Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 5D3 vs. D800 - great real world head-to-head tests  (Read 35107 times)
mr purdy
Guest
« on: April 13, 2012, 11:04:32 PM »
ReplyReply

These videos are some of the best camera tests I have seen in years.

Part 1: studio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTo7UxbJX8

Part 2: low light action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W9EeDCaVFM
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 11:17:46 PM by mr purdy » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8015


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2012, 01:38:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Part two is about sports/report type of shooting in bad light. Tells what the Canon is really good at!

Best regards
Erik


These videos are some of the best camera tests I have seen in years.

Part 1: studio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTo7UxbJX8

Part 2: low light action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W9EeDCaVFM
Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1734



« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2012, 03:10:12 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems like they are trying too hard to defend the 5DIII's good points though
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2012, 07:25:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Harping on the frame rate is a bit silly.  The D800 is categorically not a PJ camera.  The differences in AWB were interesting. 
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8015


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2012, 09:31:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I essentially agree. Nikon aims for ultimate mage quality and Canon seems to set it's focus on photojournalism and sport. The reason is probably that Nikon needed an affordable 20+ MP camera and Canon probably has not the sensor technology to compete head on with Nikon.

Best regards
Erik

Harping on the frame rate is a bit silly.  The D800 is categorically not a PJ camera.  The differences in AWB were interesting. 
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2012, 12:47:00 PM »
ReplyReply

The D800 is categorically not a PJ camera. 

Why? PJ has been done with cameras that don't have the specs of the D800. There really is not such thing as a landscape camera or a PJ camera. That is just marketers speaking and I have long ago learnt to ignore those folks. The D800 will make a fine camera for photojournalism and documentary work.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2012, 04:40:14 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems like they are trying too hard to defend the 5DIII's good points though
Marc
It seemed to me that in their attempt to be "fair and balanced", they were unwilling to call out the pros/cons of each camera and mostly tried to minimize or gloss over them. For instance saying "Yeah the D800 has more detail but the 5D3 has enough", or not going into DR much at all except to say they're both "good enough", and saying both have similar noise performance without getting into what that really mean for the higher-res D800. The only clear-cut "winner" they seemed willing to declare was the 5D3 AF.

(disclaimer, I haven't watched part 2 yet)
Logged

mr purdy
Guest
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2012, 04:55:31 PM »
ReplyReply

It seemed to me that in their attempt to be "fair and balanced", they were unwilling to call out the pros/cons of each camera and mostly tried to minimize or gloss over them. For instance saying "Yeah the D800 has more detail but the 5D3 has enough", or not going into DR much at all except to say they're both "good enough", and saying both have similar noise performance without getting into what that really mean for the higher-res D800. The only clear-cut "winner" they seemed willing to declare was the 5D3 AF.

(disclaimer, I haven't watched part 2 yet)

You should watch part 2.
I didn't feel that they made excuses for anything. I felt that in their practical experience the many of the differences were minimal. They way relatively tiny differences in detail, but not much to sweat about. Same with D.R. - slight differences are there but not enough to change the character of the photo to the extent that you would switch systems or anything ;-)

Anyway this sure beats shooting stuffed animals on a tabletop, rez charts, or brick walls, IMO.

Again, watch part 2.

The only thing which really surprises me is how good the Canon's AF is - and it's better than the Nikon's.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 05:46:40 PM by mr purdy » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8015


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2012, 09:24:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

They did actually not do anything testing DR, really. The night shot was possibly closest to a DR-test.

Best regards
Erik


You should watch part 2.
I didn't feel that they made excuses for anything. I felt that in their practical experience the many of the differences were minimal. They way relatively tiny differences in detail, but not much to sweat about. Same with D.R. - slight differences are there but not enough to change the character of the photo to the extent that you would switch systems or anything ;-)

Anyway this sure beats shooting stuffed animals on a tabletop, rez charts, or brick walls, IMO.

Again, watch part 2.

The only thing which really surprises me is how good the Canon's AF is - and it's better than the Nikon's.
Logged

shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2012, 09:30:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Why? PJ has been done with cameras that don't have the specs of the D800. There really is not such thing as a landscape camera or a PJ camera. That is just marketers speaking and I have long ago learnt to ignore those folks. The D800 will make a fine camera for photojournalism and documentary work.

I'd have to disagree on that. A camera isn't much good for landscapes if it doesn't have the resolution to make large prints (60" wide) which still show fine detail close-up (closer than 'typical viewing distances' - we all know gallery audiences like to stick their noses into prints!), or if the lens can't provide corner-to-corner sharpness. A MFDB is pretty useless for journalism.
Logged
mr purdy
Guest
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2012, 09:35:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

They did actually not do anything testing DR, really. The night shot was possibly closest to a DR-test.

Best regards
Erik

Studio lighting can test DR too, but who knows how the lights were set, etc.
It would be nice to have a few of their RAW files...

Best,
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2012, 08:55:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd have to disagree on that. A camera isn't much good for landscapes if it doesn't have the resolution to make large prints (60" wide) which still show fine detail close-up (closer than 'typical viewing distances' - we all know gallery audiences like to stick their noses into prints!), or if the lens can't provide corner-to-corner sharpness.

Both of these cameras will show fine detail on a 60" print even at close viewing distances. Many other cameras will as well. All my lenses produce corner to corner sharpness and that has nothing to do with camera type. So the 5DmkIII is no less a "landscape" camera than the D800.

Quote
A MFDB is pretty useless for journalism.
Why? I use a Pentax 645D for documentary photography. Steve McCurry uses a Hasselblad MFD camera. I know photographers that use 4x5 for journalism.

I see nothing that supports that a particular type of camera (and the irony is the 5DmkIII and D800 are the same type of camera) is for a particular type of photography. Unless, of course, I was a marketer.
Logged
dseelig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 460


« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2012, 08:04:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Well I would love to have both but for me the 5d mk111 is a great upgrade and would like to have tow of them . Yes I do journalism and low light and concerts. For concerts 6 fps is about ideal 4 is too slow and 10 fps too much I say that as I have mk1v and dial them down to 6 fps for the last three years. The nikon I would make to work but it is too slow in reality. 60 inch prints wow that is huge. My printer goes 24 wide inch wide and have no desire for larger. But I wish I could afford both but cannot. We really have great choices these days. Now canon make a 30 plus meg so I do not dream of medium format anymore.
Logged
sbay
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2012, 08:57:34 PM »
ReplyReply

It seemed to me that in their attempt to be "fair and balanced", they were unwilling to call out the pros/cons of each camera and mostly tried to minimize or gloss over them. For instance saying "Yeah the D800 has more detail but the 5D3 has enough", or not going into DR much at all except to say they're both "good enough", and saying both have similar noise performance without getting into what that really mean for the higher-res D800.

I had the same feeling that the reviewers were reluctant too harshly criticize either camera. But in part II, the external reviewer is a photo journalist who comments that his target is newsprint (don't need much resolution for that) and even for double page spread in a magazine, either camera should do fine. In part I, the reviewer is a portrait photographer who is using controlled lighting so DR may not really be an issue there either. So it may really be that at this point DR and resolution are good enough in both cameras for those uses.

It would be nice if for part III they got a landscape photographer or someone who is making fine art prints, but I think they said it's going to focus on video capability.
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2012, 10:14:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Why? PJ has been done with cameras that don't have the specs of the D800. There really is not such thing as a landscape camera or a PJ camera. That is just marketers speaking and I have long ago learnt to ignore those folks. The D800 will make a fine camera for photojournalism and documentary work.

Not the way PJs shoot today.  They have come to rely on the high frame rate to fire off a quick burst then pick the best frame of the bunch.  The days of being careful, waiting, anticipating and capturing the right moment are long gone.  For the most part.  There is the odd one who's more conservative in their use of the burst rate but not many.  Look at the video.  That's exactly what they did and talked about in reviewing the images.  It's not quite 'spray 'n pray' but it's not far off.

Quote
I'd have to disagree on that. A camera isn't much good for landscapes if it doesn't have the resolution to make large prints (60" wide) which still show fine detail close-up (closer than 'typical viewing distances' - we all know gallery audiences like to stick their noses into prints!), or if the lens can't provide corner-to-corner sharpness. A MFDB is pretty useless for journalism.

Really depends on the size of prints you make.  Not everyone prints big.  Some still view photography as a more intimate viewing experience and prefer smaller prints as a result.

Quote
I essentially agree. Nikon aims for ultimate mage quality and Canon seems to set it's focus on photojournalism and sport. The reason is probably that Nikon needed an affordable 20+ MP camera and Canon probably has not the sensor technology to compete head on with Nikon.

Not sure Canon is unconcerned with image quality, Erik.  And there are fewer of those white lenses at sporting events too.  Nikon's been making inroads into the PJ realm for a number of years now. 

Logged
EgillBjarki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2012, 01:16:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I think this was a interesting comparison. I think that they did a good job being neutral and not leaning towards one or the other. I think it is clear that both cameras are pretty solid performers.

Speed and low light performance : 5DMIII

Resolution : D800

I was disappointed in Canon at first, but thinking about it, I'm not sure there are not many lenses from either side that handle this resolution. But I guess we will see if I am wrong with more and more users of both cameras.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8386



WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2012, 09:30:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Speed and low light performance : 5DMIII

Well, I have not shot the 5DIII, but the AF and low light performance of the D800 are pretty much incredible in my book.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
EgillBjarki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2012, 08:57:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree, what I have seen looks really clean from D800. I have shot neither camera, but the Canon has more fps (speed) and I'm sure it does have a edge in ISO, but I think the edge is smaller than expected in ISO.

Well, I have not shot the 5DIII, but the AF and low light performance of the D800 are pretty much incredible in my book.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 437


WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2012, 03:56:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd have to disagree on that. A camera isn't much good for landscapes if it doesn't have the resolution to make large prints (60" wide) which still show fine detail close-up (closer than 'typical viewing distances' - we all know gallery audiences like to stick their noses into prints!), or if the lens can't provide corner-to-corner sharpness. A MFDB is pretty useless for journalism.

Who the hell determined that landscape photography doesn't qualify as landscape photography unless it's printed at 60" wide? This is preposterous.
Roy
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 04:03:43 AM by OldRoy » Logged
mr purdy
Guest
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2012, 10:47:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Who the hell determined that landscape photography doesn't qualify as landscape photography unless it's printed at 60" wide? This is preposterous.
Roy

Indeed! I have been in NY for 20 years, and seen Ansel Adams prints a million times. Not one of them was 60" wide Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad