Fighting between the D800 / 5DM3

[janet_biersack]

<p>I'm not locked into either Canon or Nikon because no glass. I want to get into one or the other, but feel I'm being pulled in two directions with the D800 and 5DM3.<br>

The looks and feel of the D800 are a winner to me. Funny enough, even the LCD screen looks better to me on the D800, which must say something about my eyes, because on paper (and all reviews), the 5DM3 always gets the gold for the LCD.<br>

The one feature I am turned off about with the D800 is the same thing so many people are talking about it - those 36MPs. If it was simply a matter of large files and nothing else, perhaps I wouldn't give it much thought and would be even more selective about pressing that shutter button.<br>

But all the reviews and articles I read about the D800 and its sensor seem to always focus heavily on the fact of having to be extra careful in getting the highest end glass for this camera because of the 36MPs and also having to really pay a lot more attention to details and settings (again, because of those 36MPs). I feel afraid to get this camera now.<br>

Because of this issue with the sensor of the D800 - the only logical choice I see - comparatively speaking - would be to go with the 5DM3.<br>

Do you see this as overreacting or not necessary?<br>

I enjoy a range of different shooting - street (but I have an X100s for that), travel, landscape, portrait, architecture, etc. <br>

If I got the D800, lenses to start, I'd get the 1.8s (28/50/85) and go from there.<br>

If I got the 5DM3, lens would be the 50 1.2.<br>

Anything wrong with this?</p>

[phule]

<p>[[but all the reviews and articles I read about the D800 and its sensor seem to always focus heavily on the fact of having to be extra careful in getting the highest end glass for this camera because of the 36MPs and also having to really pay a lot more attention to details and settings]]</p>

<p>This is only important if the final output of your images can possibly show those faults. You could be making small prints with no change in technique and without buying $20,000 in lenses and never see a single "flaw." </p>

<p>Concentrate on what you're going to be doing with your photos. Are you selling them for stock? Are you making wall-sized art prints for galleries? Are you going to be working for magazines? <br>

</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I would see it as overreacting. It is not a flaw. It is an admonition, a reminder that if you want high quality, you're not just going to get there using one bit of equipment that can provide such.<br>No reason to shy away from the D800.<br><br>On the contrary: according to most/all reviews, the D800 has a slight edge over the 5D in all aspects. That alone could be a decider.<br>But if we need another one: not just does the D800 deliver that extra little bit more, it does so for a considerable lower price.<br><br>If we could ignore that we need more than a camera body, it's a no-brainer.<br>So it all hinges on the the 'bottom line'. How much will it cost to get a working set, either Canon or Nikon. And if you already have enough lenses and other bits for either Canon or Nikon body, only need to upgrade the body to a 5D or D800, i'd go with that.

[pge]

<p>I don't see it as an overreaction, more an indication that you should start somewhere other than either brands top end equipment. Take a look at the D700, its one hell of a camera and might suit your tastes better.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Then get the D800.</p>

<p>When using a marginal lens or technique, a D800 will show the problems more than, say, a D700, when you view the image on the screen at 100%. This is because when you view a higher res image at 100% you are magnifying more than you would be a low res image. But images aren't really used by inspecting them at 100% (except in the context of gear reviews). Resized for web use, or printed, the D800 images are not more magnified than those from lower res cameras and will never look worse just because they were shot with a high res sensor.</p>

<p>Also, the newer Nikon f/1.8G lenses are not marginal. They're really sharp. With good technique, those lenses and a D800 will produce amazing detail.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Janet, you haven't provided enough info that anyone could determine whether you need either camera. How large are your prints to be? Will people have their noses in them? Do you need an extremely shallow depth of field (a format decision -- perhaps you would be fine with APS-C)? Can you describe your shooting style? Are you compulsive enough in your technique that you can benefit from all that resolution? (MLU/LV, sturdy tripod, weighted) Do you shoot frequently in very dim light and want to crank the ISO? Why is it you think you need these cameras, other than that they are (for the moment) in vogue?</p>

<p>Do you have a portfolio somewhere, so we can get a sense of what you like to shoot?</p>

<p>Note: I ask these questions because your post suggests price IS an object (e.g. concern over the need to buy nothing but the best lenses). If you can afford it, heck, just shoot the moon, and buy whatever your heart desires from either manufacturer (or both). If you're on a more limited budget, you should question your priorities. There are a number of very worthy cameras on the market now -- more advanced than all the cameras that came before, that have been used for many decades by good photographers to make stunningly good photographs.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>On the contrary: according to most/all reviews, the D800 has a slight edge over the 5D in all aspects. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You've been very selective in your reading there, then - ignoring sensor size for a moment, I've seen umpteen reviews acknowledging that with the sole exception of low ISO dynamic range, the D800 does nothing better than does the Canon, and in many meaningful respects is not as good.</p>

<p>The Nikon is pretty much the definition of a one-trick pony, whereas the 5D Mk III does everything <em>extremely</em> well.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm going to half agree with Keith. The 5D3 seems to me to be a better general purpose shooter, because of the frame rate advantage (though don't forget the D800's 5fps crop mode), better live view and somewhat better autofocus system. The D800 is indisputably better in terms of dynamic range (give or take the dual-ISO hack for the 5D3), which you'll see in images at any size, and in terms of resolution. Do you need the best lenses to get the best out of a D800? No. But it will show up the limitations of your lenses - especially used away from their optimum apertures - before the 5D3 (just as a 5D3 will show lens or technique limitations before a D700 or an original 5D). Used at their best, most lenses are very good - especially cheap primes. Lens limitations are not necessarily an issue - you can always downsize your images.<br />

<br />

I bought a D800 as the best complement to my D700 - obviously I already had some Nikon lenses, but the weakness of the D700 was mostly resolution (and to a lesser extent dynamic range). If I'd had a 5D2, I'd have felt restricted by the autofocus and shooting speed, and the 5D3 would have been the best match. Both manufacturers improved mostly on the weak points of their previous generation. The 5D3 is pretty much an improvement in every way on a 5D2; the D800 is only <i>mostly</i> an improvement over a D700 (especially with grip), but then since I was keeping my D700 that didn't bother me.<br />

<br />

Frankly, they're both really good cameras for almost any use. If I specifically wanted to shoot sports or wildlife, I'd get a 5D3, but wish I could afford a D4 or 1Dx (and look closely at a D3s). If I specifically wanted to shoot landscapes, I'd get the D800, but keep an envious eye on medium format backs. Having tried handling a 5D3 after a few years of Nikon, I can't cope with the ergonomics (and I used to shoot Canon); still, there are things that annoy me about Nikon's ergonomics too (ISO position, AF mode position...) so the only way to pick is to spend time playing with both.<br />

<br />

You do seem to be prioritizing the camera over the lens system, though I might be a little unfair in that impression. There's nothing wrong with the f/1.8 set, but I'd think about a D600 and a bigger lens range, or other lenses before the 50 f/1.2 (which most would call a bit short for portraiture on full-frame). Canon probably have the better tilt-shift range at the moment (and actually have updated several key lenses more recently than Nikon) - but that may just mean Nikon get the next set of updates in sooner. The tilt-shifts may tip it for you for architecture, but most of the subjects you mention probably won't benefit from the speed or AF advantages of the 5D3.<br />

<br />

Conclusion: No conclusion other than that you probably shouldn't dismiss either. Try them and pick the system that feels more natural.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Personally, for the photographic subjects you describe, I would first consider whether I'd really need full frame at all, and next, why not the 6D or D600 instead. I'd rather spend less on the body and more on the lenses.</p>

<p>Apart from that, I'd agree with Keith that the 5D Mk. III looks the better allrounder, while the D800 has a more specific strength in its resolution, and weakness in the lower continuous speed. But, for "travel, landscape, portrait, architecture", I think 4 frames per second will still do. Ergonomics, as Andrew notes, seem to me more important than the bells and whistles. And none of us can tell you what feels better in your hands, really.</p>

<p>Edit; <em>in your last post, you had a full Nikon kit already with the D600 and the f/1.8 primes. If there is a specific reason you do not have that anymore, it could be helpful to know.</em></p>

[lwg]

<p>I haven't shot with the Canon, but for the way I shoot the D800 is perfect. I predominantly use low ISO (100 to 400) and a tripod. For that the incredibly clean shadows are a clear advantage over samples I have seen from the Canon.</p>

<p>I also use the camera for low light handheld work with high ISO. Here I'm sure it isn't as good as the Canon, but it's good enough for my purposes. For these types of shots I rarely need or want 36MP, but it's easy to down size them with the advantage that the noise essentially disappears in the process. Reducing to 9 or 12MP gives excellent image quality even with ISO 6400.</p>

<p>This same logic would apply to downsizing to the Canon's resolution. Essentially it would hide the faults of lesser lenses. But with good lenses and technique you will be left with a superior image (at least technically). The only penalty is more storage space, which is cheap and getting cheaper.</p>

<p>I'm sure for the way others shoot the Canon is better. </p>

<p>I should say I don't use high frame rates often, and then 4 FPS is more than fine. I also use LiveView often and find it easily able to get perfect focus in most situations. I wish the image displayed used all lines in the sensor, but it's not critical to making it work. My camera also has none of the AF issues that others have found (side AF points off), and none of my lenses need fine tuning on this camera. I probably lucked out in this regard.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Hi Andrew,</p>

<p>I don't dispute for a moment the D800's areas of strength over the 5D Mk III, but in terms of versatility and overall usefulness, I'd have the Canon over the Nikon every time - in every respect that matters to me, it clearly outperforms the Nikon, and I've seen many reviews that recognise the wider capabilities of the 5D Mk III and give them due weight and credence.</p>

<p>Not knocking the camera, simply calling into question Q.G's claim that the D800 has been given the nod in the majority of reviews, "in all respects". It simply has not, and <em>except </em>with regard to a couple of very specific metrics which might or might not be of significance to a given user, it actually trails behind the 5D Mk III - sometimes by a goodly distance, a fact which many reviews acknowledge.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Keith: I think we agree. While the grass is always greener on the other side (I don't have a 5D3 and don't see its issues), I've always said the 5D3 is the more rounded camera for general-purpose shooting - it's "very good" in most areas, whereas the D800 is mostly just "above-average" and occasionally "exceptional". And I bought a D800(E) even so - partly because I already had a D700 that could hit 8fps with a grip, so speed didn't bother me, partly because I don't often need 6fps. The best option for anyone comes down to shooting style (and I do think that the areas where the 5D3 are particularly stronger compared with the D800 aren't covered by Janet's list) and personal preference - even in their weakest areas, both these cameras are very good under almost all circumstances. I do think it's possible to over-state the relative weaknesses of the D800 compared with the 5D3 (it still has very good autofocus, pretty good video and is quite a nippy shooter, for example), but the same is true in reverse (36MP isn't as much more than 22MP as you'd think, and a couple of stops at ISO 100 hardly helps with every shot).<br />

<br />

Which is, of course, of absolutely no help in Janet's decision-making process (other than telling her to ignore all the technical issues because they cancel out, and go with personal feel) - so I'll shut up now.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Keith,<br><br>Opinions will vary. But the day will never come when i will even consider things like frame rate and live view as quality indicators. I don't even consider such things at all. As important, and no more, as the colour of the shoes of driver of the truck used to haul the cameras from distributor to the shop where you might buy one.<br>Those "very specific metrics" happen to concern the quality, not of how the machine meets some gearhead-standard, but of the thing the machine is supposed to produce.<br>What would be more important? Go-faster stripes? Or decent results? <br>Which might be "of significance" to us, each of us has to decide for themselves. Yes.

[owen_omeara]

<p>I agree that this is not a flaw. I recently had a chance to use a d800 and was thrilled with the result. Great glass will always be great glass no matter how many pixels are in the mix. You will not get poor results with this camera and if and when you reach the point of needing very large prints all you will need is the glass to do it. If this camera is in your budget I would have a hard tine passing it by.</p>

[lwg]

<p>I'm sure for sports shooters and wild life photographers frame rate is very important, and may be the difference between getting a shot or not.<br>

As primarily a landscape shooter I would never choose the 5D3 over the D800. The shadow banding at low ISO of the Canon is a non starter for me. But it's high ISO results look very very good. In this regard I see the Nikon as a more well rounded camera, since it does low ISO very well and high ISO pretty well. Add in the incredible DR and resolution, and decent frame rates makes it more useful for most tasks, especially where image quality is of high importance.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>But the day will never come when i will even consider things like frame rate and live view as quality indicators</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You stated that <em>reviews </em>were united in placing the Nikon over Canon, "in all aspects". To remind you:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>according to most/all reviews, the D800 has a slight edge over the 5D in all aspects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and neither of those statements - that there's something approaching unanimity that the Nikon is the better camera, and that it has been found to be better in every regard - is true.</p>

<p>Your <em>personal opinion</em> is in no way relevant to the specific point I was responding to - your claim that there's across-the-board agreement that the D800 is better in every way than the 5D Mk III.</p>

[Two23]

<p>the differences between cameras are often very, very small. No one you show photos to will EVER be able to tell what camera you used. In the end, the camera is the least important thing in photography. Just pick one and go with it. for landscapes & architecture, buying a tilt/shift lens will make a far larger difference than any camera ever will.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Keith,<br>We apparantly disagree (and i have acknowledged that) in what we consider "in every way". I, perhaps mistakenly, took the 5D and D800 for machines meant to be used to produce images. And as such (as as mentioned) cannot even begin to consider something like frame rate as something that should be included in a serious comparison. Just as little as (and i believe i mentioned that) the colour of the shoes of... [etc.].<br><br>That being what it is, the relevant bit for this discussion is that (as the reviews agree on) the D800 produces better pictures (beit only so much better - nothing overly dramatic), and that this is not something to be afraid of (more pixels per duck, remember?).<br>In fact, with the thing being considerably cheaper than the 5D, it would be very hard not to plump for the D800. And that would the answer, my answer, to the OP: there is no reason for those worries. Quite the contrary: better image quality for less money... A rare thing, to be able to get more for less.<br><br>Unless, of course, you like fps more than image quality. Then you should indeed spend more and get a 5D.<br>You know what? I hear that thingies like those trendy Gopro cameras have even higher frame rates... and (get this!) cost a lot less than either 5D or D800. Maybe... ;-)

[tholte]

<p>"why not the 6D or D600 instead. I'd rather spend less on the body and more on the lenses." Not a bad idea!</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I own and use both camera. You can't "go wrong" with either one. The Nikon has the edge in resolution and dynamic range. The Canon has the edge in autofocus, frame rate, and the ability to finely focus on the LCD screen. But none of these "edges" are huge except Nikon's DR. It's a big jump up from the Canon.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that Canon speed lights now have radio triggering, a very nice feature. Nikon's CLS is still viable and can be enhanced with third-party gadgets.</p>

<p>Maybe you should make the decision based on lens availability. For example:</p>

<p>Canon has a sharp new 24-70 f/2.8, probably a bit sharper than Nikon's. But the Nikon works fine on my D800E. I've never been disappointed with its performance.</p>

<p>Canon has the 24-105 f/4L IS. Despite some distortion, this is probably the best jack-of-all-trades lens that I have ever used. Nikon's 24-120 f/4 VR II is not as sharp in my opinion.</p>

<p>Until recently, the 70-200 f/4 IS was unique to Canon, but now Nikon has the equivalent, and it is reportedly excellent.</p>

<p>Nikon has a new 80-400; Canon's 100-400 is an older design.</p>

<p>Canon's TS-E 24 II has features that I with that Nikon's equivalent had, but Canon's TS-E 45 and 90 are older designs.</p>

<p>Both brands have excellent 70-200 f/2.8 lenses.</p>

<p>Canon's STM 40mm is a uniquely cool lens for street photography, but you can get a sharp 35 for either brand (and from Sigma, as well).</p>

<p>Too many great choices!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I don't blame you for wanting to go full-frame. It doesn't matter which brand you buy, but each camera in question has different feature sets. You really can't go wrong with either, although the large files of the D800 can be a pain at times. (I have the D800E, but I have shot Canon most of my life.) They are both so good that I would think only about what kinds of shots I would be making. Both brands also have great glass, of course. Either way, you are going to be happy. If you like simplicity, I would choose Canon in this case, since the 5D III is going to be fine for just about anything you could ever use it for--and its shots are clean, clean, clean.</p>

<p>You will spend more time in front of the computer screen with the D800. Right now I am jumping back and forth between the Nikon D800E and the Nikon D3s--the latter having "only" twelve megapixels. Frankly, I like shooting the latter better, even though the D800/D800E is a great machine. It can also be a bigger burden. Very, very few shots require 36 mp. In addition, I shot the Canon 5D II for years, and sometimes I still miss it. The 5D III is even better. I will not be selling my Nikons to go back to Canon, but I will shoot my Nikon with fewer megapixels more often than the D800E. That is just me, but you might have the same sense of misplaced priorities if you go with more megapixels when twenty-three is typically more than enough.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Re big files being a burden: You can set the D800 to a lower resolution, don't have to use max res all the time. Only when you want to.<br>You can't set the 5D to a higher resolution than what it gives. Even if you would want to.<br><br>In my eyes, the decider is the price. Both are very good cameras. Yet one gives more, for less money.<br>So unless the price of the body isn't all you would have to pay, a no brainer.<br><br>But that's about a one vs the other thing. And i don't think anyone would ever regret getting either one of the two. The thing that prompted me to chime in was that about the (slightly) higher image quality one camera produces possibly being something we could/should be afraid of. It's not.<br>If only because you could always 'spoil' it and use the camera as if it wasn't any better than the other one. ;-)

[Brad_]

>>> Do you see this as overreacting or not necessary?

 

Yes. Your ability to see, imagination, understand light, and ability to translate/compose what's

before you into an image that you then skillfully post-process to render a compelling photograph FAR

outweighs the minutia discussed above.

 

That is, assuming your goal is to make photographs. All the rest is mice nuts...

[jeff_sudduth]

<p><strong>If you are contemplating video get the 5D MK III and then look at Magic Lantern.</strong> The raw video option is amazing. Just do your homework before deciding.</p>