Canon 5D3 or Nikon D800(E)

Digifrog

Digifrog

Messages
1,069
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Hello

Well, this is a sort of poll if you like to those considering one or the other as I'm very curious to know what path people are considering in taking. I guess there will be a fair number of people who are considering this step will actually stick with the system they have already. For those like me who are ready to upgrade to FF for the first time, it's a true either/or situation.

Today is March 1st and we have now seen the 5D3 specs and whilst we haven't seen any proper user images from either camera (yet) what are you thinking? Which one tempts you the most? Can you begin your reply with the choice you are thinking at the top for claritys sake.

==============================================================================================================================================

Nikon D800

The thing that's swaying me towards the Nikon is, it's a system I already know, albeit DX. The camera looks solidly built and properly sealed. And that's about it presently. Like with most I'm waiting to see images from normal people to pick out those subtle nuances.

Good luck with your choice.

(y)
 
He means SPECulationS lol
 
Sorry, yes, speculative atm. Assuming that the new spec list given on canonrumours is accurate due to its detail.
 
Last edited:
since I've not seen any reviews on either camera and been able to study the images how can I expected to make a decision?
 
I'm staying with Canon due to too much EF glass in my possession. As much as I'd love 36MP D800 - 16mp on DsII is actually just above the critical pixel mass for me - which means that I'd be happy enough with 5D3, 1Dx (too expensive :LOL:) or even 1DsIII as an upgrade. The important 'new' to me features would be native ISO 6400, F-coated sensor, perhaps video for a little play, 16bit (not yet!) and better dynamic range / processing latitude.
 
Phil Young said:
Well well well.......Looks like Nikon over takes Canon in the video realm.

Not a bad effort by Canon but apart from the iso...the mark 2 should really have been all this...

Oh well. D800 for me!
Click to expand...

The second line has no relevance on whether the camera is good or bad and your point on the video.....all that pops into mind is all those people moaning they wish it was never implemented lol not that I care.

What I care about is how the system come together as a whole, including its lenses. What we have here is a semi pro body, full frame with a pro body AF system.

It is the stuff I've been dreaming about for about 6/7 years and I can finally afford one, or two :D

Also, I want to know where are all those nikonians who says the 5dii has too many pixels and the D700 has the perfect amount are now that the D800 has 36mp! People are so fickle and biased towards what they have invested into (I'm guilty of this too) it is hard to take some post seriously. One needs to look at things objectively as if you are starting from scratch and compare the system, not just the body, otherwise we might as well all start shooting Sony!

At the end of the day, they are both great cameras, often the short comings is the end user and not the gear. People complain about 5d's AF and I agree to a point, but I can also show you numerous shots of photos that shot in low light with it and photos of moving subjects that I focused with the outer points, at f/1.2! Yes, outer points, low light, fast moving object at that depth of field.

Anyway, the people who chooses between these bodies are likely to have invested thousand if not tens of thousands into existing bodies, lenses and flash already so it really is a moot point bar a few to make the switch over. Canon users will get the 5diii and Nikon users will get the D800 and they all will sing it's praises til the cow comes home. It is human nature.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Also, I want to know where are all those nikonians who says the 5dii has too many pixels and the D700 has the perfect amount are now that the D800 has 36mp!
Click to expand...

They've not changed their minds, they've been very active on the D800 thread complaining vociferously about the increase in resolution!
 
I am locked into Nikon, but have a reservation about the D800. 36 megapixels pushes the Raw file size up to 74.4 MB.

Not too bothered about the in camera implications of that, but downloading and processing will take much longer unless I get a new PC.
 
Even with the new specs of the 5D MkIII (released today) the D800 is still top of list for me. The intended price of the MkIII is just greedy when you compare it to the D800.
 
arclight said:
I am locked into Nikon, but have a reservation about the D800. 36 megapixels pushes the Raw file size up to 74.4 MB.

Not too bothered about the in camera implications of that, but downloading and processing will take much longer unless I get a new PC.
Click to expand...

There are reduced resolution RAW options though aren't there?
 
As a Nikon shooter I prefer the specs of he 5d3 over the D800 tbh, though I can't see why its so much more expensive! Don't think I'l be changing for a while as the D700 is excellent but the D4 is the one im lusting for.
 
gman said:
Even with the new specs of the 5D MkIII (released today) the D800 is still top of list for me. The intended price of the MkIII is just greedy when you compare it to the D800.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be surprised if it drops steadily over the first few months and settles around the price of the D800. I do like the specs though and think Canon's ticked just about every box on the 5D3 and 22MP is more than enough. Presumably the weather-sealing is improved too.
 
Houston1863 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if it drops steadily over the first few months and settles around the price of the D800. I do like the specs though and think Canon's ticked just about every box on the 5D3 and 22MP is more than enough. Presumably the weather-sealing is improved too.
Click to expand...

by which time the D800 will be below the current pre order price lol
 
Phil Young said:
Uncompressed video for broadcast quality, 720p/60
Click to expand...

i don't think the uncompressed video is going to be that big a hit due to it's size and the cost of the extra equipment needed for it. People want compressed RAW video like what comes from a RED camera
 
Regarding the large file size, I have seen this statement from Nikon which seems interesting. What are your thoughts on this. It would seem to me to make the camera extremely versatile. Below is the question and answer, sorry if this has been covered already.......



While many people have high expectations of the kind of image quality possible with 36.3 megapixels, I think some may worry that it'll be tough taking full advantage of that potential. What have you done to make the camera accessible to a wide range of users?

Hara: "The D800 has an effective pixel count of 36.3 megapixels, but that doesn't mean it can take pictures only at that size. There are three image sizes – large, medium, and small – and you can choose the one that suits your needs. In FX format, the large size enables shooting with about 36.2 megapixels, while about 20.3 megapixels are used for the medium size, or maybe if you're taking snapshots you'll find you can get by with the small size, which is about 9 megapixels. Both the medium and small settings use data from the full extent of the 36.3-megapixel sensor optimally processed to a smaller size using EXPEED 3. Therefore, we suggest selecting medium or small for normal use and choosing large only for, say, group portraits or very high resolution landscape shots. And just like our high-end D4 model, the D800 offers a choice of four image area settings: FX format, DX format, a nearly square 5:4 format that studio photographers will find easy to use, and a 1.2x format that is slightly narrower than the FX format. Each of these formats is available in the large, medium, and small sizes I mentioned earlier, giving the photographer considerable freedom in choosing a size."
 
joescrivens said:
i don't think the uncompressed video is going to be that big a hit due to it's size and the cost of the extra equipment needed for it. People want compressed RAW video like what comes from a RED camera
Click to expand...

We'll see.

It's always a battle of overtaking for nikon and canon. Canon started resolution wars...nikon caught up. Nikon started iso wars...canon...kind of...caught up, canon started video wars...and nikon has caught up :)
 
Phil Young said:
We'll see.

It's always a battle of overtaking for nikon and canon. Canon started resolution wars...nikon caught up. Nikon started iso wars...canon...kind of...caught up, canon started video wars...and nikon has caught up :)
Click to expand...

i'm going to start a battle of epic proportions and see who can catch up :D
 
Isn't there something about Lightroom 4 and how it handles large files which will make this even less of a problem?
 
gman said:
Isn't there something about Lightroom 4 and how it handles large files which will make this even less of a problem?
Click to expand...
Yes. You can now embed 'Fast Load Data' into the RAW file for faster processing. Also, there is a new lossy DNG format which massively reduces the RAW file sizes (down to about a third of the original size I think) with no discernible loss in image quality... I'm probably going to archive all my RAW files as lossy DNG's from now on, just need to trial it a bit more first.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's always been this way. What Nikon has not caught up on is the lenses.
Click to expand...

What lenses are Nikon really missing, the only one I can think of is a decent 100-400 competitor, and some super telephotos.

All the Nikkor 1.4 primes are good, and Nikon has the trinity of 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. Canon's 24-70 isn't as good as the Nikkor and they don't even make a 14-24.
 
redddraggon said:
What lenses are Nikon really missing, the only one I can think of is a decent 100-400 competitor, and some super telephotos.

All the Nikkor 1.4 primes are good, and Nikon has the trinity of 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. Canon's 24-70 isn't as good as the Nikkor and they don't even make a 14-24.
Click to expand...

Nikon seems to have the advanatge with UWA's but Canon offers better standard and short tele f/4 zooms plus theres the new 24-70.

As someone who might be looking to go FF for mostly landscape pics the D800E is exactly the body I'd be after but having to go with the holy trinity of 2.8 zooms would likely be both too expensive and too heavy for me. The 16-35 f/4 VR does look very appealing but I'd be a bit concerned about how well it would hold up on such a high resolution sensor, even moreso the 24-120 f/4 VR and theres no 70-200 f/4 option.
 
Last edited:
redddraggon said:
What lenses are Nikon really missing, the only one I can think of is a decent 100-400 competitor, and some super telephotos.

All the Nikkor 1.4 primes are good, and Nikon has the trinity of 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. Canon's 24-70 isn't as good as the Nikkor and they don't even make a 14-24.
Click to expand...

Add to that a whole wealth of MF lenses.

I will stick with Nikon, doubt I could afford to switch to Canon looking at the prices of the bodies, lenses and flash guns ...

Still you have to congratulate the marketing departments of both Nikon and Canon the way that they convince people that they have to change up to the latest and greatest when their current kit works perfectly well :shrug:
 
redddraggon said:
What lenses are Nikon really missing, the only one I can think of is a decent 100-400 competitor, and some super telephotos.

All the Nikkor 1.4 primes are good, and Nikon has the trinity of 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. Canon's 24-70 isn't as good as the Nikkor and they don't even make a 14-24.
Click to expand...

I agree. Canon has the greater selection and has some exotics like f/1.2 50mm but its all down to what you require. If you require a 24-70 then its not a big deal. If you need a 400mm f/5.6 then you would be at a disadvantage with Nikon but there are ways round it....
 
Moreorless said:
Nikon seems to have the advanatge with UWA's but Canon offers better standard and short tele f/4 zooms plus theres the new 24-70.

As someone who might be looking to go FF for mostly landscape pics the D800E is exactly the body I'd be after but having to go with the holy trinity of 2.8 zooms would likely be both too expensive and too heavy for me. The 16-35 f/4 VR does look very appealing but I'd be a bit concerned about how well it would hold up on such a high resolution sensor, even moreso the 24-120 f/4 VR and theres no 70-200 f/4 option.
Click to expand...

Hmm, on the whole I'd (and many other people I know) consider the F/4 zooms WGAF lenses.

The Nikon 24-120 F/4 is pretty good though, sharp, albeit with a little distortion, and a 70-200mm F/4 is rumoured.
 
redddraggon said:
Hmm, on the whole I'd (and many other people I know) consider the F/4 zooms WGAF lenses.

The Nikon 24-120 F/4 is pretty good though, sharp, albeit with a little distortion, and a 70-200mm F/4 is rumoured.
Click to expand...

what portrait primes do nikon have to compare with the 85mm 1.2 and the 135mm f/2?
 
redddraggon said:
What lenses are Nikon really missing, the only one I can think of is a decent 100-400 competitor, and some super telephotos.

All the Nikkor 1.4 primes are good, and Nikon has the trinity of 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. Canon's 24-70 isn't as good as the Nikkor and they don't even make a 14-24.
Click to expand...

I think the one that's often quoted is the MP-E macro lens

I'm never really hung up on brands. Much prefer to see what people do with it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's always been this way. What Nikon has not caught up on is the lenses.
Click to expand...

Surely you're having a laugh? What are Nikon missing? Canon efs lenses are ******...serious peices of junk...I think Nikon leaves them for dust in the budget lens department. Then lets compare both manufactorer 24-70 canons version is shocking! Oh... Perhaps that's why they brought out the "mk2".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top