic range. Perhaps it's because I take the old-school approach, and try to get the exposure right in-camera rather than trying to fix it afterwards in Photoshop.
molson wrote:
I've taken many thousands of images with 5d Mark II's and Mark III's, and have yet to see a single incidence if the mythical banding unicorn. While I do prefer (and own) the Nikon D800/d800e now, I never really found fault with Canon's (lack of) dynamic range. Perhaps it's because I take the old-school approach, and try to get the exposure right in-camera rather than trying to fix it afterwards in Photoshop.
I agree with getting exposure right in camera but what happens when the scene you're trying to capture contains a DR that the 5D3 can't capture but the D800 can (or can at least capture more of)? No matter how "right" you get the 5D3 exposure, you're not gonna end up with a file as nice as the D800 that (more) accurately captures the information in the scene. It's not about "getting the exposure right" (define that!), it's about the DR capabilities of the sensor. One should arguably always strive to capture the most info in the scene so one doesn't have to unnecessarily mess with the file in post unless for some creative vision. I bought a D800 after I spent an evening out shooting a high DR scene handheld with the 5D3, not wanting to interrupt my creative flow with a tripod and multiple exposures (to later blend) and, after getting home, opening the files and discovering blown highlights and crushed, unrecoverable shadows. I literally ordered a D800e the next day. I had to try it out. I'm glad I did.
As a caveat, I've been vocal about Canon needing to concentrate on DR, not MPs, since they introduced the 5Dc. It's not as if Canon hasn't had an opportunity to produce a "better" sensor before I partially jumped ship And heck, I still really hope they come to their senses and produce a DR/MP competitive chip. I'm saving my 500 f/4 IS and 24 TSE MK II with fingers crossed!
akclimber wrote:
I agree with getting exposure right in camera but what happens when the scene you're trying to capture contains a DR that the 5D3 can't capture but the D800 can (or can at least capture more of)? No matter how "right" you get the 5D3 exposure, you're not gonna end up with a file as nice as the D800 that (more) accurately captures the information in the scene. It's not about "getting the exposure right" (define that!), it's about the DR capabilities of the sensor. One should arguably always strive to capture the most info in the scene so one doesn't have to unnecessarily mess with the file in post unless for some creative vision. I bought a D800 after I spent an evening out shooting a high DR scene handheld with the 5D3, not wanting to interrupt my creative flow with a tripod and multiple exposures (to later blend) and, after getting home, opening the files and discovering blown highlights and crushed, unrecoverable shadows. I literally ordered a D800e the next day. I had to try it out. I'm glad I did.
As a caveat, I've been vocal about Canon needing to concentrate on DR, not MPs, since they introduced the 5Dc. It's not as if Canon hasn't had an opportunity to produce a "better" sensor before I partially jumped ship And heck, I still really hope they come to their senses and produce a DR/MP competitive chip. I'm saving my 500 f/4 IS and 24 TSE MK II with fingers crossed!
Spot on here. When I shot with a D800 I found myself actually getting lazy with exposure as the camera had so much latitude for post processing. I actually think it made me a worse photographer. Though I did carry a tripod more often to get the most out of those 36MPs.
I still think the 5D3 is the overall "better" camera. Build, AF, etc. Just not the sensor at low ISOs. If you're a landscaper, the D800 is probably the way to go though, though I don't know if I'd sell off a whole Canon system to switch. I'd probably wait for Canon. But...then again. Life's short.
