Landscape photography- D800 or 5D MKIII?

Fellow photographers,
This is a question to those who are fully and solely into the landscape photography...what is the best camera that is considered a breakthrough in landscapes? Will it be a 5D MIII or D800?
I was thinking about upgrading to MKIII, but the more I think and read, I realize that I will see zero diffrence in IQ over 5D MKII. It is superb that there is the new AF, but based on your experience, is there anything in 5D MKIII, which impacts ladscapes?

D800 looks like a perfect camera for landscape and it has a very big advantage over MKIII in DR and details.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Which way did you go?

If I was starting out now I would go Nikon D800.
But I have Canon lenes and bodies since 2002 so I would stay Canon.
I will not even consider going from 5D MK II to MK III untill the MK IV comes out.

I can't see upgrading from a MkII to a MkIII for landscapes. Image wise the two are so close to identical that upgrading isn't going buy you anything. The advantage of the MkIII is it's improved AF which is not a huge advantage for landscape. The D800 though has made great improvements to resolution and dynamic range.

D800 for sure. More MP is a big plus for landscapes. As is DR. High ISO doesn't matter, you're at 100 or 200 95% of the time. The D800 has the 5DIII beat in practically every aspect when it comes to landscapes.

Sirrith wrote in post #14524108
D800 for sure. More MP is a big plus for landscapes. As is DR. High ISO doesn't matter, you're at 100 or 200 95% of the time. The D800 has the 5DIII beat in practically every aspect when it comes to landscapes.

Except in regard to certain lenses esp the newer tse lenses from Canon. If Nikon came out with better tilt shift lenses they would be hard to resist for many landscapers.

For me the LV implementation on the d800 (sounds less than ideal) and the Canon lenses I own are having me drag my feet on getting my foot in the Nikon camp.

Sticking with my 5d2 for now. And dream of the day Canon starts using a better sensor which is their weakest link now. Not saying the 5d3 is not a great camera and is making owners happy, but the simple truth is the sensor can be improved upon a bit yet. And eventually Canon will get back in that game as well I am sure. But when?....

Turning wrote in post #14524129
Except in regard to certain lenses esp the newer tse lenses from Canon. If Nikon came out with better tilt shift lenses they would be hard to resist for many landscapers.

Yes, but we're discussing bodies, not lenses. Lenses are more personal; for me nikon's 14-24 is far more attractive than canon's TS-E's.

Folks, let's avoid lenses discussion....in any case, there is Zeiss and 14-24, but I do not want to get into lenses

I genuinely feel the same way as being a current Canon owner. I couldn't justify buying a Nikon D800 then buying lenses, accessories, etc when I already have what I need.

Personally I think Canon messed up by not releasing a camera with more megapixels. Maybe a 42MP 70D is in Canons future.

as of today, D800 is designed for Landscape - more resolution and more DR. More importantly, it's 500 bucks cheaper than Canon. Use $500 to buy more memory cards.

My friend has D800, and I was able to play with it for couple minutes and it was an impressive beast. Looks like the entire Canon engineers, marketing and sales teams were moving to Nikon. Canon got lousy Nikon engineers, marketing and sales team.

If they'd made the Nikon D800 compatible with Canon lenses (Yah right) then I'd consider it.

The 5d3 has digital levels which are huge for doing quick landscape work. I miss the one I had on my 60d. I now use a 5d2. Also having good noise and dynamic range at higher iso is very nice.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14524167
Folks, let's avoid lenses discussion....in any case, there is Zeiss and 14-24, but I do not want to get into lenses

Then there is no point in having any discussion at all. Neither camera is very useful without a lens attached. Avoiding any discussion of lenses is like trying to discuss cars without mentioning their engine options.

The biggest benefits I can think of that the 5D Mark III has over the Mark II for landscapes would be better weather sealing and the electronic level. I'm very happy to have those improvements for my landscape work. There is also better shadow noise on the Mark III--much easier to clean up in post.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14524310
To prove my point, check out my website. All taken with a 60d or 5d2. Mostly 60d. I don't assume people like my work, but can you really argue my work would be better with a d800? If anything I would suffer the lack of good UWA lenses that take normal filters. You can put a 14-24 on a 5d if that lens suites any need.

The old adage goes... It's not the equipment, it's how you use the equipment that really matters.

Phrasikleia wrote in post #14524330
Then there is no point in having any discussion at all. Neither camera is very useful without a lens attached. Avoiding any discussion of lenses is like trying to discuss cars without mentioning their engine options.

The biggest benefits I can think of that the 5D Mark III has over the Mark II for landscapes would be better weather sealing and the electronic level. I'm very happy to have those improvements for my landscape work. There is also better shadow noise on the Mark III--much easier to clean up in post.

The reason I am saying lenses are not relevant for this discussion is because you can put stunning zeiss 21 on both cameras.

Landscape is about fine resolution and dynamic range, look here, this might be revelant

http://home.comcast.ne​t/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR​.htm