5D MKIII vs D800

Hey David, I am actually very happy with the 5D3. The high ISO is much better and the low-light AF is so much more accurate now (although, admittedly, I use LV and MF for almost everything now, which is why the LV issue on the D800 is a big issue for me.)

IQ-wise, it's at least as good as the 5D2 and maybe a hair better, but hard to tell really. Although the high ISO IQ IS much better in my opinion.

These aren't very high ISO, as I've been waiting for a moonless night which was last weekend - and I did shoot some Milky Way shots, which turned out much better than my 5D2 would have been able to muster. However, the details seem finer to me vs the 5D2, even in these lower ISO shots at night:

Awesome pics Todd. Imagine how much better they would have been if you had a D800!

Cool Todd! That second shot with the car is fantastic. I've got no doubt that you made the best decision for your needs. I was doing some fairly long exposures with my 5D II last night, and on the whole I'm happy with the results, but some of the detail in the foliage looks sketchy. Not a big deal though, because it's supposed to be dark.

andrikos wrote in post #14473688
Awesome pics Todd. Imagine how much better they would have been if you had a D800!

Aw, come on...lets not do that - even in jest. If he thought he'd get better results from a D800 he would have gotten one. I'm completely open to the practical reality that certain conditions will favor one product over another.

Hey, I thought we were all well past all this "x is better than y" silliness.

andrikos wrote in post #14473787
Hey, I thought we were all well past all this "x is better than y" silliness.

I was hoping that was the case. Just wanted to make sure.

David Arbogast wrote in post #14473735
Cool Todd! That second shot with the car is fantastic. I've got no doubt that you made the best decision for your needs. I was doing some fairly long exposures with my 5D II last night, and on the whole I'm happy with the results, but some of the detail in the foliage looks sketchy. Not a big deal though, because it's supposed to be dark.

Aw, come on...lets not do that - even in jest. If he thought he'd get better results from a D800 he would have gotten one. I'm completely open to the practical reality that certain conditions will favor one product over another.

I definitely see a benefit for those that shoot astronomy.

Has anyone else considered the poor battery life of the d800?
I hear the 5d3 is worse than the 5d2, but still not as bad as the d800?

Wouldn't be so bad if Nikon would just make a damn 70-200 f4.
That would free up some weight for an extra 12 batteries.

Most of my landscape work is with getting perfect timing with waves. I sometimes take over 600 shots in a single session using LV.

I keep finding so many things that make the d800 poorer for my style of work. It's like trying to justify a girlfriend with huge knockers, even though she can't run and has a horrible personality.

rayman102 wrote in post #14468432
The 16-35 VRII gets a bad rap but IMO it is one of the better zoom lenses on either systems. At f/8 to f/14 and between 21mm - 28mm, it is tack sharp.
I am still saving my pretty pennies for a Zeiss 21mm 2.8 though to complement for my future landscape setup. I like that combo better than just a single 14-24 for my UWA need.

Yeah, I had the money for the 14-24mm but after using both it was nooooo way, lol. The 16-35mm was more usable for what I needed. At 16-18mm ish, the 14-24mm has better corners for sure--no doubt about it. The 16-35mm is usable and very very good except the extreme corners, but the 14-24mm is good even at the extreme corners. The 16-35mm gets pretty darn good extreme corners at f/11, but the 14-24mm is good even wide open or close to wide open.

Things change once you get up to about 19-20mm, though. The 16-35mm gets good clear across the frame. It matches the 14-24mm once you get to 19 or 20mm. The 16-35mm also has nice looking bokeh, wheras the 14-24mm is scary lookin' lol. Both have minor CA but both are *extremely* resistant to purple fringing. Even tree branches in front of a bright sky won't cause purple fringing. The 16-35 is also virtually impossible to produce flare with. (Not all Nikon glass is like that, the 50mm 1.8g i have flares like craaazzzah lol). I also don't get the fuss about the 16-35mm being bad at 35. Mine is good there, and super super good at f/8, better than the 24-70 and 24-120 imho.

At 21mm, I know this is blasphemy, but at f/8 the 16-35mm is every bit as good as the zeiss 21 is at f/8. It just doesn't go to 2.8, so depends on if you need that f/2.8 stop or not.

But yeah, for wides, Nikon has it buttoned down tight. Weather sealing, pro build, super fast AF, check on both (same w/canon). Comes down to: F2.8, sharpness at extreme corners on wide end VS filters, VR, sharpness at extreme corners once zoomed in a few MM. You can't go wrong. =p

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14473956
Has anyone else considered the poor battery life of the d800?

Oh yes, coming from the 60d, the battery life is just AWFUL lol. Could go for weeks without charging on the 60d. D800, oh man, I've ran it down to low in a day.

woos wrote in post #14474028
Oh yes, coming from the 60d, the battery life is just AWFUL lol. Could go for weeks without charging on the 60d. D800, oh man, I've ran it down to low in a day.

Yeah, my 60d could pump out 1500 shots with my 70-200 f4 IS. Even with IS on most of the time. These full frame sensors really chew up the juice. I'm sure the poor thermal dynamics of magnesium over plastic don't really help much. My 5d takes a much larger hit to battery life in the cold than my 60d ever did.

I really hope they release a new FF camera made of plastic and flippy screen. That would be a dream landscape camera.

I shot a few hundred shots yesterday with a friend d800, didn't notice anything odd with battery life.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14474108
Yeah, my 60d could pump out 1500 shots with my 70-200 f4 IS. Even with IS on most of the time. These full frame sensors really chew up the juice. I'm sure the poor thermal dynamics of magnesium over plastic don't really help much. My 5d takes a much larger hit to battery life in the cold than my 60d ever did.

I really hope they release a new FF camera made of plastic and flippy screen. That would be a dream landscape camera.

Is the reason you want an f/4 vs. an f/2.8 70-200mm due to cost concerns? I really appreciate that Canon offers some great (relatively) low-cost/high quality telephoto options. Nikon doesn't seem to have any interest in that. The EF 70-200mm f/4L is an awesome lens. I'm starting to want a 100-400mm, which is another low-cost/high quality telephoto.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14473956
Has anyone else considered the poor battery life of the d800?
I hear the 5d3 is worse than the 5d2, but still not as bad as the d800?

Wouldn't be so bad if Nikon would just make a damn 70-200 f4.
That would free up some weight for an extra 12 batteries.

Most of my landscape work is with getting perfect timing with waves. I sometimes take over 600 shots in a single session using LV.

I keep finding so many things that make the d800 poorer for my style of work. It's like trying to justify a girlfriend with huge knockers, even though she can't run and has a horrible personality.

That's why it's good to have back up batteries.

andrikos wrote in post #14473787
Hey, I thought we were all well past all this "x is better than y" silliness.

Not with this thread title!

indeed...

Mods: please change the Thread Title to:
"Can't we all just get along?"