Nikon D600 upgrade to 5Dmk3 - is it worth it?

ERJL wrote in post #16702344
Likewise, If your criteria for choosing is the DXO test on dynamic range, then the Nik wins. For the wide variety of photography of images I take, the Canon gives me more consistant useable output. In particular it yields ooc images which require very little adjustment. The Niks (have owned 3) all had a problem yielding accurate colors for grass (imo). The canon colors (6d and 5d mkiii) look just great to my eye ooc, though some may say Canon is a bit warm (not to me).

Your criteria need not be "the DxO test on dynamic range" for Nikon to win. Those tests parallel many others you can find online, and they accurately represent the real-world difference between brands at low ISO (which is to say, it's a gaping chasm). I'm tired of Canon fanboys dismissing DxO tests just because their bodies get appropriately massacred on the sensor tests. You didn't do it in this post, but I've seen it a lot on this board and I don't want anyone reading this thread to delude themselves that their DR measurements are misleading or irrelevant.

Having shot full-frame on both brands, I'd say the following reflects my real-world experience editing landscape shots at low ISO.

brettjrob wrote in post #16702395
I'm tired of Canon fanboys dismissing DxO tests just because their bodies get appropriately massacred on the sensor tests.

I think what doesn't help is the hyperbole on both sides of the discussion. Canon bodies do not get "massacred" on sensor tests. I certainly don't think there is any value in characterizing it that way.

Is the D800 sensor definitively better at ISO 100? Absolutely. Is the additional DR of the D800 a very valuable asset? I very much think so. So, I'm with you when it comes to being tired of the Canon fanboy we-don't-need-no-stinking-DR replies. But, the Nikon D800 has greater DR posts are wearisome too; they are like a repetitive fever dream that just won't stop.

My Sony a7 and a7R has a very similar DR to the D800 (and I've also owned/used the D800). I like it; I'm very happy to have that extra DR, but I am also quite happy with my 5D III and I don't see a huge chasm between the two. In my use of both cameras, I just don't see that my a7's sensor "massacres" my 5D III's sensor.

brettjrob wrote in post #16702395
Your criteria need not be "the DxO test on dynamic range" for Nikon to win. Those tests parallel many others you can find online, and they accurately represent the real-world difference between brands at low ISO (which is to say, it's a gaping chasm). I'm tired of Canon fanboys dismissing DxO tests just because their bodies get appropriately massacred on the sensor tests. You didn't do it in this post, but I've seen it a lot on this board and I don't want anyone reading this thread to delude themselves that their DR measurements are misleading or irrelevant.

Having shot full-frame on both brands, I'd say the following reflects my real-world experience editing landscape shots at low ISO.

Having shot Canon for a decade and just switched to Nikon, I actually agree with you on the second part. The colors straight out of camera are generally more pleasing on Canon, for my tastes. I'm still working on tweaking profiles in ACR to help remedy this.

Whatever dude, stopped reading after the Canon Fanboy dig....

have a Nice Day!

The fact is, the opposite isn't true. Nikon's top end cameras have been better than Canon's since the release of the D3 vs the release of the 1D3.

Canon has had an advantage on DSLR video for sure.

But the two have jumped back and forth a great deal over the years. Nikon started the digital era with the D100 and D1, but Canon jumped to the lead with the 1D, 1Ds and 5D - until Nikon released the D3 and D700. The D4 and 1Dx are more or less neck and neck. Each have their advantages and disadvantages, both are great.

Don't care, I quote straight from the manuals. I currently have the 5D3 and D800 and have used both extensively. Can you say the same?

Those outer single points are pretty much worthless, just like the 5D and 5D2. They feel more spread out because there are less of them, but Canon and Nikon's points stretch out about as far in actual use.

The 24-85? Comparing a $500 lens to a $1000 lens? My 24-105L is a fantastic lens, just as my Nikon 24-120VR. Compare the two and you will find them very similar. I think the Nikon vignettes a little more than the Canon, but it has a little more range. Both are very sharp.

I can say that with my extensive experience as a professional with the top of the line equipment from both Canon and Nikon, I would have no problem shooting professionally with either brand. But I feel that the top of the line Nikon is slightly ahead of Canon's at this point in time and it was a good thing for me to switch over.

But both those lenses are vastly inferior to the 14-24 2.8 and 16-35VR from Nikon.

For landscapes, a 14-24 and D800e is pretty much the best thing going.

The thing that bothered me most from the 5D3 was this same test:
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …dex_controlled-tests.html

Pulling up shadow detail and getting that damn green and magenta streak. It is so much cleaner on Nikon.

Having used both brands over the last 10 years, I don't consider myself a "fanboy"of either but there are certain lenses and bodies from each brand that just seem to be a little more special. If only the Nikon D3s had more Mp I would be buying a used copy in a heartbeat! ( probably mentioned that far too many times recently ). While I am seriously annoyed at the whole D600 debacle, I have not become a Nikon "hater". I really believe that the 5Dmk3 and D800 are both good cameras, one which perhaps suits my needs better than the other, even if only in my opinion.

So here are my considerations and thoughts for comment (bear in mind that I am comfortable with both bodies):

1) D800
-36Mp can be both a pro and con for me. Great for cropping and image detail, not so great for file size ( as an enthusiast rather than a pro, a little more time on processing and downloading is not an issue for me)
- fps is a negative for me. Yes, 6fps is not that much better but still an improvement
- buffer write speed is a serious issue- I have not only seen the videos on YouTube but also experienced this first hand now. To wait quite a long time without being able to shoot while the (CF) card is being written to is not ideal
-the DR is fantastic and the extra detail, particularly in shadows is a big plus for landscape in my opinion.
- the grey/green hue doesn't apeal to me - I don't seem to notice this as that significant on my son's D7000 though and I know it can be dealt with in processing. Is this a result of WB ?
- a small aspect to some but the ability to close the eyepiece without an external patch is neat. Why other brands don't add this simple, convenient little switch I don't know.
-built in flash is convenient for travelling light'ish and general use.
-not interested in video so neither camera interests me in this area so I cannot comment
- the convenient buttons on the mode dial are convenient
-AF is good
-for my use - rarely use above ISO 5000 it seems usable but for most of my low light shots I use 1600-3200ISO so should be fine

2) 5Dmk3
- AF seems to be very good
- 6fps
-buffer clearance was significantly faster in my test
-as with D800, ISO 1600-5000 seems Ok. However, with my application shadow quality is important here so need to investigate both a little more.
-lack of built in flash is inconvenient
- the wheel and joystick is great
- slight reddish/brown hue in images to my eyes is better than the grey/green on Nikon

I had yet another interesting chat to Nikon today when I requested that they return my D600 next week. I was informed that this cannot be done as the fix takes 2-3weeks with testing. Interestingly, when I asked for more details I was now informed it is a matter of resolving the issue using "alignment" processes. Seems to me it's actually a secret

Regarding your flash issue on the 5D, have you considered an inexpensive small unit that is compatible with ETTLII and has good reviews? I would normally not buy anything with this brand-name, but the reviews are positive.

http://www.amazon.com …cs&qid=12260045​61&sr=8-31

Thx, the flash is not a deal breaker though...

That's fine, I was more curious than anything. Seems like a nice cheap unit to travel with.

Regarding image hues, have you tried shooting with the neutral picture style?

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16701649
...
Canon 5D3 buffer is limited to 18 RAWs or 7 RAW+JPEGs. The Nikon will shoot 20 14-bit RAW lossless compressed before filling or 15 RAW+JPEG. The Nikon buffer also writes much faster to the memory cards than the Canon....NIkon's buffers are much better than Canon's...

The D800's sustained full frame rate is about 2.4 times slower than the 5D3. In the Camera Store review, the professional photographer evaluating both cameras plainly said of the D800: "...the buffer is very slow compared to the Canon..."

In the test video at 07:00, you can clearly see the D800 struggling to flush its buffer: http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=4W9EeDCaVFM

Test data: http://www.robgalbrait​h.com/multi_pagee519.h​tml?cid=6007

I work in a documentary film group using both D800 and 5D3. I may review and edit 1,000 shots per day taken with both cameras. IF you are shooting at low ISO, THEN the D800 has a dynamic range advantage which may or may not be a factor. Certainly it's nice to have. For certain cases the added resolution is nice.

If I shot mostly landscapes, I'd definitely favor the D800. However -- the OP has NEVER mentioned shooting landscapes -- only other posters have.

Although people often say the 5D3 AF system is superior, in real world PJ and documentary use I haven't seen much practical difference. Maybe if you were a hard-core action sports photographer it might.

The 5D3 does have other significant advantages: three silent shutter modes, better Live View implementation, custom settings knob stores three separate total camera states, which allows rapidly switching between shooting configurations. If you get ejected from a venue because of shutter noise (or your wildlife animal flees) your image quality is zero. The D610 has a silent shutter mode, the D600 and D800 do not.

The D800 has a better auto-ISO implementation and its spot metering is linked to the selected AF point. Lots of people find the Nikon flash system better, but Canon lets you separately adjust both flash and regular exposure compensation from the camera. I have better results with Nikon's matrix metering than Canon's evaluative metering, but eventually you become accustomed to it.

Unmentioned so far is post processing. If the OP uses Nikon's Capture NX2, this cannot be used with Canon. In that case changing to Canon would force a software change. If he uses LR/PS or other software it's not a factor.

For video there is a separate group of tradeoffs, but the OP didn't mention video so I won't address that.

* microphone drop *

/END_OF_THREAD

UNLESS you use the SD card, in which case, the Canon's buffer writes at about 1/3rd or 1/4th the speed of the Nikon's.

I always shoot to both cards [and will only buy cameras with two card slots] because I want an immediate backup of every image I take. This is where the Canon fails miserably. When doing the RAW+JPEG writing that I always do, the 5D3 buffer drops to 7 frames and only writes at 20MB/s, which is less than one frame. The D800 has a 15 frame buffer and still writes over 60MB/s, which is over 2 frames. That is a huge advantage for Nikon in my real world use.

I've shot hardcore sports action with both, and the AF is up to the test with both.

I definitely agree that the silent shutter and the LCD are better on the 5D3 than the D800. I believe the D800 has the Q mode, which isn't that quiet. The 5D3 screen is more accurate, IMO.

I wish Nikon would implement Canon's custom setting mode. As I understand it, you can customize EVERYTHING with Canon.

I shoot Nikon and would love a custom off camera flash setting such as Manual Mode, Auto-ISO off, Flash turned to commander mode, WB set to Flash. Would love to be able to set these with a simple rotation of a knob

I can't easily do that with Nikon, have to set everything manually.

@Joema2- thx, I forgot about the awesome Auto ISO on the D800 that can be set according to variable focal length. I have actually mentioned wildlife and landscape.

My local camera shop has been awesome and although I had pretty much made a decision, they are not only prepared to wait until my D600 is returned and do the trade in but also suggest that when that time comes I spend some time with both cameras again and chat about the options. So technically, it's still a decision to be made. After my discussion with Nikon today, I am secretly hoping that they will perhaps offer a decent rebate on an upgrade to the D800 who knows...

Ok, so just to repeat myself -I shoot landscape (and also travel old buildings etc) more than wildlife at present with 2-3 trips a year for wildlife. When I shoot wildlife, a lot of it us in low light -early morning, evening and shade. About once or twice every trip I will need faster fps with perhaps eagles and vultures ( vultures normally at a kill), perhaps cheetah running or lion/cheetah hunting.

Mmmm...seems like I may be back in the valley of indecision

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16703942
UNLESS you use the SD card, in which case, the Canon's buffer writes at about 1/3rd or 1/4th the speed of the Nikon's...This is where the Canon fails miserably. When doing the RAW+JPEG writing that I always do, the 5D3 buffer drops to 7 frames and only writes at 20MB/s, which is less than one frame. The D800 has a 15 frame buffer and still writes over 60MB/s, which is over 2 frames. That is a huge advantage for Nikon in my real world use...

The 5D3's sustained full-frame Raw+JPG rate to SDHC is about 22 shots in 30 sec. The D800 does about 25 shots in 30 sec, about 14% faster (see "burst" column)

5D3: http://www.robgalbrait​h.com …e7de5.html?cid=​6007-12452
D800: http://www.robgalbrait​h.com …e9ec1.html?cid=​6007-12451

True the 5D3 seems slow when switching from CF to SDHC, but that's because it's so fast writing to CF. When the D800 switches from CF to SDHC, it doesn't seem that much slower because it wasn't that fast to CF to begin with.

The 5D3 does slow down when writing raw+jpg to CF *plus* SDHC. However -- even the 1DX slows down considerably when writing raw+jpg to two UDMA-7 CF cards. See 1DX manual, page 120.

The above rates are frame rates, not data rates. It is correct the D800 sustains roughly 2x the 5D3's data rate to SDHC (42 MB/sec vs 19.9 MB/sec). It is also true each D800 frame is recording more data because of the higher resolution. But in the real world, photographers usually prioritize how many shots before the camera halts, not how much data.

There's no question the 5D3's SDHC interface could use improvement. Writing CF+SDHC will limit the aggregate rate to the slower interface. Plus there's the additional slowdown (like the 1DX) of writing 2x the data. However this is only one aspect of a multi-faceted evaluation, where each camera has strengths and weaknesses.

Even though the OP is averse to Nikon due to the D600 dust/oil issue, I would tend to suggest the D610. It has a higher frame rate than the D800, continuous silent shutter mode, and would avoid learning a new system, changing lenses, etc. The D610 has a significant dynamic range advantage at lower ISOs. The D610 might give him the frame rate he needs plus the dynamic range of the D800.

The OP is not averse to Nikon, just the D600!