After reading this whole topic from stem to stern ----I feel like the only way for me to go forward as a professional is to change my whole approach! Instead of shooting and displaying images ---I will shoot then send the images to a lab to perform all the various tests, get a detailed report and present the report to my clients...they will then choose the images which have the highest test scores. I have a lot of work to do then deleting alll of my images, because its the specs that matter, not the image itself. After reading this thread I am convinced this is the new best approach!
I hope you sensed the sarcasm there. When it comes down to it, each tool has its own purpose. And each user has its own clients and needs. As someone marketing themselves to the regular folk in need of fine portraits, whenever I meet a new friend or visit a new home I look at what sitting in the frames, on the desk, mounted on the walls. Most of what I see is bad IQ quality shots from point and clicks, but the moments are special. So when you sort it all out, what matters more for the general client is the ability to capture a unique moment, without that you end up in that place of sending clients a chart of IQ rather than images. The general client doesn't give a rats ass about most of the stuff we as photogs obsess about.
If your working in more of a studio setup with more discerning clients, honestly, lighting makes way more of a difference than camera body, with possibly the exception of the need to print insanely large prints. And if you are selling insanely large prints, lets think of the market on that - from the print shop I go through to print at 40x80 (largest my very good local print shop goes) my cost is $200 - add your markup and the overall price comes to $1000-3000. If your selling enough prints at that size for it to matter, investing in 2 camera systems or more shouldn't be an issue for you at all (one sale is enough to afford either camera system.
I do also shoot art, and for that purpose, yeah, the d800 is attractive (as would any high MP beast). Do I sell enough to warrant buying an 'art only' camera? No, right now my income is split fairly equally between art, events, and portraits. So for me and my current income and current needs, if I were to upgrade from my 7D, the 5d3 would be my best choice. If my art sales accounted for a greater amount of my income, then yes I probably would be giving the d800 a good look. But even then, if my art sales were enough to justify the purchase of a d800, why does that mean yard sale everything else? I'd use the same logic as I am in keeping my 7D - if art is the focus of the d800 then why would i want to be putting a ton of miles on it shooting events for clients that don't want prints at all - clients that want nothing more than 900x600 jpegs to post on their website?
I am not high rolling by any means - i am a start up business going on my second year - so don't take my next statement as coming from some high rolling pro with tons of income. What I don't get about all this is with both the d800 and the 5d3, we're talking about professional camera's designed for professionals. A $500 difference should not be a deal breaker unless the differences were so off the charts that it reallly made no sense (like if the new model was exactly the same as the mk2 for $3500).
For the sake of nitpicking though, and, I really have nothing else to do for the next hour so here we go:
Price:
So, the fps is not an advantage of the mk3 over d800 cause all you need is that grip? Grip cost is $450. So to have a d800 that can match the frames per second mk3, cost becomes $3450. That equals it out quite nicely, so now price isn't an option.
"AA filter: Inferior"
Also, based on cost, if you want the AA filter removed you have to get the d800e - list price is $3300 on that. Again, this is more directed to those complaining of the cost of the mk3 and how they would so buy it if it was cheaper, I rarely see it pointed out that the 'e' model of the d800 is only $200 shy of the mk3 (back it up to the above point, if you want the extra fps your still paying $450 for the grip, which brings the cost up to $3750.
"Pop up Flash: Inferior"...i don't even get why this is in there at all????? i mean, if the d800 is meant for studio and landscape photography, what good does the popup flash do you? Are you triggering studio lights from your pop up????? How is this an issue to bring up at all?????
"Noise: Equal"
Not really. From everything I have read about the 2 bodies, the nikon has the edge in lower ISO's and the canon has the edge in the higher ISO's - I don't think you can claim them as equal, each user has to make the decision as to which trade off they want. And if your a pro, then it comes back to my very first statment in this reply - yeah, the very sarcastic who cares about the image itself, its all about the specs. If you are using canon now, and selling your work, do you really think your customers are going to pack up and buy from someone else based on DXO ratings? When you print and mat and frame are you titling the picture (D800 or 5dmk3?) Does the person standing in the gallery admiring the shot say, I love this piece, but i see it was shot on ____ as opposed to _____ so i just can't have it in my living room? And if your a studio shooter ---are you going to change your signage, ad's, biz cards to say you can trust me, I have camera (fill in the blank)?
"Video: Inferior"
This only really applies if what you do is video. As a still photographer, this has absolutely no bearing on my decisions. If what you do is video though, then yes, the video options and performance trump all. Double edged sword though - that would also mean that non of the standard still features would make a difference to you either.
Everything else is that list is purely subjective I think. What are your needs? If your in business, what makes the most sense. both are fine camera's. One has this edge, the other has another edge - if it makes that much of a difference to your business, then get the one that makes most sense! And if your not in business, then the whole argument changes. Sorry if this pisses off the hobbyists, but, at that stage it's pretty much about having something nicer than the other guy. I'm better than you cause i have a BMW, its much nicer than your acura, oh, but I am better than you cause I have a better BMW than your BMW.
Finally, I will end by returning to the utterly sarcastic opening. If you show an image to a client and they smile - do you interrupt the moment by telling the customer about how much DR the image has? And conversely, if they frown at the image, do you interrupt and tell the client, but it has this much DR? Again, are you selling a chart of data, or a finely crafted image?
