LSE: it's a shame really. the faux 1080p soft output of the 5DmkIII combined with the lack of a codec that doesn't fall appart in post or during motion make its advances in low light peformance and sensor sampling much less attractive. If they had a clean uncompressed 4:2:2 out and more detailed output it would have been nearly perfect. But in 2012, those levels of resolution combined with restrictive internal codec choices and the lack of higher fps for 1080 make the 5DIII a total non starter. I guess we'll see how the 1DX will do or the rumored D600. For now all these HDSLRs are seriously lagging behind.
LSE, you are really arguing with yourself here. Why are you arguing FOR Canon to have comparable features of lesser cameras for a lower price when at the end you call it a silly Canon toy? If you actually read the article I mentioned, here's a direct quote from Canon about the future of 4K: "Canon says it doesn't expect 4K to be a practical concern for many individuals in the short term. However, the ability to archive original footage at high resolution, in preparation for the market catching up could be a draw for the cinema and broadcast industry."
So do you work in the cinema and broadcast industry? If not, then no need to argue for Canon about their poor 1080p performance because there are better options out there made by Canon, RED, Sony, et al. If you are in the cinema and broadcast industry, you shouldn't be arguing for a $3500 still photo camera to have broadcast quality video. Simple as that!
russbarnes: No surprises here: " it is clear that even at base ISO some visibly destructive noise reduction is applied to the image. This results in very clean images which lack some of the low-contrast detail you would find in fine textures such as fur or foliage in the distance. A comparatively aggressive default sharpening leads to traces of 'sharpening halos' around high-contrast edges. Noise reduction increases as you go up the ISO scale but the destruction of fine detail becomes more obvious once you reach ISO 3200"
Mushy JPEGs with fine detail that's been "destroyed". Hmmmm and this was meant to be Canon's top selling point for this camera, a claim of a "2 stop reduction in noise". Everyone knew that statement was a joke when it was announced. This is all no real surprise though - anyone would come to this conclusion looking at any sample anywhere out of the camera.
People who shoot JPEG are typically your photographers who are shooting for someone else. I get hired as a freelance journalist and when clients want to see all 1300 photos of a 3 hour event I covered, shooting in JPEG to sacrifice quality over quantity pays dividends in the real world. I typically don't have the luxury to run home and process 1300 RAWs to JPEGs, and furthermore, my client never has an adequate workstation for me to do this for them. So JPEG it is when shooting for others and must strive for convenience.
Point and shoot cameras don't have the feasibility for my line of work.
Seriously lagging behind what? Digital TV and film production cameras? In case you forgot, HDSLRs are still priced and marketed toward amateur and professional 'photographers' and not professional 'videographers'.
Also, I believe what you are truly looking for is this: Canon has already announced a 4K DSLR with 8-bit 4:2:2 1080p HDMI output: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/12/Canon-EOS-1D-C-4K-capable-DSLR
But like with all technology, if you are demanding these specs in a $3500 camera, wait 5 years and you'll have your wish.
AdventureRob: The final score was a bit unexpected for me. I know you have to please the Canon boys, but the D800 is a real effort from Nikon and they should be rewarded as such. The 82% seemed fair until Canon got their 82% for taking 4 years to do minor upgrades to this.
The mk2 was a fine camera (and still is), which makes the slightly upgraded mk3 a fine camera too. But even people here who are rooting for Canon recognise it loses out in a lot of ways to Nikon this time round. It seems like Canon treated this as an annually updated camera like a rebel/xxxd series camera as opposed to the full frame flagship.
I think 82% is a fair score on balance for the mk3. But 82% on the D800 seems unjustified now.
Just to clarify I used to own Canon and Nikon dSLRs and am much more happier with my OM-D now, so my view is a balanced one. I've certainly never been a Nikon fan boy.
@ Mr. Britton,
I've said it before but I'll say it again here: People are putting too much weight on the percentage number used in Dpreview's scoring method. This is a good reason why a review site that goes as in depth about products as Dpreview does shouldn't have the bottom line of their reviews adhere to a numerical standard. It only sets off dissidence from those who wish to dissect the minutia Dpreview's reviews are known for. Dpreview needs to revamp their chosen scoring system because of the furor we are seeing from the dissident audience who follow the logic, "I have clear evidence that one camera is better than the other, therefore anyone who disagrees with that evidence is utterly wrong, including Dpreview."
To Dpreview, I say ditch the percentage numbers all together and stick with the Gold, Silver and Bronze awards if you want a more reputable bottom line in reviews.
Jonathan F/2: Dpreview scores are definitely tainted. The D800 and 5Dm3 get the same score? So despite having 36mp and being $500 USD cheaper, you guys feel the 5D mark III is equal to the D800? The cons for the D800 are more like niggles, while the cons for the 5Dm3 are issues of concern. And even stated on the 5Dm3 review itself "Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category." Yeah right.
I believe people put too much weight on the percentage number used in Dpreview's scoring method. This is a good reason why a review site that goes as in depth about products as Dpreview does shouldn't have the bottom line of their reviews be a numerical value. It only sets off dissidence from those who wish to dissect the very specific details Dpreview's reviews are known for. I wouldn't go so far as to call Dpreview scores 'tainted' because of the weight that people are placing on a single numerical value, however, I will say that they need to revamp their chosen scoring system because of the furor we are seeing from the dissident audience who seem to think, "one camera MUST be better than the other, therefore anyone who disagrees with this logic is utterly wrong, including Dpreview."
rusty_shooter: wow I'm just totally surprise by how many folks shoot in JPEG mode and not RAW. personally I would never shot in JPEG with a camera of this caliber. mainly because I want maximum control over my images. but you know that just me, from what I see from the review I better start gathering up some cash, haha. I've been waiting for this camera for a long time and I'm glad I built up an L collection.
JPEGs are used mainly for convenience. While it is true that a camera of this caliber deserves to be shot in RAW most if not all of the time, photographers who shoot for convenience shoot in JPEG. I work in photojournalism, so when I shoot for a client, most of time I shoot in JPEG because of time constraints and not having a sufficient work station to adequately work on photos on my own time. When you get to the point of shooting several thousands of photos per week, the convenience of JPEGs pays dividends. On the occasion I do shoot for pleasure, you can be sure I want to push out the best my camera offers, which is when I shoot RAW.
Aero Windwalker: For $699.95, this is going to be the best selling Nikon or even the best selling DSLR in the next 6 months.
And we'll likely see it down to $599 with rebates before the end of this year.
Ruy Penalva: Will NiKon be able to follow Canon paces or will it stay lagging behind?
Canon is obviously carving it's own path here, so it's safe to say Nikon will not be lagging behind when it comes down to something called PHOTOgraphy.
slsphoto: Lots of hype about super resolution and sharpnest....that's great, everyone wants that; but I haven't seen any bragging about super low noise or low light prowess. Makes me wonder...? I need to see a good review which determines if there is really any noticable image quality improvement over the D700, except in bright light with the highest resolution lens.
I don't care about video; I'm one of many advanced amature/semi-pros trying to create the best wall art I can; more for love than money; often shooting low light land/sea/cityscapes.
Bokeh, people must be reminded that Nikon was founded on - and still is, an optics company first and foremost with camera manufacturing coming in next. Even though the company balance sheets show that they're in the business of camera manufacturing, their passion has always been NIKKOR branded optics.
That being said, nobody except Nikon knows how well their optics perform on the D800. It is fallacious to make a preconceived notion regarding lens performance on a camera before it is released. Besides, I highly doubt Nikon would release a hotly anticipated camera and not already have adequate optics available for it.
Upadhya: I was hoping the specs to be a little different than the rumors said, but I am proved wrong. I am an amateur, don’t take pictures for a living and I have a D300. I was hoping to upgrade to a full frame. Not sure if this is what I want to upgrade to.
If you ask me why I want to go full frame – I love taking pictures using natural light, don’t like using additional lighting. Thought the high ISO performance would help and the additional wide angle benefit.
I predict the price of the D700 body only to be around $1800-2000 US in about 3-4 months from now. This isn't because people will be jumping ship and a fire sale will occur for D700 owners. It is simply because the majority of *new* full-frame camera buyers will be purchasing the D800 while the minority will be looking for a used D700, which tends to drive the price down.
It is lighter and smaller than the D700. Handling this beast will be a breeze!
Glad they didn't go with the QXD memory card and opted for the SD/CF combo.