Upgrading: D800 vs. 5D Mk3 - Specific questions

[anat1]

<p>I'm upgrading to full-frame from APS-C (among other things, for better high-ISO performance). <br />I need to choose between the D800 and the 5D Mk 3.<br>

<br />I'm currently a Canon 7D shooter with a few lenses. Switching systems / staying with Canon is not part of my decision making. I have rented and shot quite a bit with Nikons, including the D4, D800, D700 and D7000 (landscape and wildlife). I have also rented and used Canon's 5D Mk 2 and 5D Mk 3.<br>

<br />Before the D800 was released, my reason for renting Nikon bodies was to be able to use the Nikon 200-400 f4 - a lens I find very versatile for wildlife esp. on safari. Since the D800 release, my reason for renting it was mostly resolution and high-ISO performance. When I do print, I like to print big (e.g 20x30, 24x36, 30x40).<br>

<br />Below are *my* issues with regards to choosing between the D800 and 5D Mk 3. I'm listing the issue and the body I feel is the winner in that area. <strong>Any thoughts on helping me decide between the two? For instance, can some of the negatives of the D800 be eliminated / reduced / worked-around? And similarly for the 5D Mk 3.</strong><br>

------<br /><strong>1. Resolution: D800</strong><br /><strong>2. Noise performance: D800</strong><br /><strong>3. Dynamic range: D800</strong><br /><strong>4. Auto-focus in low-light: 5D Mk 3 (please read my low-light auto-focus issues with D800 below).</strong><br /><strong>5. Tilt-shift lenses: Canon's TSE supposedly much better than Nikon's PCE lenses. </strong>(I hope to start using tilt-shift for landscape to gain DOF with relatively lower f-numbers thereby reducing the effects of diffraction.)<br /><strong>6. Frame-rate: 5D Mk 3</strong><br />------<br>

(Non-issues for me include: changing systems, storage, processing power requirements and so forth).<br>

<br /><strong>Autofocus issues:</strong><br />My most recent D800 use was to do night photography at Mono lake & Yosemite (start trails, static stars at very high ISO, some light painting). <strong>I found that autofocusing was *really* difficult with D800 in low-light.</strong> On a cloudless night, before moonrise, with bright stars the D800 was unable to latch focus on stars. Using a strong flashlight to illuminate foreground tuffs at 15 feet - the D800 was unable to latch focus. After the moonrise (bright, nearly full moon), the D800 was still unable to latch focus on foreground landscape features even though they were **very clearly** seen by the naked eye and were well lit by the moon. I tried a couple of f2.8 and f4 Nikon lenses. I am aware of just manually focusing to infinity, but several lenses go past infinity! D800's Live-View performance was *miserable* in these low-light conditions, presumably because of the line-skipping (which I found out about later). <br /><strong>The 5D Mk 3, in my experience, focuses much better in similar night conditions</strong> - it can latch focus onto stars and even dimly lit foreground features. <br />------</p>

<p>Thank you for your expert opinions.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /></p>

[devon_mccarroll]

If you shoot wildlife, you might also consider that the 5D Mk 3 has a 61 point af system and shoots 6fps. I believe the D800 shoots 4.5.

[John Crowe]

<p>Generally speaking APS-C is better for telephoto photography, such as wildlife, so I'd use the 7D, 1D IV, or D7100 for this purpose.</p>

<p>The only lens I would chose the 5DII/III over the D800 for is the 17mm TS-E, which I use for shift or shift/stitch. Otherwise I would chose the D800 for landscape/architecture/portraiture.</p>

<p>For star gazing I have no idea why you are using autofocus. </p>

[peter_j2]

<p>For your purposes, the 5D3.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Pick the one that is most comfortable in your hands. The results will basically be the same between the two and you seem comfortable operational wise with both.</p>

[jefflipsman]

<p>I just returned from Namibia where I did a lot of star photos with the D800 . I did not use viewfinder autofocus. I used live view, zoomed in on a foreground object, and hit the AF button. Tack sharp results and instant focus. I did this in twilight, not the dark. I couldn't imagine setting up in the dark and trying to focus on anything. Once set up, I never moved location. Too dangerous for equipment, life, and limb.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>I am fortunate to own both of these cameras. Comparing these two bodies has been the topic of much discussion, but I can offer my impressions if you like.</p>

<p>I find myself using the D800E more than the 5D3 except for events, where I prefer to use the Canon. I'll discuss why later, since events don't seem to be your focus.</p>

<p><strong>1. Resolution</strong> - The D800 and E are astounding in this regard, but the 5D3 is very impressive. I have on occasion preferred a 5D3 shot over a D800E shot of the same scene, but the D800 does what it does miraculously.</p>

<p>You mentioned printing to 30x40 inches. Using my preferred printing method, both cameras can handle that size without issue, as can the older 5D Mark II. 5D3 offers an increase in resolution over the 5D2 that's greater than you would expect from the difference between 21 and 22 MP. Both of them blow the 7D away, and the 7D is a very nice camera.</p>

<p>That said, the D800s are clearly the champs in this regard. Whether you need the extra resolution at the cost of replacing all of your lenses is a question that you'll have to answer for yourself. If you need to print over 45 inches on the long side, I would suggest using the D800 bodies. A high MP Canon may or may not be in the works, but for now, the D800 is the undisputed king of small format resolution.</p>

<p><strong>2. Noise performance</strong> - Complicated subject. What kind of noise? For long exposures, I don't see any difference. For high ISO noise, the Canon is spectacular with the internal NR engaged, but that only works on JPEG files, not raw files. For raw files, Canons have more shadow noise than Nikons (due to the difference in DR, I imagine). I find that noise reduction in post is required for either body when shooting over ISO 400, especially if you intend to make large prints. I don't see any reason to consider the D800 superior in this regard.</p>

<p><strong>3. Dynamic range</strong> - D800. Hands down. Not even close. Whether you need this capability is up to you. A lot of nice landscape work was shot on slide film. I have found the increased DR to be very useful for travel photography, though, because you can't always wait for the light that you want.</p>

<p><strong>4. Autofocus</strong> - Another complicated topic. For standard, viewfinder-based phase detection AF, the Canon is the clear winner. This is one of the reasons why I prefer Canons for events. The D800 has caused me to miss what should have been easy shots. The Canon rarely misses, and it's great for action/sports as well. AF fine tuning is recommended in order to get the best resolution out of either camera.</p>

<p><strong>Autofocus in Live View</strong> - This is where it gets interesting. The D800s are amazing in this regard. After resolution and DR, I consider this to be the camera's third superpower. I get great results with AF in Live View, and it doesn't require AF fine tuning. Here's a trick that I use for low light focusing:</p>

<p><em>In Manual exposure mode, set the image to over-expose by two or three stops. Use Live View autofocus to lock onto your subject. Switch the lens to M (no more autofocus). Reset your exposure to the proper setting. Expose the frame. Don't forget to switch the lens back to AF when finished.</em></p>

<p><strong>Manual Focus in Live View</strong> - Required for your TS-E lenses. For reasons discussed in the original post, this is one of Canon's strong points. Their LCDs are sharp and clear, and the 5D3's LCD is outstanding even by Canon standards. I wouldn't want to focus a PCE lens on a D800 in low light. You can use the Manual overexposure trick to gain a little bit of ground, but this is a clear weak spot in the D800's otherwise spectacular design.</p>

<p><strong>5. Tilt-shift lenses</strong> - The only one that I've shot with is Canon's TS-E24 f/3.5L II, but it's one of the most spectacular pieces of equipment that I have ever used. My portfolio is full of photos from this amazing lens. I can't speak for the Nikon models.</p>

<p><strong>6. Frame rate</strong> - A no brainer for Canon, but this isn't a critical feature for landscape photography.</p>

<p>I'll add:</p>

<p><strong>7. Auto exposure</strong> - No camera is perfect, but I find the Nikon to be more reliable. The Canon tends to underexpose for its sensor. The predecessor 5D2 had the same issue.</p>

<p><strong>8. LCD screen</strong> - Canon is the clear winner for both color and resolution.</p>

<p><strong>9. Intervalometer</strong> - Built into the Nikon. An add-on for the Canon.</p>

<p><strong>10. Skin tones</strong> - I give a slight edge to Canon.<br>

<br />The bottom line is that except for a few quibbles here and there, both of these cameras are outstanding, and either of them will enable you to capture material for 40-inch prints if you use good technique and good lenses. If you need the extra edge of resolution and DR, the Nikon is the clear choice. If you need tilt-shift lenses, it's kind of a mix right now. Canon has two tilt-shift lenses that are excellent and two that are of an older design. Nikon has three PC-E lenses that are pretty good but not as flexible from Canon's current designs. </p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Good Lord, if you're shooting wildlife, then AF trumps pixels anytime and the 5D3 puts the D800 in the weeds. If you're going to set up on a tripod and shoot scenics and don't care about anything other than pixel pitch, then the D800 is a clear winner.</p>

<p>They'll both produce stunning images. Decide what you want, chose a brand and stick with it.<br>

Coming from a 7D, with it's inconsistent AI-Servo and relatively poor high-ISO performance, you'll love the output of either, so long as you don't need the 5D3's fantastic AF accuracy, flexibility and consistency. For moving subjects, the D800's AF isn't close to the 5D3.</p>

[anat1]

<p>Thank you <strong>*all*</strong> for the informative responses. PN members' tendency to help on forums and their combined, expansive knowledge never ceases to amaze me.</p>

<p><strong>Dan South</strong>: I would like to thank you in particular, for your extended, extremely useful response. I'm quite surprised to hear of your positive experience with <strong>Live-View Autofocus on D800.</strong> What ambient light levels are you talking about? In terms of <strong>Dynamic Range,</strong> you ask whether I would need this capability. For landscapes (esp just before sunset or immediately after sunrise) I would think that extended DR would be a huge plus. It could mean I could use (and carry) just a couple of 2-stop or 3-stop filters as opposed to about 5 that I carry now. It could also mean that I do much less post-proc work merging. Your thoughts on the <strong>Noise Performance</strong> of the 5D3 being not so far behind the D800 is encouraging, but the shadow noise is the concern. For <strong>Resolution</strong> (and printing) you suggest at 30x40in, the 5D3 & D800 will both work. That may be a separate thread on its own, but how different is your file preparation between the two cameras for large printing? Admiteddly, I have printed upto 20x30in landscape with 7D - but it required quite a bit of work with Perfect Resize (or PS) to enlarge the image.<br>

<strong>From what I get from your comparison, Dynamic Range is the single biggest difference (if printing 30x40in and under). Your Live-view auto-focus experience does not match my own - maybe due to a defective body I had or due to very different ambient light levels.</strong></p>

<p><strong>Jeff Lipsman</strong>: - beautiful image. I understand not wanting to move about after dark, but sometimes it becomes necessary for me. Surprised to hear the contrast-detect focus in Live View of D800 was that fast.</p>

<p><strong>David Stephens:</strong> I understand picking 5D3 for wildlife and D800 for landscapes. But I often shoot both (sometimes in the same location). Overall I would say my shooting is 70% landscapes and 30% wildlife. Given budget constraints I cannot have both bodies (not to mention the added heft). So unfortunately I will have to pick one.</p>

<p><strong>Devon, John, Peter, Elliot:</strong> Thank you for weighing in. I do shoot wildlife with APS-C (in addition to full-frame) for the extended reach and would keep a 2nd APS-C body - the 7d (if I go for 5D3) or get a refurb D7000 (if moving to D800). John - I sometimes need AF for night shots because it is too dark to see through view-finder to achieve perfect manual focus. With 5D3 I would use the Live-View Manual Focus, but on the D800 the Live View display was of a poor quality in low-light to make out focus, manual or auto.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<p><strong>Live View:</strong> I have used the D800's Live View Autofocus at dusk, i.e. before dusk starts to look more like darkness, if you know what I mean. I have used this feature at night, as well, but I needed to focus on a light source or illuminate the target of the focus with a strong flashlight. There is a point where it stops working, even with the overexposure technique that I mentioned, but that's true of any autofocus system.</p>

<p><strong>Dynamic Range:</strong> I like that I can use the D800's dynamic range to pull details out of shadows, but I don't like to rely on it to save the shot. If it works, it works, but I'll bracket for HDR or use graduated neutral density filters when I think that's a better approach. Even with the D800, if you try to bring details out of deep shadows, you're going to see some noise at some point. No shadow it completely noise free. I would rather avoid dealing with noise by exposing properly.</p>

<p><strong>Printing:</strong> I resize my print files by setting the size and DPI when I export them from Lightroom. If I need a border, I add it using Photoshop. I don't use any third-party software or special resizing techniques. This approach works for my lab and their equipment. Different printers might require a different resizing technique.</p>

[nico_morris]

<p>Now, that's the way to ask a question! You ask specific questions that people can answer and they do. Kudos to everyone. My only contribution is to unfortunately deprecate the D7000 for your intended use. The D7000 is not good enough for focusing in dim light with slowish zoom lenses. Inferior in this to the preceding DX. This is quite well attested, I know how it behaves and it is a design characteristic, not a random fault. In your place I would just keep on with Canon for all-around usability and their software, even though modern Nikons have lovely sensors.</p>

[agitater]

<p>I think that without ranging information or sufficient foreground detail with which to estimate distance, a camera's AF system can't estimate focus and set the lens. Nikon and Canon take different approaches to low light AF.</p>

<p>A Canon DSLR body with a Canon lens will often default to infinity when no other usable detail is present in the AF point and when the available light is lower than the AF sensitivity threshold. By comparison, a Nikon body is more likely to set a Nikon lens, in the same situation side by side with the Canon body & lens, to a mid-point. Nikon's approach seems to be to set a mid-point and then let the photographer grab the focus ring and tweak it.</p>

<p>Both makers' AF system are really good, but I think expecting them to work so far below their AF sensitivity thresholds might be impractical. Your recollection of the what the Canon was able to focus on and what the Nikon was able to focus on, without having the two cameras side by side in the exact same conditions might not represent a fair comparison. The Canon might do better - that's certainly possible - in a side by side test, in some situations. But in such low light, AF is a crapshoot with any camera. You seem to have described nighttime circumstances around -6 eV or darker which works out to 8 minutes or more to get a usable exposure at base ISO and an f/2.8 or larger aperture. An autofocus system from Nikon or Canon just can't work reliably in such conditions. The situation falls outside the capabilites of the AF systems design.</p>

<p>Live View, with a focus hood, is the way to go for extended night shooting. You can see what's going on, you can nail focus almost every time, and you have much more visible control over composition and exposure. Viewfinder + AF + very low light/nighttime shooting = frustration & dissatisfaction IMO. Live View + focus hood (e.g., a Cinevate Cyclops) + manual focus + very low light/nighttime shooting = creative control & success IMO. </p>

<p>It seems to me that most photographers who are doing star photography or astrography of any kind are never looking through a viewfinder unless they've got a camera mounted on a telescope. They're also not relying in any way on AF - too many problems. </p>