5D MKIII vs D800

rick_reno wrote in post #14289074
I'm trying to get my hands around this KR Canon lovefest. Back up a few weeks, KR is an idiot, moron, pinhead, a$$hat, etc. - insert your favored derogatory descriptor. Then, the very same idiot, moron, pinhead, a$$hat, etc. likes a camera body that is favored here and he's ok. How is this possible?

maybe Ken's finally come around.... or maybe he's finally taken more payola from Canon

watt100 wrote in post #14295202
interesting how the real world looks - have you ever been on a photowalk and compared pics?

notice how Canon images are sharper, colors, etc. look better?

I (well, there were two of us) did that over the holidays. I used a friends D3s, she used my 5d.

I didn't notice any of those things, neither did she.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14292671
Only the same results you've been reading and following in this thread as I have...

Thanks for the detailed reply. I guess what's really needed is to be able to get both cameras side by side and do some shooting for your specific application (whatever 'your' is, based on the shooter). In terms of your application, it seems odd to be thinking of a 1DX for landscape photography, but then of course it's night landscape photography, so low noise and great high ISO performance far outweighs insane resolution I guess.

Agreed on the 5%/95% thoughts. I suppose the problem is for those with crop bodies (and not too much other brand specific kit) looking to move to full frame, where the cost of switching brand isn't massively more than switching sensor size.

Interestingly, yesterday I spotted a review of the 5D3 in the popular UK magazine "Amateur Photographer". The 'great' cameras of their era (1D, 5D2, D3 etc.) all tend to score well into the nineties (obviously a subjective rating). IRC they awarded the 5D3 88%. I very much got the feeling it was a case of "great camera, D800 shaped elephant in the room". Not that they've reviewed the D800 yet though...

woos wrote in post #14292800
...Then again, it's luminous landscape, home of the guy who can't find the mirror lockup button on a Canon DSLR (can't figure out that a single button press gets you both mirror lockup and an extra bonus vibration reduction with electronic first curtian!)....and posts articles by a guy who thinks $5000 power cables make your stereo sound better, then defends that as a valid opinion...

To be fair, the additional section he's added with the pics of the $20 bill are decent. But... oooooh. Didn't realise he was a $5000 cables guy. My other main interest is in audio (mainly loudspeaker building), which is combined with a joy of baiting the sandal wearing beard-strokers who insist that great improvements can be heard from $1000/ft speaker cable, green marker pen on the side of CDs, or wooden volume knobs (yes really)

Shadowblade wrote in post #14295019
Also, it's interesting how that Nikon forums were all bashing DxOMark in the pre-Exmor era, but, since the Exmor, it's been the Canon forums doing it. The 'neutral' forums, meanwhile, have done little bashing, and just used the results. Fanboyism?

Ironically an awful lot like (proper scientific) audio tests; Test shows that brand X tweako audio mod makes no difference? Test must be wrong then .

The 5DIII is a losing battle. It has lost DR over the mkII and bearly upped the resolution and is 1/4 of a stop better on noise(RAW)....the mkII is 4 YEARS OLD....Nikon are so far ahead it is embarassing. Now when we talk at work (with a Nikon shooter) I simply tell him I am selling my gear and going Nikon because at the end of the day it is about IQ not touch sensitive scroll wheels and crap like that. Did I mention the double price for a mkIII over a mkII? Ouch.

rick_reno wrote in post #14295586
I didn't notice any of those things, neither did she.

I notice every month, those with Canon crop models like the D90 always look worse (especially skin tones) than those with Nikon crop models, even the cheap rebels. And the 5D pics look better than the Nikon 700D

watt100 wrote in post #14297255
I notice every month, those with Canon crop models like the D90 always look worse (especially skin tones) than those with Nikon crop models, even the cheap rebels. And the 5D pics look better than the Nikon 700D

If you're looking at the image on the LCD, that's just the in-camera jpeg engine, not the RAW. And canon cameras have generally had better LCDs anyway. The D90's RAW image quality beats any crop camera canon has ever released.

And everyone knows the 5D2's IQ beats the D700. The D700 is pre-Exmor. It's why most of us moving from MF film bought the 5D2 over it. And it's why many of us who used to shoot MF film are annoyed at the lack of IQ improvement in the 5D3.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14297276
And everyone knows the 5D2's IQ beats the D700..

yes everyone knows the 5d2 easily beats the D700 in image quality, not to mention that video thingy

"exmor" ? Sony with all the losses this year is putting Playstation technology in cameras now?

exmor sensors are miles ahead as in 2 stops better DR at low ISO. nearly 4 years have gone and Canon made no progress in sensor technology. their area of expertise is making cameras and lenses, not sensors. now the entry-level D3200 is equipped with the excellent 24MP Exmor sensor. Canon still don't have a replacement for its 3 yr old 18mp aps-c sensor. they should sell their fab and get some Sony sensors!

Neilyb wrote in post #14297246
The 5DIII is a losing battle. It has lost DR over the mkII and bearly upped the resolution and is 1/4 of a stop better on noise(RAW)....the mkII is 4 YEARS OLD....Nikon are so far ahead it is embarassing. Now when we talk at work (with a Nikon shooter) I simply tell him I am selling my gear and going Nikon because at the end of the day it is about IQ not touch sensitive scroll wheels and crap like that. Did I mention the double price for a mkIII over a mkII? Ouch.

Slightly harsh... but I must agree that the vast majority of the (many) improvements of the 5D3 over the 5D2 appear to be related to body, ergonomics, AF, in camera JPEG engine etc.

Given the MkIII supposedly has an 'all new' sensor, I'm not really seeing a vast leap in image quality over its predecessor - unless perhaps if you shoot at ISO 12,800.

sploo wrote in post #14297493
Slightly harsh... but I must agree that the vast majority of the (many) improvements of the 5D3 over the 5D2 appear to be related to body, ergonomics, AF, in camera JPEG engine etc.

Given the MkIII supposedly has an 'all new' sensor, I'm not really seeing a vast leap in image quality over its predecessor - unless perhaps if you shoot at ISO 12,800.

Which begs they question, after 4 years why did they not bother to improve things at the 100-6400 end of the scale?

says alot:
: 1. D800
: 2. Phase One IQ180 Digital Back
: 3. Nikon D4
: 4. Phase One P65 Plus
: 5. Nikon D3X

http://www.dxomark.com …ras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings

For DR the D800 is the best FF sensor ever, only beaten by 2 MF cameras. I do wonder why the D4 wasn't better than it is but I guess Nikon can sit and watch for a couple of years.

Neilyb wrote in post #14297501
Which begs they question, after 4 years why did they not bother to improve things at the 100-6400 end of the scale?

says alot:
: 1. D800
: 2. Phase One IQ180 Digital Back
: 3. Nikon D4
: 4. Phase One P65 Plus
I do wonder why the D4 wasn't better than it is but I guess Nikon can sit and watch for a couple of years.

your only hope is to sell off all your Canon camera gear now.

OK, let me get a cup of tea first.

Neilyb wrote in post #14297501
Which begs they question, after 4 years why did they not bother to improve things at the 100-6400 end of the scale?

Probably because 5D2 owners were generally criticising the AF and build quality (weather sealing). Hence they improved the things people were asking for. For some 5D2 shooters, the 5D3 is everything they could want (and the higher MP and DR of the D800 isn't an advantage for their work).

Why didn't they build a sensor with more DR for the 5D3? I can only guess it either wasn't considered a priority, or they were unable to get something that worked sufficiently well (there's no downside to having an identical sensor but with more DR, so I can't believe they could've done it but decided to not bother).

I would think DR would be one of the most important if not the most important I improvement anyone can ask for in a new sensor.

Neilyb wrote in post #14297691
OK, let me get a cup of tea first.

Just having one, and looking through the pics on your blog. Some very, very nice work there.

dgrPhotos wrote in post #14297782
I would think DR would be one of the most important if not the most important I improvement anyone can ask for in a new sensor.

For landscape guys: yes. For many other shooters: high fps, good AF, weather sealing, good high ISO performance etc. probably all come before those.

BTW Happened to check your Gear link. With regard to this pic (http://www.flickr.com …kephotography/6​876051878/)... just remind me where you live? I... errr.... need to break into your house