5D MKIII vs D800

peterbj7 wrote in post #14298785
Is it possible to mount Canon lenses on a D800?

There are adapters but you won't get infinity focus

woos wrote in post #14298798
There are adapters but you won't get infinity focus

And there are adapters that allow infinity focus too, but they have an element in them and it SERIOUSLY degrades image quality. Not worth it, IYAM.

Maverique wrote in post #14298680
Jesus tap-dancing Christ, you make it sound like the 5D3 is a cellphone, for god's sakes. Moderation much?

it'd be nice if it could make phone calls too.

rick_reno wrote in post #14298888
it'd be nice if it could make phone calls too.

Wait for the 5DmkIV...with Siri included.

watt100 wrote in post #14298749
and 99% of the six billion people on the planet think a cell phone camera is great!

i'm not sure if that's relevant considering how limited the market is for cell phone camera wedding photography. don't get me wrong, it's out there.. just not worth looking into as a target client base.

alt4852 wrote in post #14299073
i'm not sure if that's relevant considering how limited the market is for cell phone camera wedding photography. don't get me wrong, it's out there.. just not worth looking into as a target client base.

Will work for Skittles... just sayin'

alt4852 wrote in post #14298725
sorry, i don't follow?

Some blokes here, not you. I didn't quote you at all :P

I know there's a lot of debate between the two camps, but I'd like to know what shots are being missed?

Both these cameras seem to provide great tools for getting the shot.

Instead of over analyzing the specs, where do you think either camera is going to let you down realistically? I'm not looking for the hypothetical edge of the envelope response. Just real life, thoughtful shooting.

miniphotog wrote in post #14299728
I know there's a lot of debate between the two camps, but I'd like to know what shots are being missed?

Both these cameras seem to provide great tools for getting the shot.

Instead of over analyzing the specs, where do you think either camera is going to let you down realistically? I'm not looking for the hypothetical edge of the envelope response. Just real life, thoughtful shooting.

A 1TB External HD every few months just for RAW backups from the 800... 40mb+ RAWs... sheesh...!

JDPhotoGuy wrote in post #14299767
A 1TB External HD every few months just for RAW backups from the 800... 40mb+ RAWs... sheesh...!

JD, that's not really what I was getting at, but let's think about that for a second.
Canon RAW is about 25mb so let's just say it's half of what the Nikon is. If you plan on shooting and storing enough shots that would require a TB every few months then only half of that can be attributed to additional file size. A TB ext. drive runs around $100. So, budget $25 month for add'l storage and you consider that a barrier to 36mp shots?

This is a bit off of what I was trying to get at, which is the "shot" or lack of.

But, I still find this a non-issue for me, as the price is reasonable and there are compression options available.

I even found this:
"Adobe’s new RAW DNG converter has some crazy new RAW compression!
Yep, even Nikon’s already-compressed NEF’s can be reduced by 50% or more… Word on the street is that you can get a 36 megapixel NEF file down to about ~13 MB, which is less than the average mRAW 5D mk3 CR2 file."

http://www.slrlounge.c​om …-d800-vs-the-canon-5d-mk3

miniphotog wrote in post #14299728
Instead of over analyzing the specs, where do you think either camera is going to let you down realistically? I'm not looking for the hypothetical edge of the envelope response. Just real life, thoughtful shooting.

sorry, this is not about "real life thoughtful" photography
It's all about the Hypothetical Phantastical number theory of the digital era

miniphotog wrote in post #14299914
JD, that's not really what I was getting at, but let's think about that for a second.
Canon RAW is about 25mb so let's just say it's half of what the Nikon is. If you plan on shooting and storing enough shots that would require a TB every few months then only half of that can be attributed to additional file size. A TB ext. drive runs around $100. So, budget $25 month for add'l storage and you consider that a barrier to 36mp shots?

This is a bit off of what I was trying to get at, which is the "shot" or lack of.

But, I still find this a non-issue for me, as the price is reasonable and there are compression options available.

I even found this:
"Adobe’s new RAW DNG converter has some crazy new RAW compression!
Yep, even Nikon’s already-compressed NEF’s can be reduced by 50% or more… Word on the street is that you can get a 36 megapixel NEF file down to about ~13 MB, which is less than the average mRAW 5D mk3 CR2 file."

http://www.slrlounge.c​om …-d800-vs-the-canon-5d-mk3

I get that. Honestly I probably should have refrained from commenting. It still seems kinda silly to have 36mp files to me. When I eventually get to test one of these, if the uber pixel count of tiny crop sensor sized pixels ever does anything I couldn't do with as little as 18mp besides help me develop lazy composition habits, I'll eat my words and admit I was crazy.

More compression? Does it not degrade the images? I don't too much care for the whole concept of NEF RAW either btw. Seems like it'd have to purge some info to reduce that much. Still a good sign though! Means I wasn't the only one who was preoccupied with the file size!

alt4852 wrote in post #14298623
this is the sort of thing i'm talking about though. you pose the question about DR as if it's a choice; as if people are choosing between the noisy, limited DR option of the 5D3 or the clean wide-DR option of the D800.

the reality of the matter is far less polarized. of course people want to limit the negative characteristics, but the D800 is simply not leaps and bounds ahead as you are illustrating. it has an advantage, yes, but by saying that your current ISO800+ images are "noisy and watery", you're implying that the D700/D800 is not. my point in referencing my friend is that the D200's high-ISO performance compared to the 40D's was a much more drastic difference than what we're seeing with the 5D3 and D800. we're at a point where the differences that we see are more nitpicky than substantive.

my work primarily centers around events/weddings where DR is extremely important. if i could have more of it, i wouldn't refuse. but you look at the comparisons between our two competing bodies on the market today and objectively.. it's quickly evident that they're more similar than they are different. you look at the world's most sought-after photographers.. ones who have clients fighting for bookings to pay them $20,000 to shoot their wedding. these are the clients that ultimate image quality should matter the most for. yet.. in terms of brand usage, it's a complete wash. the top 20 are full of people who use nikon, canon, hasselblad, leica, sony, etc. i haven't looked it up before, but i suspect landscape photographers are the same. i'm not saying we should all mimic the industry leaders, but i think it's rather telling if they're able to create world-class images with equipment that you think has "dark splodges" for shadows. we're in an age where more often than not, our photos are more limited by our skills than technological limitations. this doesn't mean that progress isn't good, in fact, it's great. however, i think you're exaggerating the severity of the issue.

that ISO3200 shot that you hypothetically mentioned, do you really think deep down that using the D800 instead would have garnered a significantly better photo? if you think it would, then switch systems for it. however, i think the more you objectively think about it, the more you'll probably realize that it's more like 10% technological advantage, and 90% psychological boost. when taken by the same photographer and edited, i couldn't reliably tell the difference between photos taken between a D200 or a 40D, a 5D2 and a D700, and i have no doubt that i'll have the same difficulty between a 5D3 and D800.

PS: the grass is always greener. i'm admittedly thinking about the DR and MP advantage of the D800 as i'm on the fence about dropping $7000 on a pair of 5D3's to replace my current bodies. my partner is reluctant to buy a D800 because he'll be stuck with 50mb+ RAW files and for high-volume wedding photography, the resolution is unnecessary and he feels like he'll be paying for more/bigger CF cards and hard drives for no reason. for ceremonies though, he is jealous of the 5D3's silent shutter though.

Oh but of ourse I am on the fence, I have money invested with Canon, I know them very well and can use them in the dark. But of course regardless of DR or Noise it would have been nice of my 7D not to breakdown in Canada 2 years ago and not to do it again 6 months later. My 1DIII would have been a fantabulous camera had canon not seen fit to fit it with a non functioning AF system.
Yes in this thread we are discussing the virtues of the new cameras but my complaints run deeper. Regardless, the 5D III is simply a 5DII as it should have been 4 years ago, a FF body with great AF and IQ. But IQ that was great 4 years ago is not today a satisfying result, when one considers the investment we are required to make.

Sorry, the 5D3 just seems to be what the 5D2 should have been when it came out several years ago, whereas the D800 seems to push the frontiers of technology. I won't buy a 5D3 new, though if I find a 5D2 at the right price I may pick up one of those. From people wth 5D2s who've now acquired 5D3s the differences are slight, except the AF system.

But the D800, that's a different matter, and once I can fund camera + grip + lenses I shall almost certainly get one.

peterbj7 wrote in post #14300225
Sorry, the 5D3 just seems to be what the 5D2 should have been when it came out several years ago, whereas the D800 seems to push the frontiers of technology. I won't buy a 5D3 new, though if I find a 5D2 at the right price I may pick up one of those. From people wth 5D2s who've now acquired 5D3s the differences are slight, except the AF system.

But the D800, that's a different matter, and once I can fund camera + grip + lenses I shall almost certainly get one.

this is like saying the D800 just seems to be what the D700 should have been... really?