5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

[paul13walnut5]

@Infrared_Fred

Canon's Digic proccesor is hands down the absolute winner, because they have worked the same processor for years and just keep refining it and adding power to it and functionality no one else has done this.

+1

I would add that Canon are distinct from Nikon in that they also manufacture the sensor. Those who follow DXO labs findings slavishly ignore this point - unprocessed raws have not been through the digic, or proprietary DPP, so it's a bit like test driving a car thats had it's gearbox removed.

 

[tron]

To my eye, the Mark III has better sharpness than my Mark II. Not sure whether it's the sensor, or the improved AF, or the way noise in processed in the image, but it's noticeable. I hadn't heard or read that. I would suggest you rent a Mark III for a day or two and test it yourself before investing the sizable $$$$ in one. But I can tell you that the shooting experience is considerably improved over the Mark II. Hope this helps.

It was mentioned on this site. Canon finally updated DPP. (I was referring to raw only). I agree that the shooting experience has to be much better. Even the much better AF would be enough for that.

 

[TTMartin]

@Infrared_Fred

Canon's Digic proccesor is hands down the absolute winner, because they have worked the same processor for years and just keep refining it and adding power to it and functionality no one else has done this.

+1

I would add that Canon are distinct from Nikon in that they also manufacture the sensor. Those who follow DXO labs findings slavishly ignore this point - unprocessed raws have not been through the digic, or proprietary DPP, so it's a bit like test driving a car thats had it's gearbox removed.

I've just come to the conclusion that DxOMark is as fair and balanced towards Canon, as MSNBC is to the Republicans or FoxNews is to the Democrats.

I've spent hours poring through DxOMark.com, trying to find a rational explanation why their scores so poorly reflect real world output of cameras. All, I've found was more things that point to outright bias, than to real unbiased testing.

 

[unfocused]

I recently read side-by-side reviews in a consumer photo magazine.

Their tests matched what I expected. The D800 is superior in resolution, but starts to fall apart at ISO 1600. The 5DIII's resolution can't match the D800, but at 1600 and above, Canon clearly outperforms the D800.

So, basically, pay your money and take your pick. If you want really big prints and don't play in the high ISO area, choose the Nikon. If you need high ISO performance and you aren't printing murals, pick the 5DIII.

 

[Marsu42]

If you need high ISO performance and you aren't printing murals, pick the 5DIII.

... or the 5d2 at nearly half the price - I for one cannot tell raw samples apart up to iso3200, but of course ymmv.

 

[Razor2012]

I recently read side-by-side reviews in a consumer photo magazine.

Their tests matched what I expected. The D800 is superior in resolution, but starts to fall apart at ISO 1600. The 5DIII's resolution can't match the D800, but at 1600 and above, Canon clearly outperforms the D800.

So, basically, pay your money and take your pick. If you want really big prints and don't play in the high ISO area, choose the Nikon. If you need high ISO performance and you aren't printing murals, pick the 5DIII.

And also if you don't need the FPS, great AF, AWB, etc.

 

[SuperCrazySamurai]

It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800. Here's what I know so far:

5D3 vs D800/E by catagory:

Dynamic Range: Inferior
Color Fidelity: Inferior
Noise: Equal
FPS: Equal (with a grip)
Video: Inferior
Autofocus: Equal (both are pro level)/Inferior (no f/8.0)/Superior (better with fast lenses due to special f/2.8 sensors)
White Balance: Inferior
Auto Exposure: Inferior
In Camera Lens Correction: Inferior
Pop up Flash: Inferior
Price: Inferior
Resolution: Inferior
AA filter: Inferior


I realize that the 5D3 has a better menu system, so that's one thing it can possibly do better.

Also please don't smite me. I'm not trying to bash the 5D3, as I'm actually a Canon fan and will be getting the 5D3, but can anyone think of one major feature that the 5D3 does better than the D800? If so feel free to post, I'm just trying to get informed here.

Thanks.

I think the better question is:

"Can the photog with the 5dmk3 do anything better than the photog with the D800?"

At the end of the day the client does not care about the gear, just the quality of the shots. In the end its really a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Cheers!

 

[RLPhoto]

And This EPIC Thread Lives on. 25 pages worth of controversy. 8)

 

[thepancakeman]

And This EPIC Thread Lives on. 25 pages worth of controversy. 8)

C'mon, we're so close to 26! ;D

Honestly though, I am a gearhead as much as the next guy and love the latest and greatest toys, but people on these threads do seem to get carried away. I mean, with the new 24-70 announced, all the sudden you would think no one ever sold or published a photo from the Mark I. There is so much more to tech (and life) than just the specs.

Can't I use the 5D3 simply because I "like" it? Maybe it's the weight, or the button placement or the menuing system or something completely intangible. I really don't see anyone LOSING BUSINESS because they use a 5D3 instead of a D800 or a Mark I L lens instead of a Mark II. Get a good camera, some great glass and take pictures. If the budget allows, by all means get the latest and greatest. But also don't be surprised if some great work turns up from equipment that isn't (the latest and greatest).

 

[D_Rochat]

And This EPIC Thread Lives on. 25 pages worth of controversy. 8)

C'mon, we're so close to 26! ;D

Honestly though, I am a gearhead as much as the next guy and love the latest and greatest toys, but people on these threads do seem to get carried away. I mean, with the new 24-70 announced, all the sudden you would think no one ever sold or published a photo from the Mark I. There is so much more to tech (and life) than just the specs.

Can't I use the 5D3 simply because I "like" it? Maybe it's the weight, or the button placement or the menuing system or something completely intangible. I really don't see anyone LOSING BUSINESS because they use a 5D3 instead of a D800 or a Mark I L lens instead of a Mark II. Get a good camera, some great glass and take pictures. If the budget allows, by all means get the latest and greatest. But also don't be surprised if some great work turns up from equipment that isn't (the latest and greatest).

A few months ago there was a "Wildlife Photographer of the Year" exhibit at a local museum and they had maybe upwards of 100 large prints on display from winners and runner ups. Under each image was the camera and settings that were used. While most had pro grade equipment, quite a few were using Rebels and they were nothing short of stunning. I didn't hear one person in the museum mutter anything about DR or complain about MP.

 

[Marsu42]

C'mon, we're so close to 26! ;D

Set your forum preferences to display more messages per page, then there's only 8 pages and everything seems much calmer

While most had pro grade equipment, quite a few were using Rebels and they were nothing short of stunning. I didn't hear one person in the museum mutter anything about DR or complain about MP.

No one disputes that you can shoot stellar photos with a pinhole camera. But you're reasoning is flawed: Of course people didn't complain about dr/mp, because the shots that would have suffered from the lack of these either were not shot in the first place or were not shown in the exposition. So the real, but impossible to answer question is: How many more good shots could have been taken by upgraded equipment?

Btw: If the cameras were advertised with the shots, I guess most pro camera bodies were sponsored by the respective manufacturer - to that's a bias, too.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

@Infrared_Fred

Canon's Digic proccesor is hands down the absolute winner, because they have worked the same processor for years and just keep refining it and adding power to it and functionality no one else has done this.

+1

I would add that Canon are distinct from Nikon in that they also manufacture the sensor. Those who follow DXO labs findings slavishly ignore this point - unprocessed raws have not been through the digic, or proprietary DPP, so it's a bit like test driving a car thats had it's gearbox removed.

So you think the in cam jpgs that have been digic processed are brilliant then? Better than what LR/ACR does?? ??? ???

 

[captainclutch]

I just had the choice between both cameras with no investment in glass on either side. I wanted to want the D800, I really did. I read enough about both to know that on paper the D800 was slightly better than the canon in most regards. However after holding both, I am 100% happy with my decision to go with the canon. As many have said, there is just something about the 5D3 that puts it above the D800 when you handle both. I figured that I'd end up using the 5d more just because its a pleasure to hold and use. The D800 just didn't give me that same feeling. I'd recommend everyone trying both in person before making the call. I'm glad I did.

 

[paul13walnut5]

So you think the in cam jpgs that have been digic processed are brilliant then? Better than what LR/ACR does??

No, and nowhere did I say that, but I think the CRW's that have been through DPP are a lot better than what DXO are measuring from.

In cam JPEGS are printable, unlike RAWs/CRW's. So in terms of a real life end image for viewing or printing then, yes if I had to choose between a CRW to take to the printers, or a JPEG I would take the JPEG.

 

[markd61]

It's better at mounting Canon lenses.

Seriously, if you are suffering over specs so much you should buy the D800. Then you can kiss it and lick it and make goo goo eyes to it and generally be embarrassing but the rest of us will just go out and take the pictures we wanted to in the first place.

As most images on the web are less than 1000 pixels across and displayed on monitors of questionable origin and calibration I am not sure why you care what the images were made on.
If you make prints you wont be showing them to anyone who will see a difference or give a cr@p what you took that LOLcat photo with.

 

[briansquibb]

If you make prints you wont be showing them to anyone who will see a difference or give a cr@p what you took that LOLcat photo with.

+1

I print a lot of images from my 1D4 on A3 (about 16x12) which needs a crop from 3:2 to 2.828 :2 (not much)

For IQ:

The most important aspect of those size pictures is lack of blur, either through OOF or camera/subject movement.

Next down the list is noise, followed by lens softness

Last on the list is DR

Modern camera technology advances has switched emphasis from mps increases to ease of getting a well exposed and focussed images and improved optics to allow more people to get top IQ - a switch from a black art to a consumer capability

I would think that this applies to most 'standard' pictures

There are of course times when all IQ aspects have to be first class (excellent) such as in fine art. However when printed the limitations of the printer are hit first - hence the latest improvements in print technology which are striving to keep up with camera technology.

The most cost effective way to improve your images is probably a top of the range printer with multiple black inks.

 

[tron]

It's better at mounting Canon lenses.

+1 (multiplied by the number of our lenses ;D )

 

[TTMartin]

So you think the in cam jpgs that have been digic processed are brilliant then? Better than what LR/ACR does?? ??? ???

Yes, I think for basic RAW conversion that DPP does a better job than LR/ACR.

I do like some features of LR, but, when it comes to the best RAW conversion for CR2 DPP wins.

Do you think Nikon CNX2 does a better job than LR/ACR does?

 

[Marsu42]

Yes, I think for basic RAW conversion that DPP does a better job than LR/ACR.

Are you talking about new adobe raw converter for the 5d3, or for all Canon cameras? If the latter, do you have some links that do some in-depth side-by-side comparisons? I have read that dpp might sometimes do a better job at denoising, but not so much that I'd want to use it.

 

[K3nt]

I think Ken Rockwell also published a head-on comparison and the 5D3 won it based on useability alone.

(Apologies if this was already mentioned, didn't feel like reading all 26 pages of replies. )