Oh dear....5D3 vs D800

<p>Look for a 40+mp Canon full-frame camera within a year. Imagine, that is, a full-frame sensor with the pixel density of the 7D (or the T2i for that matter)--in the same way that the D800 has about the same pixel density of the D000.</p>

<p>In addition, look for the price of the 5D III to fall over the next year, in the same way that the prices of the 5D and the 5D II fell.</p>

<p>Canon will certainly not be standing still, and I cannot believe that it is not already working on other new cameras.</p>

<p>I have to say, though, that I am very impressed by the sample photos from the D800. More than bragging rights are at stake. At some point, market shares are going to reflect current developments, and so Canon had better have something else coming pretty soon.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Look for a 40+mp Canon full-frame camera within a year. Imagine, that is, a full-frame sensor with the pixel density of the 7D (or the T2i for that matter)--in the same way that the D800 has about the same pixel density of the D000.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry. I meant to say the <strong>D7000.</strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>It is my personal opinion that Canon has been sleeping on their profits all too long and not paying attention to their competitors.. They were far ahead not too long ago, but now.. I just hope that they won't be like the next blackberry smartphone :) like some one said on FM forum. If I were to start now, I would definitely go the Nikon way.</p>

<p>funny, seeing results from 5d mark III at high ISO, I'd go for that camera - not canon - way, alas, the cost is unattainable for a mortal like me. The thing is, I don't think nikon or canon really care about us, our decisions, or whether we shift brand, the bottom line for every sane company is profit, I'll just watch when the titans clash, cheap debris will be abundant, I'll take those.</p>

<p>The other shoe to drop is that in terms of RAW images at the ISOs most photographers use (100 to 1600), there is no difference between the 5D2 and 5D3. Above that (especially 6400 and beyond), the 5D3 is slightly better...</p>

<p>So Canon is charging a whopping $500 more (list price) for improved AF and some modest tweaks here and there to upgrade to the 5D3.</p>

<p>Corporate Greed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Because they are are only website that makes (or at least claims to make) actual scientifically based tests on camera sensors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=14630">Bob Atkins</a>, C'mon now. I've read some of your articles and I liked them. Don't ruin my memories. We all know people can haul out fancy looking equipment with very technical sounding names and use the results to back up whatever point of view they have. I'm not saying that is what is going on here but just because someone throws out some exact sounding numbers with some jargon doesn't mean they've gotten real meaningful objective data.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Canon shooters begin...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tell people to buy systems not bodies... especially in the digital age. Nikon and Canon are running into a ceiling. I'm glad Canon has decided to chill on the megapixel thing and has made some rather nice advancements in the video arena. Don't encourage Nikon. The megapixel wars have been one of the most detrimental things in the photography industry. The megapixel wars have rendered the majority of P&S unusable. I would much rather have a low noise 8 megapixel P&S than a 14 megapixel noise box. I know the D800 does a decent job in the noise department but really what is up with the megapixel thing?!</p>

<p>Both are fine cameras. Anyone selling their gear to switch to Nikon or Canon based no this is an idiot. The next iteration will be completely different. What are you going to do? Switch again?</p>

<p>Well, I may be in the minority, but I'd likely pay more attention to Bob's basement experiments than some kind of number based on weighting of various measurements which may or may not be really relevant to me. </p>

<p>Sure, the D800 has demonstrably wider dynamic range.<br>

But, more relevant to me is the frame rate of the 5d3, coupled with definitively superior AF, and let's mention the fact that for those of us with something less than 12TB RAID0 arrays and desirous of smaller file sizes, to do this on the D800 (please forgive me if I'm mistaken about this) requires a CROP mode in-cam! To me, that, and the vastly superior highISO performance of the mk3, translates into a more desirable camera. </p>

<p>As to the price difference between the two, even if I sold my Canon lenses at top value, I'd still be $1,500 in the hole to obtain Nikkor glass that isn't necessarily superior.</p>

<p>Finally, here is a completely non-scientific review of the D800 which seems to focus more on function than theory (pun stinks, my bad)...<br>

http://photofocus.com/2012/04/16/nikon-d800-mini-mini-review/</p>

<p>rt</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh dear, I wonder How I have managed with slide film all those years...</p>

<p>re "vastly superior highISO performance of the mk3" I was referring to jpgs....</p>

<p><em>definitively superior AF</em></p>

<p>How do you come to such a conclusion? Have you compared the 5D Mk III with the D800 in person? How did you do the comparison, in which lighting conditions, which lenses etc.?</p>

<p><em> something less than 12TB RAID0 arrays and desirous of smaller file sizes, to do this on the D800 (please forgive me if I'm mistaken about this) requires a CROP mode in-cam!</em></p>

<p>Nikon offers compressed NEF formats which reduce the file size but not resolution or visually perceptible tonality.</p>

<p><em> the vastly superior highISO performance of the mk3</em></p>

<p>DXO shows basically that there is no such advantage; the Mk III has ever so slightly better DR at the highest ISO settings but SNR for mid gray is the same, tonal range is the same, and the D800 has better color sensitivity at high ISO (in fact throughout the ISO range). On top of it is the higher resolution. I would phrase it like this: at high ISO the 5D Mk III has no great disadvantage compared to the D800.</p>

<p>I can believe DxOMark's comparison of low light performance: they back up what everyone says, that newer camera bodies can take buttery smooth pictures at ISO sensitivities where older ones give speckledy output. But dynamic range? According to DxOMark the 5D3 has 11.7 Evs of dynamic range - only a tiny bit more than the 1Ds launched more than a decade ago, which has 11 Evs. Has there really been so little improvement?</p>

<p>I take the result to mean that if photographing a scene with a wide range of brightness, such as a landscape at dusk with the setting sun in the picture, you are just as likely to get blown highlights and/or lack of contrast in the shadows with the 5D3 as with the older camera. I find that hard to believe. Either things really haven't improved much in this area - or DxOMark's testing is not realistic - or most likely of the three, I've misunderstood what the measurement means.</p>

<p>This debate was certainly inevitable. Canon and Nikon knew it. I think they both addressed the needs of their respective users and critics. The debate is more about <em>to what extent</em> they addressed those needs.</p>

<p>Hats off to Nikon for addressing users' needs in a different way. But this photographer will not be switching systems on that account.</p>

<p>I own a 5D2 and love it . It is a superb tool. My photographic technique has become more refined and more what I aim for that it would have with any other camera, methinks. However, the few downsides I found have been addressed in the 5D3 to a sufficient extent that I will be ordering one. I'll likely wait for the teething problems to be worked through, but I will definitely get one. Or two ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So Canon is charging a whopping $500 more (list price) for improved AF and some modest tweaks here and there to upgrade to the 5D3.<br>

Corporate Greed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I bet that's what the Canon focus groups said they wanted. Nikon focus groups went on about more MP in an affordable DSLR. I think that is the simple explanation for the differences between the two rather than a Canon conspiracy out to cheat the world. What people asked for is essentially what they got. The pricing of both cameras is very high. The incredible thing is that so many of us fools are paying these prices for a camera.</p>

<p>Why do people even bother with the DxO rating? With a 14bit A/D converter, the maximum possible dynamic range is 14 EV. Anything higher is a mathematical impossibility, so god knows where they get these numbers. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Nikon offers compressed NEF formats which reduce the file size but not resolution or visually perceptible tonality."</p>

<p><br /> The 14-bit compressed NEF weighs in at 45+mb/file (vs 75mb uncomp.) ... Basically 50% larger than a 5d/3 uncompressed CR2. Even stepping down to 12-bit compression the Nikon files a ginormous. Granted, it is simple math based on (what I assume is) fixed resolution. The M and S-raw (10mb) are convenient compromises the 5dIII provides.</p>

<p><br /> <em>the vastly superior highISO performance of the mk3</em><br>

<em></em>"DXO shows basically that there is no such advantage; the Mk III has ever so slightly better DR at the highest ISO settings but SNR for mid gray is the same, tonal range is the same, and the D800 has better color sensitivity at high ISO (in fact throughout the ISO range). On top of it is the higher resolution. I would phrase it like this: at high ISO the 5D Mk III has no great disadvantage compared to the D800."</p>

<p><br /> Perhaps you didn't see my addendum stating "in JPG". I can cite a number of reviews supporting my point, but I confess my terminology was unnecessarily broad and incendiary, given the history of these debates.</p>

<p>Here is just one (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml):<br /> <em>"At 1600 ISO, the noise has become more obvious on the D800 and for the first time in this sequence I'd say the Mark III has begun to take a lead - albeit extremely small at this point - in resolution. The Canon crop is also considerably cleaner.</em><br /> <em>At 3200 ISO, noise textures start to become obvious on the Mark III, but remain much lower than those on the D800. Edges on the Canon are also much better defined than the Nikon at this point.</em><br /> <em>At 6400 ISO the gap widens as the D800 becomes very noisy viewed at 1:1, with edges becoming quite poorly defined. The Mark III certainly isn't noise-free at this point, but remains much cleaner and better-defined.</em><br /> <em>The story continues at 12800 and 25600 ISO, the maximum for the D800. I'd say at these higher sensitivities the Mark III enjoys around a two stop advantage over the D800 when both are shooting at their maximum resolutions and viewed at 1:1. Certainly the 12800 sample of the Mark III is quite usable at smaller sizes, whereas the D800 is looking pretty ropey at this point</em>."</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 14EV DR limit on a 14-bit system only applies if everything is totally linear. Sensors are analog devices, which are pretty linear, but it would certainly be possible to make the output non linear via analog circuitry before the 14-bit digitization step, or possibly even by sensor design. For example you could code a sensor with both color filters and ND filters, the ND filtered pixels being capable of recording higher light levels than the one which were just color codes via a conventional Bayer matrix. You could then decode intensity in a similar way to how you decode color. Fuji have shown sensors with different pixel sizes which can increase DR. So there are lots of ways in which you <em>could</em> record more than a 14 stop dyanamic range and put that data in a 14-bit number. Just not from a single pixel with a digitized linear output.</p>

DxO claims that the D700 has a better sensor than the 5D Mark II. Admittedly, the 5D2 has a bit of a shadow noise

issue, but it's manageable. When I look at my photos from both cameras - I have used both extensively - the Canon

photos seem far more appealing and satisfying to my eyes. Eventually, I sold the D700 because it sat around collecting dust for two

years.

 

I'm sure that Dx0 is staffed by capable and knowledgeable people, but their standards are not my standards, and their

numbering system is meaningless as a predictor of a camera's usefulness to me.

 

Now I'm using my ultra-capable new 5D Mark III - sometimes up to ISO 12,800 - and loving it. In the future I hope to add

a D800E to my bag for its unique high-resolution capabilities. No gnashing here - just lots of happily clicking shutters. :-)

>> "Look for a 40+mp Canon full-frame camera within a year." <<

 

I don't need to look for anything - except good light and interesting subjects.

 

Future technological advances will impact all aspects of our lives, but I'm not going to sit on the couch waiting for the day

when a robot can fold my socks and broil a perfect filet mignon for my dinner.

 

Life happens today, not in the future. The cameras that we have today are amazingly capable. Their only weakness is

that they depend on humans to carry them around and activate them, humans who sometimes would rather long for what

they don't have than employ and enjoy what's in their hands.

<p>I'm sure both cameras are good enough to get the job done. For me, the 5D Mk III is especially interesting due to the new auto focus system. If I could afford it, I think I'd pick this one up. This really is the camera that I wanted. The D800 is not terribly appealing to me. I'd rather have a D700. I don't need the megapixels. <br>

The great thing is: Canon cannot undo what it has done. All further versions of the 5D should have a great auto focus system. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Life happens today, not in the future. The cameras that we have today are amazingly capable. Their only weakness is that they depend on humans to carry them around and activate them, humans who sometimes would rather long for what they don't have than employ and enjoy what's in their hands."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said! :-)</p>

<p>So why does the Canon camera cost more ?</p>

<p>So why does the Canon camera cost more ?</p>

<p>"So why does the Canon camera cost more ?" So that they can sell mk ii at the same price. But I completely agree with you. The new camera should not cost more, esp. that leap is not justified. </p>

<p>It probably costs more because it has been several years since the previous version at this point in the line-up was released, and it isn't uncommon for the new thing to cost more. Plus it added additional features that the previous camera did not have and improved others. Companies like Canon also make pricing decisions based on how things fit into their overall line-up, and I'll guess that the pricing recognized, and hoped to capitalize on, the move away from the 1Ds series bodies to the 5D series bodies by photographers who felt they were getting more value for their money.</p>

<p>So, looked at within the context of the Canon line-up itself, the pricing of the 5D3 - even though we always want things to be less expensive for our own reasons - makes sense. </p>

<p>What Canon may not have understood during the time leading up to the 5D3 introduction, the lead up time during which the marketing and pricing decisions were made, was that Nikon was going to introduce a camera appealing to more or less the same sort of photographer, and provide it at a lower price and with features that suggest that it may well me "better" than the 5D3 in some ways. (As I've written more than once, Nikon photographers can be very pleased with what "their brand" is doing right now. If I shot Nikon I'd be all over the D800, but as a Canon shooter I don't make major decisions quite that quickly, especially when the current Canon gear I use produces truly wonderful image quality.)</p>

<p>So, where does this leave us? First, I suspect that Canon (and Nikon, too) understands that, for all the <em>talk</em> of switching brands, only a very, very small percentage of photographers do this in the short term. So, in the short term, one of the major downsides for Canon when the two cameras are compared is the perception (which is important) that Nikon has "caught and passed" them in some ways. (Reality isn't important here. Perception is.) A second short-term issue is that at least some folks who might have jumped for a new 5D3 are now a bit more likely to take a go-slow approach. (I'm one of these people - I think the 5D3 is a fine camera, but not enough different from my 5D2 in the context of what I do to make the expense worthwhile right now.)</p>

<p>In the longer term - and brand switchers really need to think a bit more long term - I'm confident that Canon knows what it is doing and has a road map that will work (and be tweaked) in effective ways. It would be naive to think that Canon is going to give up the still photography market in place of video (as some suggest) or that 22MP is really going to be the end point in their development of high MP sensors (it cannot be). I happen to think that Canon is in the process of reshuffling a good portion of their line-up and that once this plays out - over a year or two? - we'll all be singing a very different tune.</p>

<p>I also think that there is a very good chance that the price point of the 5D3 will have to soften sooner rather than later.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>The new camera costs more because: They think people will pay that price!</p>

<p>At the moment. . they are right! People are buying the camera like hot cakes. I also think that the current strength of the Nikon offering will force a bit of a rethink on Canon's part -> and that will result in BETTER cameras for us down the road. I half suspect the top notch AF system in the 5DIII was a late addition based upon leaked information of the Nikon offering. Can you IMAGINE what whould have happened if the 5DIII was released with the same AF system as the 5DII? Even the 7D AF system would not have been up to snuff.</p>

<p>I find myself at a bit of a cross roads with my Canon system; not because of the FF camera pricing, but because of the accessory pricing. The Canon lenses are simply moving out of my price range. $2K for a 24-70/2.8? Yikers! The new 600EX-RT flash (or whatever the model number is) is what. . .$600? For a <em>single flash unit? </em> Look. . .I make a good living. . .I can afford toys. . . .but this market has simply left me in the dust.</p>

<p> </p>