Previous news story    Next news story

Just updated: Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview with real world samples

By dpreview staff on Mar 23, 2012 at 17:14 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $3,399.007 deals

We've updated our Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview with a selection of real world samples images and more detailed descriptions of the camera's behavior. We've shot a range of subjects under different lighting types and light levels to see how the latest 22MP performs. These shots were taken using a pre-production camera running final firmware, so may not be 100% representative of final image quality (though Canon allowing us to publish them suggests they're not far off). We're expecting a production-standard camera and will be adding studio test shots next week.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview samples - posted 23 March 2012

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.There are 30 'real-world' images in the preview samples gallery, and 24 still-life samples. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

 Click here to read our 5D Mk III hands-on preview
1445
I own it
540
I want it
41
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 401
123
Russ Tashhaev
By Russ Tashhaev (Apr 1, 2012)

And BTW - in astro photography we are using very long exposures, like hours at the time. So the only way to keep sensor's noise down - is to attach to it's back powerful cooler that literally froze it to below zero temperatures. That's how they build those special cameras.
There for my professional advise for Nikon D800 fans - take your camera, yourself and your model in local meat reefer or travel above Polar Circle. Only then you can compare
your high-ISO shots to the Canon 5D Mark III taken, for example where I live. That is Phoenix, AZ.
LOL.

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Mar 27, 2012)

Another great camera for the Canon fans, congrats.

1 upvote
Sasha2012
By Sasha2012 (Mar 27, 2012)

I have Canon 7D for 2 years. Some of those pictures taken by Mark III are “soft” like pictures taken by 7D. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mark III has the same problem like 7D (soft images + autofocus problem). I am not sure if Mark III is worth buying…

1 upvote
pc168
By pc168 (Mar 27, 2012)

I had bad experience with the 1 series AF system. Canon tuned it for 3 times ... at the end ... I sold it. Switched to Nikon D700 thereafter. The MarkIII/1DX 61 points AF system is a new breed, we've no idea how reliable it would be ...

2 upvotes
Stanley zheng
By Stanley zheng (Mar 27, 2012)

soft???? really?

9 upvotes
Dianoda
By Dianoda (Mar 27, 2012)

The non-ACR version of the shot with the tree and blue+orange flowers is soft compared to the ACR-processed version (which is quite sharp indeed).

My guess is that the softer version is a RAW processed with Canon's DPP software, which has a known issue when converting RAW files to JPEGs - thedigitalpicture does a good job of documenting the issue, but basically the issue is that the image looks sharp in DPP quickview mode, but appears softer in the fancier rendering mode and the actual converted JPEG/TIFF file output.

Canon's working on a fix and it should be as simple as a DPP software update. There's no reason to believe that there's anything wrong with the camera itself or it's files - which is pretty clear to see when you pixel peep the low ISO ACR processed samples.

The OP's comment about the 7D is not consistent with my own experiences. My 7D's been just fine, AF work well and the output is sharp enough given the high pixel density of the sensor.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Russ Tashhaev
By Russ Tashhaev (Apr 1, 2012)

Mark III at this point have issue (possible human error when releasing firmware) with image being absolutely sharp in preview window but soft when you put it in edit window in DPP. You can read more about it at the-digital-picture dot com.
What really makes me laugh - is that Nikon D800 fans trying compare high-iso (25600) images to the Canon 5D mark III. I've spent years in digital astro photography (where we fight for every photon of light from millions light years away most of the times) and I know difference about signal/noise ratio when it comes to same size sensor with more pixels on it. It is proportionally higher. But they got to love those MEGA pixels :).

0 upvotes
Street Photo Guy
By Street Photo Guy (Apr 3, 2012)

I own a 7D and have no problem. Try using a different lens as in most cases this is what is causing the "softness"

I would like to see how the Fujifilm X-pro1 compares with these. Not sure if I will upgrade my 7D considering the price. You can always win one for free:) They are having a 5D MkIII contest here: http://www.facebook.com/pictureline?v=app_150794994973742&rest=1
if anybody is interested. Who knows!

Awesome work DPReview, I have been a viewer for quite a while now but just made an account with you.

0 upvotes
World Peace
By World Peace (Mar 26, 2012)

D800 is the best right now. Just look at the sensor ratings http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D800-Review/Sensor-performance

4 upvotes
Stanley zheng
By Stanley zheng (Mar 27, 2012)

yeah at this point d800 is the best, but they havent done any testing on mark III, I would love to see the result...

0 upvotes
llopart
By llopart (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes DXOmark also says the d800 rank 3rd as a camera for sports from all the cameras currently available...
I just tryed a 5d Mark III from a old friend from Canon with my EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS and I took all the pictures at ISO 12800 at the street at 9pm with very limited light situation. Amazing camera very clean pictures. Sorry I forgot to get the pictures in my card but I can tell you that I am placing my order for a Mark III tonight....

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes it has the best DR at low ISO which is good for Nikon shooters ;) 5DIII is better than mkII but not as good as D800. The banding issue is still present.

I've thought about switching to Nikon, but will propably wait for Canon's rumoured high resolution camera.

Another thing is that Canon has an edge with the lenses IMO. The lineup is more complete and Nikon lacks some of the stuff like TS-E 17mm. I've checked many comparisons and charts, and it seems that many Nikon glass has higher CA and less corner sharpness. Telephoto zooms seem to better with Canon too.

Plus with adapthers its possible to use Nikkor etc. lenses on Canon body.

3 upvotes
jarq69
By jarq69 (Mar 27, 2012)

hm ... is something wrong with my obsolete canon 5d? It still gives me outstanding quality pictures - unless I don't see this huge gap between pictures quality of 5d-d800-5dmkIII - should I fix it or smth? :D...

one of a thousands ordinary pictures from 5d:
http://punktywidzenia.pl/prv/marianka.jpg

Don't you all just forget about a PHOTOGRAPHY? Or maybe the Photography doesn't matter these days? Really don't understand these new_gear-lovers-fights-and-whines ...

0 upvotes
BitFarmer
By BitFarmer (Mar 27, 2012)

jard69: I think we all care about photography quite a lot, but this a forum about reviewing new cameras, you what else would you spect?

We are not going to complain about the figurines selected for the studio shots being ugly or not pleasently placed, we just want them to have challenging zones and well in focus to compare between models.

All the DSLRs ever made can give you marvellous shots, but in dificult situations, a newer one will perform better, may be you will be able to get focus where your actual one can't, or use a higer ISO so you can better stop motion of the subjects, and it all counts.

3 upvotes
jarq69
By jarq69 (Mar 27, 2012)

BitFarmer: I agree and I know the destination of this forum but I have premonition that people looking for gear which will think and do everything for them - and (what is most ridiculous) will praise their favorite camera to the skies for that 1% gain of functionality over the opposite :). Unfortunately I'm sure they will never find a camera that will make them happy - for short time - maybe ... but only that.

I think if I could take perfect pictures only ... it would be so boring.

0 upvotes
Stanley zheng
By Stanley zheng (Mar 28, 2012)

@ jarq69. There is nothing called a perfect picture, cuz everybody has a different taste and perception. it maybe perfect to you but not necessarily perfect for everyone else. The need of having the best gear, there is in the market, does not necessarily improve your photography and neither it is a value that can be appreciated by everyone, but definitely gives you a self satisfaction, and raise your self esteem..:). Thats y companies keep on producing new stuff and expensive stuff, for these reasons. So if you are already satisfied with the gear you have then stay with it, and for those who yearn for more they can go and buy them, Personally, I dont see there is anything wrong with either decision..:)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stanley zheng
By Stanley zheng (Mar 28, 2012)

the stupid ones are the one who claim that their equipment is the best and insist that everyone should listen to them and follow their footstep, ahahahahahaahhahahahaha

0 upvotes
treepop
By treepop (Mar 26, 2012)

Where is my official review! I needs it!

0 upvotes
jak2
By jak2 (Mar 26, 2012)

Nikon v Canon... for all but the rare few, if your cam body is getting a little long in the tooth I suspect getting the latest DSLR body which your lens collection will be compatible with is likely not going to get in the way of the quality of your output. The brand zealots should be grateful the competition in DSLRs exists and remains strong.

5 upvotes
Caplin
By Caplin (Mar 26, 2012)

nothing new pictures quality same????

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 26, 2012)

How exactly can you draw that conclusion without access to many--dozens or even hundreds---of raw files?

All you can draw any conclusion about is jpeg engines and raw extraction to jpeg. Neither has much to do with general image quality.

If for some reason you can't or won't shoot raw, you need to share that information when making comments like the above.

0 upvotes
Martin Mojzis
By Martin Mojzis (Mar 26, 2012)

The 5DMIII has many small, at first sight not so obvious differences, but they can make life easier for the photographer :)
- After capturing an image and preview on this display can already magnify pressing the loupe (at 5dMII was necessary to hide the preview, then reappear and then we went to enlarge)
- Loupe can be set to magnify about 100% (like Nikon) + many other options
- Can be set to shoot in different aspect ratios, as well as the Nikon D3 series. Moreover, there is such ratio 16:9 or 1:1 - a square. Raw will still be displayed 3:2, but if you are using software CPP, the settings are there as a cut.
- Switch on - off controller much more comfortable
- Both wheels are pleasant to the touch with a better run
- Extending the exposure compensation scale -3 - +3
etc.

I use Nikon and I have no reason to change, but I also like Canon and I like when cameras are by photographers constructed, not by accountants and marketers...

8 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Mar 26, 2012)

I heard the same thing about the 1D III vs 1D II. 1D III offered a large number of small and few not so small improvements that overall added to a much better package. I see the same thing with the 5D III. Pure IQ may not be much bette, but AF is and that will allow me to get a far higher keeper rate than 5D II ever could with action work at least. I reckon the IQ difference will be huge in servo mode. For the first time since EOS 3, we've seen a a lot of formerly only 1 series features come to an affordable prosumer model.

0 upvotes
Slatan
By Slatan (Mar 26, 2012)

I believe the vast majority of posters here are not payed for their photography. A professional would think this 5d3 / d800 matter very objective: how much more money will I make using this new camera? Do some math and if it's worthwhile, buy it. If not (MOST LIKELY!!!), just move on until new gear is really needed.

2 upvotes
Gustavo Acosta
By Gustavo Acosta (Mar 26, 2012)

thats exactly what I did when the mark II came out... Im still proud owner of the 5D. This time, I will be upgrading to the 5D3.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Mar 28, 2012)

Agreed that few real professionals have time for this. But even for a true professional, I have a hard time seeing a client examining a file or a print and saying "That's a spectacular photo! It's too bad you didn't use a D800; I spotted that right away." Maybe it's different with video.

0 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 26, 2012)

Can you take a multiple exposure shot (in camera) with the III? I hope they added this feature...

0 upvotes
dwischnewski
By dwischnewski (Mar 26, 2012)

Yes.

1 upvote
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 26, 2012)

When talking about high ISO performance how about the loss in color saturation, contrast and detail? I read mainly about noise, does anyone has more (real, good, professional!) knowlegde about this point?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 26, 2012)

Then general rule is that dynamic range (aka DR) goes down as ISO goes up.

However better lenses can add to colour range and subtleties at all ISO settings. So the glass very much matters at say ISO10,000. (This lens point is something that appears to be lost on those who constantly cite the DXO sensor score.)

0 upvotes
Bosman Photography
By Bosman Photography (Mar 26, 2012)

What annoys me is that people dont seem to stick to the blogs subject. This is about the 5D3, why are there more Nikon people posting on here than anything? There are plenty of honest debates about whether this is the camera for you but seriously this is ridiculous.
Testing out the 1dm3 against the new 5dm3 is also interesting, the focus is more accurate and quicker, holy crap! It really is nice.
On the note of the posting of the image samples. I posted samples on another site and people just wanted the moon. It really is ridiculous when you think about how much time this all takes to do all this so people can turn around and complain anyway. The image samples DPR show are for variables in architecture and nature to show you the characteristics of the camera not so you can sit in awe and get a new desktop image for your computer. lol
I do think people should be in the samples however. Thanks for the time you took to post those DPR.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 26, 2012)

The more you learn about people, the more you'll love your dog...

7 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Mar 26, 2012)

The more you learn about dogs, the more you'll love your cat...

6 upvotes
Jan from UK
By Jan from UK (Mar 26, 2012)

~ I've studied and studied and double checked all the reports and specifications of both the Nikon D800 and the 5D Mk3 (also the number of L series lenses I have). I need my 5D to be the master of all trades. The Nikon D800 is, in reality, the master of a few trades. My 5D Mk3 plus 70-200 f2.8 L Mk2 will arrive by Thursday 29th March 2012. I am a very happy person!

2 upvotes
Olgierd
By Olgierd (Mar 26, 2012)

Got mine 5D3 Thursday. Upgraded from 5D2. After weekend I can say I love it. Has it better quality at low ISO than 5d2 - No.
Has it better quality at ISO3200 and higher - Yes.
But there's more then this. AF is simply stunning. Add silent shooting, more than 3 frames in AEB, HDR, really good overall handling and many other features. Trumps 1DS3 and still at half of its initial price. I guess I sound like another happy Canon customer. But I truly am.
I don't consider Nikon (too many EF lenses since my first Canon EOS 300D). And for those Canon folks who are not sure if 5D3 is worth buying, I strongly suggest to find one in local store and simply try it.

8 upvotes
Carlos C
By Carlos C (Mar 26, 2012)

Very well said. I find myself fighting this "need to get the latest" syndrome often.

1 upvote
New Guy Wanna Learn
By New Guy Wanna Learn (Mar 26, 2012)

Hehe...true! ^_^

0 upvotes
n1zr
By n1zr (Mar 26, 2012)

Could you elaborate on how it trumps the 1Ds3? It sounds like IQ at higher ISO's and AF (with some bonuses like silent shooting, LCD elc). How's the weather-sealing for instance?

0 upvotes
glonislav
By glonislav (Mar 26, 2012)

"Has it better quality at low ISO than 5d2 - No."
Do you mean it has worse quality at low ISO, or just similar?

0 upvotes
Olgierd
By Olgierd (Mar 26, 2012)

n1zr: like I've told you somewhere else on this forum :-)
Mainly features. And again 1ds3 has better shutter (rated for more clicks), built in grip and no mode selector dial (guess those two features make it better weather resistant than 5D3).
In every other aspect 5D3 has improvements over 1DS3 - AF, HDR, multiple exposures, video, silent shutter (this single feature is awesome), faster fpm, more custom functions, better at higher ISO. I find it more all-around camera than 1DS3.

0 upvotes
Olgierd
By Olgierd (Mar 26, 2012)

glonislaw: sorry, I meant hi ISO. I really doubt it has much of improvement (if any) at lower settings.

0 upvotes
seminolecapt
By seminolecapt (Mar 26, 2012)

Unfortunately, in the US we not longer have "local stores" for high end DSLRs unless you live in NYC, LA, Chicago, ATL, or a handful of very big cities. Amazon and B&H online have eaten the rest of the brick and mortar retail world. In most areas, it will be very difficulty to find a new 5D3 to hold in your hand. That is why these reviews and comments are so critical to so many of us. Many thanks to all who take the time to give thoughtful descriptions and reviews.

0 upvotes
Olgierd
By Olgierd (Mar 26, 2012)

seminolecapt:

I got mine from Adorama (here in the US). But you are right It's hard to find local photo stores. Last good store in my state (Penn Camera in DC & MD) have closed down few months ago.
Other option is to rent one (after they are more available) or buy one and then keep or return if you don't like it.

0 upvotes
benvincent
By benvincent (Mar 26, 2012)

As a working photographer for many, many years, let me share this opinion re this discussion.
Is your camera good enough to do the job? If your client hands you green & white paper that you can put in the bank...then the answer is Yes.
When a student tells me at a class for oh, let's say understanding exposure, that they're getting a new super camera, I always like to ask: So you think your current camera is stalling your progress (I laugh inwardly) and a new, "better" camera is all you need to take it to the next level? Remember a better camera will probably show your weaknesses way better also.
Come on equipment junkies - do you really think you've outgrown your Mk2...let's get serious about photography and not just possessing a "bigger" camera than the next guy!

8 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Mar 26, 2012)

I shoot a lot of HDR, just to extend the brightness range a bit, not as a goofy effect. I even do this handheld. If you can explain to me how I can shoot more than 3 bracketed exposures on my mkII, without carrying around a Promote remote control with bunch of cables and a tripod, then maybe I made a mistake buying the III.

0 upvotes
BasilFawlty
By BasilFawlty (Mar 26, 2012)

Agreed; most people do NOT need a new camera. But for anyone shooting fulltime, a substantially better autofocus, better focus in lowlight, a useful Auto-ISO, and silent shooting make it worth the cost. Anyone shooting photojournalistically now has a Canon that actually works FOR them instead of against them.

1 upvote
llopart
By llopart (Mar 27, 2012)

I do. I shoot 90% of my pictures in dim light. This camera will let me use my 70-200 2.8 and other lenses in situation that I currently can't. I will catch great pictures for my customers that can only be done with very fast primes.
I tested from a friend and its AF system is great for my line of work. I came to realize that I don't want this camera but I need it for what I do....

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 26, 2012)

I'm hoping Canon will rethink their restrictions of 'single/same' ISO requirement for HDR/M.E. (multiple exposure) image combinations, and address this in firmware. Vast majority of those eager to utilize HDR/M.E. would know how to best handle optimal ISO selection when doing 'natural DR' that is beyond any dSLR/dcam system so far for 'single capture', so it makes sense for them to allow us the choice of combining multi-ISO images rather than just 'single/same' ISO. also, not restrict it to RAW only, but multi-ISO JPEGs for HDR/M.E. combinations. I scrutinized the 5DMkIII manual, and have no way of knowing if they dumbed down its HDR/M.E. feature from their 1Dx (given the 1Dx manual isn't yet out for comparison). Such restriction makes the 5DMkIII that much less attractive for me, as I enjoy creative capture 'in the field' and not 'photoshopped' in post offline with any pp software.

All the more so, given we have ExpSim LV to preview DR of any/all our HDR/M.E. capture esp in JPEG.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Milimike
By Milimike (Mar 25, 2012)

I think everyone is judging that the D800 is cleary better than Canon because of this dpreview samples and DXO Mark. They should take the very same pictures with both so we can compare. There is no picture in the MKIII samples that we can check the DR of this camera. The DXO Mark looks questionable to me. D800 2800 points in lowlight vs 1800 on 5DMKII?

1 upvote
Damo83
By Damo83 (Mar 25, 2012)

The thing is it's not only taking like-for-like pictures; performance matters too. The D800 with it's high pixel count (and therefore higher demand on processor) has a lower continuous drive rate for example. Focussing will be a factor too. Perhaps a landscape photographer (an obvious target for this camera) won't require bang on AF as an action photographer might. My point is it's just not that simple to compare images as they are.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
1 upvote
lensberg
By lensberg (Mar 26, 2012)

As i've been saying all along... DXO Mark's scores are extremely tendentious... Personally i don't go by their scoring methodology in any form whatsooever...

To be frank it isn't entirely necessary to have the same pictures captured from both camera's to formulate an objective assessment...

A low light score of 2853 is nothing short of ludicrous... because there is no way the D800 performs that well in ISO performance... there is severe colour desaturation... heavy handed NR and a dramatic loss in edge to edge definition & dynamic range which is apparent from the test images...

They're probably trying to factor in the frequency of SNR in their evaluation... the tiny pixel pitch on the D800 is definitely not doing their light manipulating algorithms anyfavours either... So how they achieve such a high score... well your guess is as good as mine...

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 26, 2012)

@lensberg

Thou doth protest too much, methinks. ;-)

1 upvote
lensberg
By lensberg (Mar 26, 2012)

@ marike6 - :) :) :) :) :)

But seriously... my points pertaining to DXO Mark are made out of genuine concern... I am not disputing the fact that the D800 is shaping up to be a great camera... but at the same time you cannot undermine the vast technological improvements in the 5D III as some sort of "minor upgrade"...

Despite the fact that i may appear biased towards one brand... the reality of the situation is that i am impartial to a fault...

In the end i suppose both will be deemed outstanding camera's of this generation... it will all just come down to personal preference as to which system suits our needs better...

2 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Mar 26, 2012)

It really doesn't matter. If you have Canon lenses go for the Canon and if you have Nikon lenses go for the Nikon.

1 upvote
R o l o
By R o l o (Mar 25, 2012)

Minor improvements, major price increase. Keep your Mark II for now...

6 upvotes
altenae
By altenae (Mar 25, 2012)

Minor ?
That depends doesn't it ?

Maybe some people need to have a good AF system where not only the center is working correctly.

Maybe some people need to have more FPS and less shutterlag

Maybe some people need dual cards

maybe some people need better high iso performance

And maybe let people decide by themselves if they want to keep the 5D mark II or buy the mark III

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Mar 25, 2012)

Maybe the IQ improvements are minor, but the 5D II was already good except for shadow DR. The rest of the changes for the 5D III are major. Maybe if you photograph lame snails, the 5D II AF was fine, but for those of us that like to use our cameras for a variety of landscape and action or lowlight work the 5D III is vast improvement.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Ken W.
By Ken W. (Mar 26, 2012)

Disagree. My first impression was this is a minor upgrade. Looking at the high ISO shots and considering the AF, HDR, etc. has me seriously considering getting one. The low noise in the high ISO shots, to me at least, blow away the competition.

0 upvotes
Milimike
By Milimike (Mar 25, 2012)

Please tell us more about your experience on both cameras. What about the dynamic rage? There is no MKIII clouds picture sample. Are they at least comparable?

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Mar 25, 2012)

There are as many needs and tastes in photography as there are fingerprints. The best camera for any person can only be decided by the person buying the damn thing.

People need to stop needing others to approve of the decisions they make. The universal agreement ain't forthcoming and this is no reason to get angry or frustrated. You need to brave it out all on your own.

Chances are you buy the wrong camera anyway ;]

5 upvotes
raincoat
By raincoat (Mar 26, 2012)

Exactly. The only people overtly worried about tiny details are the rich retirees who get conned into buying a 5D3 or D800 level camera as their very first DSLR.

Everyone else is upgrading from a previous camera and it's clear each of these are vast improvements on what they replaced.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Mar 26, 2012)

I agree. I decided to go for D800, but I think D800 is much more challenging camera than 5D3. 5D3 is a better camera for jpeg shooters for sure.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 27, 2012)

@plasnu:

So why wouldn't someone just buy an Olympus DSLR if that someone was only shooting jpegs? The Olympus bodies may be a bit old, but some of those lenses easily beat Nikon and Canon lenses. (In case you don't know: Olympus does really good direct to jpeg shooting--the files are bigger.)

@Tape5:

Right, but at this Canon 5D III or Nikon D800 level it is usually possible to rent those cameras to try them before purchase--yes I know you have to live in, or near, a big city, but it is possible to use the cameras before deciding to purchase one.

(Yes, I also get that the 5D III and D800 have not shipped yet, however in the US the Nikon D4 is becoming available for rental.)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Mar 25, 2012)

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but there has been a lot and I mean a lot of Canon haters hitting the web since the release of the MkIII. It's been mentioned in many places that there has been a drive to hammer the MkIII. I've had a full day with both and they are very impressive Cameras. Both have their strengths. The D800 is a top notch stills camera with restrictions to speed so out door actions shots are limited. Hand held shooting is average as focusing is good and fast but not in low light. The MkIII is great hand held and overall a very flexible camera. Crop detail V the D800 is different as you'd expect. In daylight the detail is so good on the D800 but it does loose it with noise in low light. The MkIII seems to be able to focus quicker and more accurately in darker situations but both seem to be be on par in brighter situations. MkIII AF menu is outstanding for Sport and Wildlife everything is covered. Get the camera for your shooting & just enjoy.

5 upvotes
aros
By aros (Mar 25, 2012)

how comes that there are no humans photographed to see the skin tones..

2 upvotes
R o l o
By R o l o (Mar 25, 2012)

Good point...

1 upvote
Yiotis
By Yiotis (Mar 25, 2012)

seems that people photos is not a reality for MKIII

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 27, 2012)

aros:

Could be because jpegs don't do skin shots well.

0 upvotes
baris ozcetin
By baris ozcetin (Mar 25, 2012)

i really wonder if anybody migrating from d700 to 5d3 :)

1 upvote
Damo83
By Damo83 (Mar 25, 2012)

I'd think that most users of a decent FF camera would have spent a fair bit on glass to get the most out of it. Hard decision to jump and reinvest in lenses all over again.

1 upvote
baris ozcetin
By baris ozcetin (Mar 25, 2012)

I'm a pro with mk2 and all TS-E lenses with some primes, i'm using it on a tripod with mlu and cable release %95 of the time. for my type of job 800E and zeiss primes will better suit and i believe extra money i pay will pay itself back.

4 upvotes
MP Cevat
By MP Cevat (Mar 25, 2012)

Swapping $15,000 worth of lenses? That is why the Canon vs Nikon discussion is meaningless.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Mar 25, 2012)

I have a D700 (15.000 photos).
Good DR, AF, high ISO results.
Now I know D700.
I will use D700 until breaking-off.
Meanwhile I will buy other lenses.

2 upvotes
shootemup
By shootemup (Mar 25, 2012)

MP Cevat, amen....unless people have $10,000 to blow or have cheap glass.

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Mar 25, 2012)

Hold your horses people! Why do you think every new buyer of these top end cameras has a bag full of lenses? MOST people who will buy either a D800 or a Mark III are new entrants into FF photography.

European and American zillionairs aside, China and India alone contain near 2.5 billion people with wealthier middle classes popping their pretty faces out to photograph the world.

The world is changing. In other words, lens, schmens!

1 upvote
Damo83
By Damo83 (Mar 25, 2012)

@ Tape5

"MOST people who will buy either a D800 or a Mark III are new entrants into FF photography."

Is that a fact? If so, how do you know?

0 upvotes
mauro paillex
By mauro paillex (Mar 25, 2012)

Perfect files but orrible pictures!!

3 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 25, 2012)

Come on, if you had the camera for a day and had to produce 30 technically good enough (100% non-manipulated) pictures for comparison purposes, would you really have 30 gallery/competition quality pictures to show. We are pixel peeping here, not visiting an art gallery. These pictures do what they are meant to do.

8 upvotes
Damo83
By Damo83 (Mar 25, 2012)

Omit the 'but...' in your post. It's been said before and I'll repeat: these shots are so you can gain an understanding of colour, sharpness, DR, etc. You're not meant to be blown away by the tester's skills in artistic composition, dramatic storytelling or whatever inspiration it is that you seek. I could show you a some amazing shots taken with a disposable if that's what you're looking for.

5 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Mar 25, 2012)

no petka, these reviews highlight the biggest shortcoming of dpreview which is that the photographs for all their reviews are universally bad. IMO, they should invest some money in some studio equipment and consider taking some photo courses to understand how real photographers will use the cameras. Taking snapshots like an iphone camera user would does not do justice to a $3500 camera

0 upvotes
Artistico
By Artistico (Mar 25, 2012)

The real life samples of D800 and 5D MkIII show mostly one thing: Nikon's out of camera jpegs are much better than Canon's, and even usable without having to tweak the raw file. Shooting Canon means one has to use raw, or one might as well get a cheaper camera and get the same image quality.

Why is it only Nikon and Olympus who know how to make good jpegs in-camera? It is quite clever, though, as it makes their cameras look better in online comparison tests where for some bizarre reasons most reviewers tend to shoot jpegs and compare them rather than properly processed raw files.

7 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 25, 2012)

Comparing two cameras objectively is extremely difficult, as so many things are in play. Not only the sensor capabilities, but also the lens and JPEG conversion settings. At least, if comparing in-camera produced standard JPEGs with auto WB, we see what the manufacturer thinks is a good picture. Taking RAW files and then tweaking them would tell more about the person doing the conversion than what the camera is capable of.

At this level of (equal) picture quality I would base my decision on the quality of lenses, ergonomics, AF speed, high ISO capability and price. Not sample files form internet sites, how ever impartial they try to be.

0 upvotes
kelpdiver
By kelpdiver (Mar 26, 2012)

No doubt there is a difference between the Nikon and Canon jpegs- but what you refer to as "better" I'd also describe as "unfaithful." The photographer should be choosing when to boost the blues and greens in the landscapes.

1 upvote
Tape5
By Tape5 (Mar 25, 2012)

Human aspects of photography are often not talked about. Among these is how a person relates emotionally and physically to a camera they are holding in their hands.

If you love your Canon or Nikon or any other brand, that counts. It is important and should be a factor in my view to choose a brand against another. Don’t let anyone make you feel bad about your choices because we ALL know that the current offerings are way more than sufficient for a person to produce good photographs. Especially at this price range.

Some of my all time favorite photos in my childhood were taken with my dad’s Lubitel. What I never forget, is how he genuinely loved his camera and how he always smiled when he looked down into its viewfinder.

4 upvotes
Will Kaiser
By Will Kaiser (Mar 25, 2012)

I agree; maybe its petty, but as an enthusist Canon user for over 25 years, I don't even like the look of the red Nikon swoosh. I am most inclined to wait for the most personally compatible Canon model. After over a decade, I still really really love my first long L lens, the 300 F4 IS. The bokeh just blows me away. I really don't underestand the typical conversation here regarding whether to change brands. It would be like changing families.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 25, 2012)

72-79 Canon, 80-81 Nikon, 82-91 Olympus, 92-01 Minolta and Contax, 02-12 Canon, Nikon again in a few weeks. They are just tools, after all.

In the old times the change form Canon to Nikon was a much bigger thing, as the focus rings turned the opposite ways, and it took about 3 months of daily use to burn the new habits to your cortex. Now they are practically the same.

Getting attached to a tool is pathological...

1 upvote
Spappynz
By Spappynz (Mar 25, 2012)

I worked in pro labs and as a pro photographer since the mid 80's but am now a happy amateur. I shot MF and 5x4 with some 35mm work. I had a full Nikon kit and changed to Canon as autofocus came in (Canon was better!!)

My point! My 40D is due for replacement, I have always been impressed with the 5D and miss my MF quality so the answer was to wait for 5DIII.

BUT!! Nikon have presented a camera that gets very close to MF quality. I can shoot 15MP DX for my family/travel snaps and when the situation allows, grab a tripod and get a 36MP shot with incredible detail and tonality, I can imagine I'm using my Mamiya 67 again.

Would I upgrade if I owned a 5DII? probably not. But coming from my film centric background, my 40D is a great 35mm camera, the 5DIII offers a subatantial upgrade in image quality but the Nikon 800 offers so much more at a cheaper price.

Looks like time to jump ship again.

6 upvotes
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (Mar 25, 2012)

A used 5DII would be the perfect compromise considering used prices at the moment, or even a new one!...I used to shoot with RZ67 & am very happy with the quality I'm getting form my mkII.

I've found the lenses make a much bigger difference these days once you're up to 21mp FF sensors. I no longer own any L zooms because they lose some resolution against good primes (admitedly it's hardly noticable, but I can see it!).

I'd have to sell my TS-E 24 L II lens to fund an upgrade, which would most likely result in lower resolution from the whole system using a lesser lens.

The Nikon does look more enticing, especially mated with a Schneider T/S or Zeiss prime.

Hmm, lets see what the D800E looks like when it arrives...

2 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 25, 2012)

@Niegel: In one lens rating table Nikons were at the top of the heap, Zeiss primes even lower than Nikon zooms...

I am getting 14-24, 24-70. 70-200 and 200-400 zooms for my D4 & D800, and I am not worried at all about the resolution available.

3 upvotes
Damo83
By Damo83 (Mar 25, 2012)

@Nigel Wilkins

Yep, even the price of a brand new Mk2 is really low, much lower than the D700. If it weren't for my investment in the Nikon system I'd be looking seriously at one of these as the Mk3 seems pricey.

1 upvote
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (Mar 25, 2012)

@Petka - I've not looked at Nikon in any great depth so that good to hear. I would only need a couple of good primes. TBH, I tend to buy & try lenses before deciding...it's the only reliable way to be sure, otherwise, I'd have missed my magnificent, tiny Voigtlander 20mm.

@Damo83 - The MkII is still an awesome camera. Maybe buy one used with a lens, try it, then either sell it on or keep it.

Normally I'll be the itching to upgrade & right now, I have the spare cash to do it. I'm not going to though, because for my style of photography, the only real advantage would be the lock button in the mode dial!!

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 25, 2012)

@Nigel: I am waiting for a converter for Fuji XF and Leica C mount, for Voigtlander 15 mm lens, which is my all time favorite super WA. Small, cheap, sharp, no flare.

(Just got the X Pro1 with 18 and 35 mm lenses)

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Mar 26, 2012)

If you want great AF I would not recommend a 5DII.

0 upvotes
Stanley zheng
By Stanley zheng (Mar 25, 2012)

Does anyone knows what the dynamic range of this camera is?

0 upvotes
egorkaraban
By egorkaraban (Mar 25, 2012)

I'd like to see more shots at 1600 and 3200 - here they were not at all, and it is interesting to the rest. It's is vital. (25,000 it is not necessary for the most part). This as a publicity stunt - You need 3200? Just forget about it - get 10000!!!))))- attract high ISO of the camera as an attribute of a new opportunity. but it is not. where the shots of which can be compared - everything is relative

2 upvotes
Nicotinix
By Nicotinix (Mar 25, 2012)

I understand a website redesign is a big deal, but for Pete's sake, the iPad has been around for about two years now and there are plenty of photographers who use the iPad on a regular basis. Don't you think it is time to lose the flash part and move to html 5 so I can see those images on my iPad???

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (Mar 25, 2012)

shouldnt you be complaining to apple, and not DPR, Flash has been around for more than 10 years.

5 upvotes
Artistico
By Artistico (Mar 25, 2012)

Flash will no longer be updated for mobile devices, and that includes all the other ones too, not just Apple who used to be a bit backward in this regard, so the point is valid. HTML5 is the future, Flash is the past.

1 upvote
jtan163
By jtan163 (Mar 25, 2012)

I'm not sure that calling Apple backward in regards the lack of Flash support is altogether accurate.

They made a conscious decision not to allow flash. As opposed not to implement it (I understand that Adobe wanted to implement Flash and Apple wouldn't let them distribute it).
They were ahead of the game in not supporting Flash. It was Apple's decision that if not drove the decision to kill Flash, certainly hastened Flash's death.

To be honest I don't really agree with the Apple decision (simply because I think the user should make the choice as to what is acceptable compromise on their device, especially with such a widely used technology, Nicortinix's complaint bears this out, IMO) , but I think it is disingenuous to say they were behind the 8 ball on that one.

0 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Mar 25, 2012)

nicotinix - Maybe you should dump the ipad for an open system that supports all standards, not just the ones that make money for apple

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Mar 26, 2012)

Oddly enough, you're not the first person to make this point. We're working on it...

0 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Mar 25, 2012)

It's the same as the 5D Mark II, just with a lot of firmware tweaks and a far more complex AF system, for an extra $1,000 ~ $1,500 over the 5D Mark II.

2 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Mar 25, 2012)

great samples from an overpriced camera. (and please, stop the "you would have paid twice this price 5 years ago" nonsense.)

1 upvote
Damo83
By Damo83 (Mar 25, 2012)

I wonder how long they will sit at that price.

0 upvotes
Milimike
By Milimike (Mar 25, 2012)

Those D800 samples, to my eye, seems really great ( colors, resolution, DR ). I have a 5DMKIII on pre-order, shipping on April 2nd and I have no EF lenses. There is some review sites that are bashing at the new 5D, even in video mode ( eoshd.com ). The MKIII samples seems duller and a bit softer ( Is it the lens? ), and I am afraid of cancelling the pre-order and not getting either camera when I arrive in USA on May 1st. Do you guys think they will have both cameras in stock a month from now?

1 upvote
Craig Gillette
By Craig Gillette (Mar 25, 2012)

The companies seem to be pumping them out as fast as they can. There seems to be discussion over how they allocated initial shipments - as in numbers of units to various size sellers. There seem to have been some found at individual stores of some large chains (maybe each store got a couple? of one of them?) but if this is the case, those may soon be sought out and snapped up. I don't think I'd cancel a pre-order until I had one in hand.

Otherwise, all you can do is track your orders and follow forum discussions.

1 upvote
jameshamm
By jameshamm (Mar 25, 2012)

D800 would be hard to find, IMO.

2 upvotes
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Mar 25, 2012)

why did you get a 5D3 if you need it asap and dont have any EF lenses?

1 upvote
New Guy Wanna Learn
By New Guy Wanna Learn (Mar 24, 2012)

heh heh...nice and fun comment Zerg..cheers! ^_^

Ya, anyone knows when the next 5d will be coming out? Will it be next year or later?

Also, when is canon going to implement their back lighted FF and apsc sensor? Is there anyone who knows?

Thanks...

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

backlight.. you have heard something he?

backlight are expensive and will not yield much benefit on a FF sensor .. because the wiring takes less area (percentage wise) compared to a P&S sensor.

so don´t hold your breath for a great improvement with backlight sensors on FF cameras.

aps-c... well it´s not worth it either because it would make them to expensive (yet).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
New Guy Wanna Learn
By New Guy Wanna Learn (Mar 26, 2012)

Oh ok...thanks ^__^

0 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Mar 24, 2012)

OK, my quick conclusion after these... "RL" samples, round one (.jpg): good. Not "stellar" (=wow, nice & clean after 25600!), but good. I will wait for round two (RAW) before consulting my bank account. Now, I suggest that all the people that are dissapointed first hand just "jump" to Nikon. 2 immediate effects: a) they all will be very happy (probably with the D800 that alone does magnificent pictures, no photographer needed) and b) this will make Canon angry because the sudden decrease of "premium" customer base so 5D IV will be even better, with 100 Mp FF and ISO 409600. And alone it will do magnificent pictures. No photographer needed. Anymore. P.S.: now seriously, for A2 (not bigger, that will be D800 "domain") prints this first "result" it's a hell of a job, a new photo approach at high ISO is possible now. I wish I had this in my "old" 5D II. Cheers!

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

damn and i have printed bigger then A2 with my 5D MK2 and i thought the results look good. i must be misleaded..... but then i view them at least from 35cm away.....

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Mar 25, 2012)

@Mr. Hertz: Congrats, but A2 is where I will park it. Indeed, the "viewing technique" will smash many of the differences, I agree. Pixel peepers (or people with extreme myopia) that look to the A2+ with a magnifying glass will notice these. It's like looking to an Aivazovsky or David paintings (or any paintings...) from 20 cm. So you're right. :)

0 upvotes
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Mar 25, 2012)

"5D IV will be even better, with 100 Mp FF and ISO 409600. And alone it will do magnificent pictures. No photographer needed."

I guess you are not a photographer then.

0 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Mar 24, 2012)

i wish dpreview would hire a photographer

3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Mar 24, 2012)

Dpreview, I like your photos. Thanks for doing this work for us.

3 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (Mar 25, 2012)

As usual, the photos are horrendous!

2 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Mar 25, 2012)

bob, if you like the photos maybe you should stick to an iphone camera!

0 upvotes
Jacques Cornell
By Jacques Cornell (Mar 24, 2012)

Veni, vidi, evomuit

0 upvotes
bill434
By bill434 (Mar 24, 2012)

I work in a camera store, and I'm a current user of the 5D MkII. I've been really happy with it, but the one thing that has been a challenge is the AF speed.

I bought the camera with the f4 24-105mm lens, and then tried the 24-70 f2.8. I noticed a marked difference in AF speed so I moved up to the faster lens. I always had some regrets though, because my walkaround lens was signficantly heavier to carry.

I've had my hands on the 5D MkIII and I notice my one annoyance has disappeared. The camera is smokin' fast, and I can still get lots of speed using the lighter and slower lens. In fact, this camera is so fast that I can't see a significant difference from one lens to the other.

I was looking forward to this camera mainly because I wanted to see a significant move up to a faster AF system, similar to the 7D. I got what I wanted.

This is not just a change for video shooters - it is definitely an improvement for still shooters.

2 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Mar 24, 2012)

JPG vs. RAW....

how many of the RAW shooter had a darkroom back in the film days?
honest question... im curious.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Mar 24, 2012)

I shoot almost exclusively raw and still have my darkroom setup. I haven't printed in ages, but I still process the occasional roll of TMAX 100.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 24, 2012)

Gothmoth:

You neglected film scanning.

Also there's a big difference between having a black and white darkroom--which many did because you could easily make one out of a bathroom or basement corner--and having a darkroom capable of doing colour work. (My understanding of the color film development and printing process is limited but I believe one has to pay a great deal more attention to chemical purity and temperature than with black and white.)

Just try telling someone using a Sigma digital camera that jpeg is good enough.

Then of course to add to the confusion: A Nikon D700 will shoot into tiff. (D4, D3, D3s too, as I imagine the D800.)

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 24, 2012)

I had a darkroom, and used most of the tricks to make good prints (push, pull, fogging, dodging, burning etc). Some of those techniques are now used in RAW processing, and as a professional I need them, because so much more can be squeezed out of a RAW file than form a in-camera JPEG. It also makes shooting faster and safer, as small exposure mistakes can be corrected in post. Just the ability to adjust white balance at the office is priceless.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Mar 24, 2012)

I did. I love RAW processing.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 24, 2012)

Gothmoth:

No, back in the film days people who were serious about photography didn't necessarily have a darkroom--though many did--but many times they most certainly paid for a lot of work by someone else in the darkroom.

Then there's the whole notion of a shared community darkroom at school or photo club, both still exist, in 2012.

Look 10 years ago when I first got my Canon G2, I didn't realize it could shoot in raw, and I was struggling to learn the gear and just plain Photoshop Elements (PSE did not extract raw then, raw extraction was done with Canon software). So I shot in jpeg for a few months, and got some wonderful pictures, however I was lucky that I didn't need to tweak color or white balance. Shooting in raw saves you from a wasted shot because adjusting the white balance or exposure of a jpeg can easily ruin the picture.

2 upvotes
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (Mar 25, 2012)

I used to process my own slide/transparency film & scan it.

I shoot RAW exclusively now & use manual exposure & focus 95 percent of the time.

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Mar 25, 2012)

I shoot RAW.
I didn't have a darkroom.
I couldn't afford a dark room (space, bits and bobs, training).
I can afford RAW.
Things change, get more accessible, more affordable.
Now amateurs can do things they wanted to, but couldn't and get stuff they want, that they couldn't afford before.
I even have autofocus on my camera now.
Didn't dream of that back in the late 80s.
In fact I could only dream of an SLR back then (till the Berlin wall came down and Zenit's became available).

So now professional level processing is available to the heaving masses, along with autofocus, wireless flash, studio strobes, high quality Japanese DSLRs etc.

SUMO. (and I mean that in the nicest possible way).

0 upvotes
Dan Pettus
By Dan Pettus (Mar 25, 2012)

This will reveal my age .. darkroom – yes - Omega LPL 670 Enlarger. Developer – Fixer – Water-bath. Yes; only RAW. Don’t even know how JPG is setup on my camera bodies – don’t care. Never want to go back to the smell of fixer in a dark room. But I got to say the anticipation and passion of creating a breathtaking print after proper in-camera composition is truly missed. So many with today’s technology do the “spray and pray” and I just cannot get into that mode of photography….

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Mar 24, 2012)

Dunno why buy I got quite uncomfortable when I saw comments like:

"video qualities of the 5D3 alone worth $3500"
"clean ISO 12800 video alone worth $3500"

I mainly do still, and I got a feeling that the $3500 is mostly for video features..and I really wanted to like to 5D3

do you have the same feeling?

4 upvotes
The Gozitan
By The Gozitan (Mar 24, 2012)

I TOTALLY AGREE with you. I long for a camera aimed photographers (vs videographers). Why merge high quality photography with high quality videography? I think most people either specialise in one or the other. It's only journalist who really find this hybrid system usefull. But what about the rest of us? I feel it is a huge RIP OFF being forced to pay so much extra for features I'm not going to use.

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

that is maybe true for amateurs.

but many pros have to shoot video too today (or earn more money that way).
and no... not only journalists.
afaik there are articles here on dpreview who describe the change in the industry.

why do you think the 5D MK2 was such a success?
a great part of it was because of the video features.

and stop the whining.. the boat has sailed.
it´s like hearing people complaining all day they have to pay taxes...
canon and nikon will do what maximises their profit that´s for sure.

...."to pay so much extra"....

and how much would that be?
your arguing out of the blue... without any facts.

you may spend some more money.. other would have to spend more if the camera had no video features. now.. what is fair?
what would you do as camera maker?

Comment edited 7 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Mar 24, 2012)

ISO 12800 certainly looks cleaner than the mkii. If you need that for your stills, then it's useful. If you don't, there's still no reason not to like all the other improvements. I shoot Nikon and I can still appreciate what Canon have brought to the table here. The AF alone would be worth the upgrade!

3 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

just to clarify the above:

you may spend some more money... other customers would have to spend more if the camera had NO video features, because they need an additional camera for video. they may even buy a camera that HAS video features from a rival brand.

only solution.... a split of the model line.
but that will not happen because the net effect would be a negativ one for the camera makers. much more effort and no benefit for them.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Mar 24, 2012)

that´s like people complaining their mercedes has more then one seat but they always drive alone.....

it´s just a shortsighted argumentation... try to get the whole picture.

and if you really think the improvements are only for video, well you can always buy the 5D MK2 when you don´t see the benefit for still images.
i sure see the improvements in the 5D MK3.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Mar 24, 2012)

the truth is if you shoot Raw there may be not much improvements over 5D2

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Mar 24, 2012)

try to use your brain.. and you will understand the analogy.

you can cry like a child and look like a clown all day.... it will not change the facts.
the fact is VIDEO is here to stay. all your whining will not change that.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

Mtsuoka wrote ".... truth is if you shoot Raw there may be not much improvements over 5D2...."

try shooting a fast moving object with the 5D MK2 and then with a 5D MK3. some guys should realy think before they write. or at least be more specific... ;)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Mar 24, 2012)

@Gothmoth
you should use urs first..I was not complaining about having video in DSLR

The real question is, for the extra money, how much of it goes the video, how much real improvement is for stills? don't get too excited, I am not going to join your "video or not" war

0 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Mar 24, 2012)

@Mtsukoa

well you EDITED your posting and removed your comment about my mercedes analogy. and that was what i was refering to...

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 24, 2012)

You folks do not seem to understand that the video capabilities of modern digital cameras are practically free. The only extra parts are the cheap ADC for sound and some connectors for HDMI. Everything else is just software. So why no offer it, you are not really paying for it any more than you are for the hundreds of customizable tweaks you never adjust in your camera, but do not complain that there are adjustments which you do not know exist and which you can not tweak because you do not understand what they do. Video is just one more little cheap extra.

0 upvotes
Voldenuit
By Voldenuit (Mar 24, 2012)

If Canon had to develop a second camera body just for stills, it would cost them more money to design, manufacture, distribute and market a separate camera for what is increasingly becoming a niche market (just as video was niche in the days of the 5D MkI). Because of this, there's no guarantee that a video-less MkIII would be appreciably cheaper than the current MkIII.

0 upvotes
Bernd M
By Bernd M (Mar 24, 2012)

Actually you don't pay extra money, because any camera offering "LifeView" has all what is needed to record video. The rest is basically more a software- than a hardeware problem. So, if you already have everyting needed for video recording, it would be a great waste of options, not to implant video.

0 upvotes
The Gozitan
By The Gozitan (Mar 24, 2012)

First of all I know that the 5D3 is a great improvement on the 5D2. Infact I own the 5D2 and I've already ordered the 5D3. At least I'm glad to LEARN that I'm not paying that much extra for something I do not need. I always thought that a substantial part of my investment went into its video capabilities.

@ Petka who wrote:
"you are not really paying for it any more than you are for the hundreds of customizable tweaks you never adjust in your camera, but do not complain that there are adjustments which you do not know exist and which you can not tweak because you do not understand what they do"
Who are you to say what I know and don't know, and what I adjust and don't adjust? Just because I do only stills it doesn't mean I point and shoot does it? It doesn't make me less of a photographer than you.

At least everyone agrees that the 5D3 is primarily a Photographers Camera; the video option is " a little cheap extra."

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
The Gozitan
By The Gozitan (Mar 25, 2012)

@ Gothmoth
as regards to your Mercedes analogy ....

If you consider the 5D3 to be a high end camera, I wouldn't compare it to any normal Mercedes... I would compare it to a Formula 1 Car ... And those only carry ONE seat!.

Moreover I would say that a spare seat in a car means More Room in the car, and that would translate to additional Memory; The video function would more be like a high end car stereo: an important accessory but not THE most important one.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 25, 2012)

@Gozitan: sorry to have offended you. What I meant is that these cameras are chock full of custom adjustment possibilities with literally hundreds of choices and billions of permutations. I have shot professionally with Canon DSLR from EOS-1D first version, and I have never cared to go through all the possible options and tested how they actually affect the picture. With the later models there are even more options. If you actually go through everything, testing and understanding them all, more power to you. My meaning was that it is just as pointless to complain about the (practically free) video capability as it would be to complain about those myriad (practically free) tweaking options, which I think are even less used than the video.

As all the $200 point-and-shoots also have HD video, my quess is that the video capabilities of these cameras cost about $30 extra... It really is just a pipeline form live view to memory card, implemented in software.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Mar 25, 2012)

@Henry - while I agree that video in DSLRs is inevitable for all the reasons you state (I even find it desirable)....

isn't the Cinema EOS a split in the line?

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 25, 2012)

There are no final specifications for Cinema EOS available yet, but if it has 4K capability and pro quality audio and interface to XLR connectors etc, it needs a lot more processing power and extra parts. That translates to extra costs, even if the camera is otherwise a normal D1X. For a stills shooter, even occasionally needing video, that would be an overkill. We normal people have no use for 4K video yet.

0 upvotes
sunnyone
By sunnyone (Mar 24, 2012)

I used to think posting comments on web sites was a great idea. Unfortunately, too many people think posting comments is their opportunity to bash a competing brand or another person's opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If it's your opinion, that's fine, but don't bash someone for their opinion. If I want to switch to another brand, that's my right and really on one's elses business and vice versa.

I own an EOS 20D that has served me well. I'm now considering upgrading to a new DSLR and am seriously considering going with Nikon. In comparing the 5D MK III to the D800, the D800 offers me more of what I want since I focus on landscapes and resolution when printing on my ipf6300 is an important factor.

Most current DSLRs are a big leap forward from the 20D and I'm ultimately going to go with the one that fulfills my requirements, not make a decision because someone on a forum said choosing one brand/camera over another was the right or wrong choice - that's my opinion.

22 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Mar 24, 2012)

HERESY! The trolls will never have it!

0 upvotes
Devendra
By Devendra (Mar 24, 2012)

Sanity and sound judgement prevails! Very well said Sunny!

0 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Mar 25, 2012)

It's inevitable everybody is switching to nikon!

1 upvote
shootemup
By shootemup (Mar 25, 2012)

pacogwapo, I guess I am no one since I am not switching. Sunny look at a used 1 Ds Mk iii if you primarily do landscape work. It's a stunning camera esp if you own good Canon glass.

0 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 24, 2012)

There it is, the RAW versus JPEG discussion! Amazing to read that so many shoot JPEG, it's like throwing away half your money after you just got paid! (i.e. shooting jpeg's only)

PS: try getting these flower shots in difficult lighting in jepg, it's almost impossible: check out rubens.photography.com (recently made button). Makes your eyes tear these beautiful colors and recoveries of all those highlights.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

well i have so many DSLR owners around me.. many are from the film era. a lot of them hate working with the PC.

im not suprised.

2 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 24, 2012)

Maybe they hate it but don't they love a better picture?

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

they want to take photographs first and foremost.. not sitting in front of an PC and juggling sliders.

that said im a RAW shooter myself.

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 24, 2012)

Rubenski:

I think that's more than throwing away half the monies.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 24, 2012)

Henry M. Hertz:

What that also means is that these jpeg shooters, who'd worked with film, were never very interested in developing and printing in a darkroom. You know playing with the enlarger for hours. (The same basically applies to film scanning--they clearly had no interest in the subtleties--and there are a lot-- of that process either.)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

@howaboutraw.

no... not at all.

i am a member of 3 camera clubs and from my experience it just means these people are OLDER. not to say everyone who is beyond their 50s is the same. :)

most of them had a darkroom. but they are not grown up with computers.

my father is a, now retired, electronic engineer (born 1947) but he avoids the PC whenever possible. he had to work with layout programs at work.
but that was (became) a part of the job in the 80-90s.

look at how many noobs you know for every computer freak in your surrounding.

i know many DSLR owners who don´t even know how to use MS paint.

it´s is misleading to thing the internet is a mirror of the real world.
people who are at the internet and website like these are normal not those who don´t like computers.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 24, 2012)

Henry M. Hertz:

Different tools, but pretty much the same thing. My father born in the early 1920s was perfectly happy working with computers, he didn't live into the massive digital photo era, but I see no reason why he'd have any difficulty with a raw extraction.

1 upvote
MSTR Photography
By MSTR Photography (Mar 24, 2012)

Interesting that there is so much fuss about PC editing being a pain. The darkroom was much harder to work in and a greater danger to our lungs. Truth is, a good photographer shouldn't have to do a lot of editing to create a great image if he(she) knows how to use the camera properly and understands exposure control. However, the other side of the truth is that some of the greatest landscape photographers spent more time in the darkroom than than they did on shooting the images which made them famous. So the question remains do we edit in the darkroom or Photoshop. Ansel Adams could have saved a lot of time if he could have used PS, and I bet he would have loved it.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

he could learn it... you sure could learn to speak japanese or hindi if you want?

but he PREFERS to be out shooting and not sitting hours at a monitor adjusting RAW files.

and his JPG files are good, because he knows to take as good JPGs as possible.

people are different.. that is why there is JPG and RAW and not only RAW.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 24, 2012)

MSTR Photography:

You've confused editing with color work. Great color is not simply there in the shot particularly if it's a jpeg.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 24, 2012)

The world has been changed.
Now, we cannot rely too much on the camera, the power of a camera is very limited, which must be combined with the latest technology in computing to create great results.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 24, 2012)

Henry M. Hertz:

No, it just sounds like you're father doesn't have a particular interest in what computer programs can do, which is unlike my father.

Pretty sure my father would not chose to learn Japanese.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

@edmond

"must".. when i hear that nonsense im tempted to show you images from pros who shoot JPGs.

ok i shoot raw myself. i love to work on the PC.
i like that i have full controll. i think most images can be visually enhanced shooting raw.

but "must"....? nah.
JPG is so good these days it is not a "must".

maybe for those who struggle with exposure and WB and need to adjust each and every picture.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Adler1970
By Adler1970 (Mar 24, 2012)

If you want to get very good results you have to shoot in raw format. If you edit and change a jpeg-foto, you lost some information of the file. You lose also quality of pixels.
But if you edit and change the raw-file, it is as you are shooting a second time that picture.
The raw-file "is" the sensor itself.
It is true that some photographers hate the computer. But the raw-format is the "camera obscura" of digital photography.
This is digital photography. Light and pixels.
Who does not understand that, did not understand what it means digital photography.

0 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Mar 24, 2012)

im curious adler1970 and the other guys..... did you tell everyone back in the film days they had to have their own darkroom?

i bet not!

if you have shoot at that time at all.... :)

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Mar 24, 2012)

I have spent a lot of time in the darkroom and in front of PS. And I don't regret that investment, since it has allowed me a better perspective on the things I need to do in the field so that I can spend less time in the darkroom (digital or otherwise).

You can be a working professional and not use photoshop today, just as you could be a working professional and not know how to work an enlarger back in the day. The brutal truth is: you don't need to be good or technically knowledgeable to be a professional. Just good enough and a good salesperson.

You can make good work in jpeg, just like a painter can make good work in pencil. What we don't know or the tools we don't have can and does hinder us all. But it doesn't stop us. (for better or worse!)

The truths about the benefits of one tool or another remain true, but they aren't deterministic.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Mar 24, 2012)

Personally I feel all this talk of dark rooms and film is irrelevant. Today, with digital photography, You will never get the best out of your camera without doing some post processing. PP work is the second half of creating the photograph. That is just the way it is now.

Sure maybe not if you are just taking snaps of your cat. However if you are seriously trying to make a photograph, letting your camera choose the saturation,contrast, sharpening, wb, ect gives up as much control over the final photograph, perhaps even more, as shooting on auto mode.

Plus with a jepg not only are you throwing away half of the image data your camera can capture but, every change you make, every time you re-save the file, you are degrading it. It was never meant to be an archival image format.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

that someone shots jpg does not mean he archives JPG.
that just for the record.

and about PP... i can only laugh when i see some of the "enhancements" some people make to their images.

look at all the ruined pictures because of uncalibrated monitors.

PP can make your images better.. but often people ruin them.
for some people i think it would be better they WOULD stick to JPG.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 24, 2012)

Gothmoth:

No, back in the film days people who were serious about photography didn't necessarily have a darkroom--though many did--but many times they most certainly paid for a lot of work by someone else in the darkroom.

Then there's the whole notion of a shared community darkroom at school or photoclub, both still exist, in 2012.

Look 10 years ago when I first got my Canon G2, I didn't realize it could shoot in raw, and I was struggling to learn the gear and just plain Photoshop Elements. So I shot in jpeg for a few months, and got some wonderful pictures, however I was lucky that I didn't need to tweak color or white balance. Shooting in raw saves you from a wasted shot because adjusting the white balance or exposure of a jpeg can easily ruin the picture.

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Mar 24, 2012)

LOL Henry,

If you're going to take the time to convert your files to some other format you might as well just shoot in raw.

The fact that some people may incorrectly do the post processing doesn't mean you don't need post processing to get the most out of your camera.

I really don't understand why some photographers are so adverse to pp. Never before has the photographer had such a huge creative latitude when makeing photograph. It's like they have forgotten that some amount of post work has always been part of serious photography.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Mar 25, 2012)

One thing I didn't realize until I got the III is that the built-in HDR feature is limited to jpg. And even with jpgs, it takes quite awhile to process the finished image. But at least, if you want to do it the right way you can now bracket 7 RAW exposures.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/nikon-d4-and-d800-prices-rise-in-uk-1073556

Prices of the Nikon D4 and Nikon D800 have shot up by up to £500 over the weekend, seemingly after Nikon UK informed dealers of a "systems error."

The Nikon D4, which is the company's new flagship pro model, was originally priced at around £4800, but it is now being listed as £5289 by several websites including Jessops.

At the time of launch, Nikon was keen to point out that it had been able to bring the D4 to the market at less than £5,000, seemingly a snipe at its biggest rival, Canon, which introduced the Canon 1DX with an RRP of £5299

---------------

interesting to see how the real street prices will be.
with all that talk about the 500$ difference.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rb67
By rb67 (Mar 24, 2012)

Awesome colors ... the color rendition of this camera is so alive without being overly saturated. Good camera Canon, or maybe Technicolor.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 24, 2012)

finally ISO 16,000 - 25,600 look very usable with plenty of details
i hope all mfr's continue to push for improvements because 51200 - 102400 (and 204800) need to improve a lot more before it is usable for those of us shooting in natural ambient lit EV -5 to -6 or darker (to allow for shorter shutter speeds and narrower apertures (not 'wide open')) combined with zero flash fill.

right now, the only closest alternative with acceptable resolution is the 1Dx, which is a dual-grip body only, that is priced beyond my reach.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yazki
By yazki (Mar 24, 2012)

Looking on the last pictures and comparing the one with NR and without NR, result give different white balance, which one with NR ON, give warmer color. Is that common?

0 upvotes
snackwells
By snackwells (Mar 24, 2012)

Wow...the JPG loss of fine detail is frighteningly stark compared to the RAW conversions (see the forest/tree scenes). This is a strictly RAW only camera...at least coupled with the 24-105.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 24, 2012)

Raw is kind of important for colour and noise control too.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

i bet at least 60% of the customers of either the D800 or 5D MK3 will shoot JPG.

that´s my personal experience from camera clubs in my location.

of course you get a different result when you ask on internet forums where people are more accustomed to using a PC.

my father and my two uncle are photographing for over 40 years.
they have nikon and canon DSLR´s. but never touched an image editing program for more then just cropping and printing.

there are more people out there who never visit a photography forum then people who do.

and these 60%+ who shot JPG doesn´t need 21 MP ... not to mention 36 MP.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 24, 2012)

RAW is only useful if one struggles with exposures or ISO sensitivity selection by shooting the old TTL method and badly needs pp, nobody has shown RAW really with better details where it counts, and that is when the lighting gets quite dim.
the 5DMkIII allows one to venture into low luminance scenarios where others cannot keep up.
if you shoot in good light, no need for high ISOs even at the tightest acceptable apertures and shortest shutter speeds.
at least its in-camera JPEGs are unrivaled if one avoids the 'beginner-default' settings, and speed-ISO-apertures are optimally chosen (w/ ExpSim LV), they will be publish-worthy straight out of the camera in the field.
i think vast majority of those shooting for clients wanting 'publish-now' deadlines will predominantly be delivering JPEGs right after they shoot rather than wait for offline pp w/ a computer. that's why Canon designed even custom RAW-to-JPEG conversion in-camera, so 'final JPEG interpretations' can be set for publishing.

1 upvote
Dragonfire
By Dragonfire (Mar 24, 2012)

I know only one photographer who shoots jpg... and He uses an Olympus system, they have great jpg engine and not too much reserve in RAW file... unlike for example Canon, these jpg images are so badly sharpened and noise-filtered like they are taken with a powershoot camera...

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 24, 2012)

sdyue, are u in the publishing industry and fully understand the process flow of the industry?

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 24, 2012)

sdyue:

You missed noise and color--and the color thing applies to well exposed pictures shot a lowish ISOs.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 24, 2012)

@ sdyue Of course RAW has better detail and it has better DR. And if you shoot mixed or difficult artificial lighting, RAW allows you to adjust WB after the fact, instead of being at the mercy of the cameras AWB or having to shoot a grey card to create a Custom WB. I couldn't imagine any photographer who cares about their images, or is on a paying job shooting JPEG.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Mar 24, 2012)

Amen about publishing! If you are anywhere near publishing, you NEED raw! Especially if you're going to both web and press. sRGB and CMYK both clip hugely in different places. If you go straight to one, you're hosed for color gamut on the other. Adobe 1998 helps, but in the end, that clips the gamut too, just less. Raw allows you to go to any color space and have the most accurate conversions.

I know this--I worked shooting/color correcting textiles for a while. It's either raw, or spend ten times as long masking curves layers to make the image look like the real thing. Or just shoot raw and be done with all of it in an instant.

What you don't know, doesn't make you right.

Of course, wedding photogs don't generally care about any of this if they nail exposure. But there is more to photography than wedding photogs (there just happen to be a lot of them!)

1 upvote
Parsek
By Parsek (Mar 24, 2012)

@sdyue "RAW is only useful if one struggles with exposures or ISO sensitivity selection by shooting the old TTL method and badly needs pp"

A remarkably uninformed statement. I´d recommend you pick up some literature on the subject or talk to a real photographer.

1 upvote
josan
By josan (Mar 24, 2012)

from sample photos, My opinion at this point is :
high ISO performance is on the canon's side, but details is on D800 by far.
I am a long time Canon user, but I can say this time NIKON really did a good job, for the first time I am tempted to jump ship .
I can't say which one better for me, until I try both camera myself then I will make my decision . Looking forward for In Depth Review of both camera as well.
I am sure I am not the only one tempted to jump ship for many reasons.
unless Canon come up with something similar with D800 or even better .:)
Canon .... you can !

8 upvotes
altenae
By altenae (Mar 24, 2012)

My god another jumper.....
Do you REALLY REALLY think anyone is interested to know about your jumpig ship !!!

Do you ???

Look at your beautiful images !!!!
Made by Canon and don't expect it will be better because the number of DXO benchmarks tells you so

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

as if it would make a difference for his photos... or 90% of us here.

it´s just the gearheads who are into "photography" for the tech but not the images who think about switching.

beside that the D800 is a great studio and landscape camera... the 5D MK3 is the overall better allrounder.
most D800 buyer will never make use of the extra resolution.. with their 10x15cm or 13x18cm prints and a maximum of A4 prints.

what canon has to work on is better DR.
thats the only thing that i whish would be better in the 5D MK3.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 24, 2012)

Dear Josan:
1.please give me all the reasons why you would want to jump.
2. where do you get the proof that your reasons are valid?
3. how much money will you spend to jump?
4. is it worth spending so much for maybe a few stronger point one camera has over the other?
3. look at your list, then take a look in the mirror and say: "I was dazzeled by only the number of pixels in the D800, I'm a (naive) victim of their smart marketing. But thanks to Rubenski I've come to my senses. Thank you Rubenski!

My pleasure Josan, you're more than welcome!

BTW: The only thing Nikon is better at is marketing, nothing else.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Adler1970
By Adler1970 (Mar 24, 2012)

Yes, josan, Nikon is doing a better job. Today, Nikon is doing a better job than Canon. Of course the 5D Mark3 is a good Camera. But this 5D mark-3 is only the same old 5Dmark2, with a new autofocus.
That's all. Pure marketing. Practically, nothing has changed.
No sane man pays 3400 euros for a normal autofocus.

Yes, Today, Nikon is doing a better job: between the Nikon d700 and Nikon D800 there is a real change.
But between the Canon 5D mark2 and the Canon 5D mark3 there is NOT a real change!
This 5D mark3 is for COLLECTORS, is a Souvenir for bored people. Not for photographers who were waiting for a real upgrade.

5 upvotes
josan
By josan (Mar 24, 2012)

Wow , first I would say thank you to all of you that have replied on my comment .
Honestly , I am not a pro photographer , I am an Airline Pilot that love photography, I started taking photo since 1978 , I often go to many places, taking photos as hobby , that is why I am relying on good equipments, good weather seal , strong build and most important better details for my Area photography. I often do a lot of cropping on my photos to make it look better, example for bird's feather details, trees etc, I have a very high speed computer so big file size is not really a problem . all these points are in the D800 side , that is why I am tempted to jump ship .
I never thought anyone will take any notice of me jumping ship as I am not a Pro Photographer. I hope Canon will come up with something similar or even better, I have many L lenses and happy with it . but Nikon also have many great lenses .
can someone convince me its better to stay with Canon ?, I would love to !

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 24, 2012)

If josan wants to switch to Nikon, why do people get so upset? Do they own stock in Canon? If there is superior camera available at these prices it would be foolish not to jump on it.

3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Mar 24, 2012)

@marike6

Unfortunately many people on this site have a good portion of their self esteem wrapped up in their camera brand being the best. That is why so many take this silly Canon vs Nikon debate way to seriously.

1 upvote
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 24, 2012)

Convince you? How about convincing yourself? If you're a pilot it makes your comment even more strange Make the list as I mentioned above and think with your head and if you've to crop so much you use the wrong lenses. You can't get good pictures with a D800 shooting a bird you can only see if cropped tightly, forget it.

0 upvotes
Razaghi
By Razaghi (Mar 25, 2012)

Hi josan, photography should be the aim, and having fun while making photographs... So do as it pleases you, consider the camera and the lenses just as tools and every tool has iets pros and cons. When you go to an exhibition, photographic of course, you do not go to D5 or D800's exhibition, but to a photographers, and he/she can have made them with any camera, brand, kind... Most important for choosing a camera: how do you feel about it... Good luck with whatever choice you make.

0 upvotes
NiallM
By NiallM (Mar 25, 2012)

The Nikon sounds perfect for your needs, and jumping ship (airplane?!) isn't such a big deal when you've got the likes of Ebay around to get rid of the old.

However, if you do a lot of cropping, maybe a new telephoto lens is in fact what you should be investing in..

0 upvotes
josan
By josan (Mar 25, 2012)

Thanks all for your nice and supporting comments , appreciated very much .
Photography equipments is a never ending Journey , there always be new technology, better specs and equipments.
Nikon and Canon are both making great cameras , we can't go wrong, I will pick one that suit my style and what I need .
At this time Maybe Nikon D800 is suit me better, but I got too many L glasses sitting in the cupboard, its gonna cost a lot of money to get all new Nikon Lenses. Hard decision indeed.!
in the mean time I will go out, enjoy life, taking pictures with My 1DsMk3 and 7D while I still have them with me.
Cheers ....

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Mar 24, 2012)

do not understand how people spend so much money for this Updats

2 upvotes
altenae
By altenae (Mar 24, 2012)

You don't have to understand

Some guys drive a BMW while others drive a cheap Suzuki.
That simple.

You either buy the 5D Mark III or you don't.

3 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 24, 2012)

wedding photographer will love it, normal customer will buy it because it´s a great allrounder.....

idi*ts on the internet will complain as usual.. and most of them will not have the money to buy it anyway.

as usual....

1 upvote
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 24, 2012)

folks who change cameras a lot (not myself) do so often via selling their older model which makes getting the 'next iteration update' much cheaper than buying 'just new' with no older model sold.
so, in effect, those who update most frequently are typical trade-up types, not buying 'extra' cameras on top of what they already have. those who do buy additional cameras without any sale of older models obviously are the minority, and have a lot more money.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 24, 2012)

Simple.
Some people like to play cameras as toys, so they need new cameras from time to time to stimulate their desire.
Some people use cameras for photographic purpose, then it is a tool and no need to change from time to time.

3 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 24, 2012)

Others show only reductions, which really defeat the point of having more Mp.
I prefer to scrutinize fine detail retention vs noise/NR to see how much creative croppability is possible:

5DMkIII vs D800 (Imaging-Resources: modified 'upscaled')

Example is given @ ISO 6400
(at much higher ISOs, it only gets worse for both cameras):

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8134818847/invite/4B20A2E683E94ED995561A05E4DD213F

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 401
123