Previous news story    Next news story

Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples published

By dpreview staff on Mar 28, 2012 at 13:00 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $3,399.007 deals

Just posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples. We've borrowed a production 5D Mark 3 and have been painstakingly shooting our standard test scene with it. Although they're very different cameras, we suspect some people will want to compare the 5D3 to Nikon's D800, which you'll now be able to do from any version of the comparison tool. You can also download the Raw files to process, print or examine in minute detail.

These test shots are also available from other reviews and the standalone tool, which can be accessed via the 'Review Comparison Tool' link in the Reviews menu on any page of the site.

 Click here to see the samples as part of our preview
1446
I own it
542
I want it
41
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 287
123
afterburn
By afterburn (Mar 28, 2012)

Why all the hate over a camera body? It's like end of the world for some. Jeez. Most people don't buy into a body, they buy into a system. I'm just a mediocre hobby photographer, but I have something like $5000 worth of lenses. I couldn't care less about what the other guy is doing, cause I'm not going to dump my current lenses just because somebody made a better body.

If you always want to have the latest and greatest and using a body only with the kit lens, you can change with every new generation. But in that case, you're nothing more than a P&S shooter with a more expensive toy and bragging rights.

If you can afford to switch systems and replace a multitude of lenses whenever you 'need' to change brands because somebody supposedly made a better body, you've gotta be filthy rich.

Either way, it might be worth to focus on doing some actual photography instead of pixel peeping, name calling and getting a woodie for the latest gear.

7 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 28, 2012)

Two cents from someone who doesn't have anything to do with Canon-Nikon wars.
Mk III's image quality is a step forward from Mk II, though not a huge one.
The Mk III is the king of JPEG: images are contrasty and colours are lively and punchy, while Nikon images tend to be slightly duller.
At high ISO it's all good news to Canon too: contrasts and colour accuracy are better, though not by much.
I'm trying to be as impartial as I can, trusting my eyes rather than DxO ranks or pixel counting. Canon's images are more to my liking, that's all.
I won't elaborate on the Sony: the Canon and the Nikon wipe the floor with it - period.

5 upvotes
QSMcDraw
By QSMcDraw (Mar 28, 2012)

Thank you DPR! This is the FF I'm saving up for. Of course it will take a couple of years, but...

0 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 28, 2012)

Funny how so many people watch the same pictures and yet come up with all kinds of different stories. Most striking to me is the almost hatefull and totally subjective comments some make. Makes me want to leave this posting thing, I'm not learning good stuff as I expected.

10 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Mar 28, 2012)

Sadly, true. But if one must compare cameras, there are things that don't require subjective evaluation. For example, Nikon's 14-24 is clearly superior to Canon's because Canon does not make a 14-24. And Canon's 17mm shift lens blows away Nikon's because Nikon does not make a 17mm PC. There are other examples. Zeiss lens' autofocus is poor because there isn't any. The stabilization on Nikon's 16-35 is superior to Canon's because Canon's doesn't have any. Practical considerations. What I want to know about the D800 is, how fussy is it? How often does moire occur? Is it really easy to remove? How bad is the D800 if you use a less than superb lens? LensRentals is already saying the 24/1.4 isn't good enough for the D800.

4 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Mar 28, 2012)

RAW files observation:

1. Noise wise, there is not much advantage over the D800, if any..
2. D800's high resolution advantage vanishes after 3200..

what's more, lens could be limiting factor for resolution (using widest aperture on some lens, for instance, D800 resolution = 5D3)

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Mar 28, 2012)

Nikon is the king of resolution and also punches hard at the ISO credentials of Mark III and its video capabilities. This is why people are drooling out there. If it matches Mark III at ISO 12800 or not is irrelevant. It is bad enough that people have to peep to work this out. The brilliant camera that D800 is with resolution, Mark III is not with ISO. But this does not make D800 an instant king of FF photography.

The better camera has always been and will always be the one that is in the hands of a better photographer. Professional photographers here have the upper hand by a massive margin and if they choose the Mark III predominantly, then Mark III will score higher, in that it will be the camera that is more likely to create a larger body of good work for anyone concerned.

This is how the question of which camera is better becomes nonsensical.

6 upvotes
Eugeniu Sofroni
By Eugeniu Sofroni (Mar 28, 2012)

The same thing was said about the D700, but still the 5D sold in a ratio 10:1 to the D700

2 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Mar 28, 2012)

Prove it, I might believe 2-1 or 3-1. 10-1 in your dreams.

4 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Mar 28, 2012)

I just find it funny how resolution suddenly is important now that the D800 has its shedload of megapixels (if you don't use the FX mode which many will do), while it was "unimportant" back when the Canon offering had more than the Nikon one...

7 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Mar 28, 2012)

It wasn't even 2:1, I'd bet, and even to this day 5d mk2 users are drooling over the D700's AF and image quality in both low and high ISO (DR, noise lacking in the shadows at low ISO). But anywho, this is about D800 and 5D3, and it seems there is not much difference in RAW at high ISO, but at low ISO the D800 trumps the canon in every respect. D4 is the king now, 1 stop over 5d3.

0 upvotes
ron purdy
By ron purdy (Mar 28, 2012)

I think the ratio of 5D2 to D700/D3x was at least 10:1. At least in the NY market, according to my pro dealers. There was no contest. The Nikon cameras sat on the shelves while almost everyone who walked in looking for a full-frame SLR walked out with a 5D2. But again, this is in NYC and these are the professional dealers. It may be different at places like BestBuy.

3 upvotes
Sylvain Larive
By Sylvain Larive (Mar 28, 2012)

Ron,

Sorry to say but D700 and D3s flew of the shelves where I live. In fact, up until recently, whenever NikonRumors posted that B&H or Adorama had D3S / D700 in store, they went out of stock within a day or two.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Mar 28, 2012)

I checked Amazon regularly and they were always close in the sales lists

0 upvotes
bewing77
By bewing77 (Mar 29, 2012)

ron purdy: I'd think it's the opposite. I've overheard many customers discussing getting what seems to be their very first serious camera in various camera stores and comparing the D700 and 5DMkII saying something like "The Canon has almost twice the megapixels, it must be twice as good". Without fail these where clueless amateurs.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 28, 2012)

Images look great.

Obviously 'number-crunching' predicts nothing as images tell otherwise

If there is anything to learn, it is that the image quality is bottom line, not some unrelated numbers.

You might own a 5DMkII but it doesn't mean you've mastered it.

1 upvote
seta666
By seta666 (Mar 28, 2012)

Nikon did it again, best sensor DXOmark has ever tested. The per pixel noise very similar to the 5D mkIII but with more pixels.

14.4 EV DR, 25.3 bit color depth, almost 1 stop ISO advantage over 5D mkII in Raw

I own a 5D mkII, just in case anyone thinks I am a nikon fan boy ;-)

10 upvotes
Eugeniu Sofroni
By Eugeniu Sofroni (Mar 28, 2012)

DxO means nothing for photography ... it is for measurbating.

21 upvotes
pdcm
By pdcm (Mar 28, 2012)

Canon shooters shouldn't worry about the Nikon D800. It's a good camera. But, hey! so is the 5D Mk III. So it's got a few more pixels, so what. The 5D Mk III has enough for anything I can think of: stock, big images, landscapes... It's not the camera... PS: I'm a Nikon shooter, who also respects Canon for also making great cameras.

6 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 28, 2012)

so far DXO, as irrelevant as it has so far been useless for IQ predictability, hasn't yet even rated the 5DMkIII or 1Dx.

7 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 28, 2012)

@sdyue

The huge DR difference is easy see to by comparing the RAW files. Its not rocket science. Canon is far behind Nikon at the moment.

4 upvotes
llopart
By llopart (Mar 28, 2012)

The "problem" with the scores is that they apply their arbitrary scoring to a multiple of metrics to end up with one number, if you don't give the same weight to the metrics they do the scores can be moved substantially.
Whilst they are very open about how and what they test, the relevance to any one individuals shooting needs is so rounded up, or down, to achieve the one number that it becomes almost meaningless. For instance, how many people downsize to 8 MP for everything? For electronic display that is too high, for many prints, way too small, but it puts cameras with higher than 8 MP at a disadvantage, or advantage depending on your opinion, unless you agree with the specific weighting they go through to even everything down to that 8 MP figure.
Another controversial point, they claim to measure RAW files direct off the sensor, but can make no allowance for on sensor processing, similarly, if nobody can actually use unprocessed RAW files, scoring it seems pointless.

2 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Mar 28, 2012)

Ignore the scoring ! look at charts !!!

4 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 28, 2012)

You don't need to downsize D800 at all, its still better than any Canon sensor at low ISO. That is a fact.

I'm not saying that Canon wouldn't be good enough for most situations, but it'll be inferior to D800 in more demanding lighting conditions.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=41049871

And all those fanboys claimed that staying with 22MP would be better than having "inferior noise" at 36MP. Yeah right.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Mar 28, 2012)

DXO is for it is for measurbating unless it supports what you own or like. Then, DXO is the cat's meow, best thing since sliced bread.

The truth is somewhere in the middle as is most things. DXO is a fairly good measurement of three aspects of a camera's sensor. It's not good for measuring IQ but can give you some information that is helpful.

1 upvote
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Mar 28, 2012)

<reconstructive surgery no matter how 'rudimentary' their 'image' may seem>

Excellent contribution. So we must look to make better pictures and not to buy the gimmicks of industry. Please, who needs Megapixels. We need more devotion to views and perspectives. But anyway, I personally stopped at 16-20 MP; continue to look and try to make better photos. Can also be done quite simply. If we make poor pictures, they even will look worse with 800E or else – what a joke.

6 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

Agree with you there. lots of really good 'old photographs' have been taken with 'inferior' cameras of the past.
the latest generation of cameras do not make those photographs obsolete and subject to recycling.
Agree that circa 16 - 24 MP is more than enough for most - then that's my perception - others may agree or disagree "subject to conditions" :-)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 28, 2012)

Exactly, after you've read some good books on photography you understand it's all about recognizing a scene and knowing how to frame it. Technical part is easy and most cameras these days are excellent.

4 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (Mar 28, 2012)

Ansel Adams: There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept.

This, from a master of image quality. His prints from the '50s are still breath-taking and awe-inspiring.

10 upvotes
VJVIS
By VJVIS (Mar 28, 2012)

My issue isn't which camera is better. I don't think you can go wrong with any of these cameras. The issue to me is canon made me wait for four years and barely made any improvements over the previous model. I realize it has better AF, less moire in video and maybe half a stop better at higher ISOs, but I am not sure how much of a difference these will make in real world photography. Not to mention the fact that they want to charge a lot more than the competition.

And I do believe there is an advantage to having more MP. It allows me to crop closer. I don't care about printing big.

9 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Mar 28, 2012)

I try to think first about the composition to avoid cropping. Saves me post processing - the worst time killer in photography today next to filing with meta data.

3 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

@Thomas,
Learning to properly frame and compose an image is paramount. I sit in front of a PC all day at work. On weekends I'd much rather be out taking photographs rather than 1 hour shooting and 4 hours PP in front of (yet another) screen to try and salvage a poor shot (or shots).

0 upvotes
VJVIS
By VJVIS (Mar 28, 2012)

You don't have to crop just for composition. If I am shooting wildlife and want to get closer to the subject, having more MP helps.

5 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Mar 28, 2012)

In this case I agree as your are limited to physical barriers. But why not to take a large tele lens to get the closer feeling from glass to digital, even if it might not look “perfect”. How a lion’s face looks on you must communicate feelings – less than technically perfect shots might be more to the point.

2 upvotes
CBuff
By CBuff (Mar 28, 2012)

We heard the same song... Some stopped at 3MP with the Canon D30, then at 6MP (who needs more than 6MP?) with the D60, then at 11MP with the 1Ds, then 16 with the 1DsII.. and so forth. You may stop at 16-20, but for some of us (landscape/studio/macro), we prefer more if possible, definitely when it is $500 cheaper.

3 upvotes
Sylvain Larive
By Sylvain Larive (Mar 28, 2012)

Thomas,

You obviously haven't done enough wildlife shots. Bigger glass is a pain to carry through tundras and swamps. It is much more efficient to have high MPs as long as the quality is there. To me, there is no doubt the D800 will win a lot of wildlife / birding fans. The 5D is awesome but I think the D800 is well suited for those tasks... And landscape. OTOH, I'd probably buy a 5D for weddings.

0 upvotes
VJVIS
By VJVIS (Mar 28, 2012)

By the way, I am not saying that one camera is better than the other, just that more MP does have some advantages, but for most people it may not matter, and if it doesn't then it is not in your equation when you compare two or more cameras. Even if you are able to carry a 600mm lens, sometimes you are unable to get close enough, or are able to get shots that normally would not have been possible without higher MP, but as I said this is just one scenario. In my case, I think I can afford the body but only able to afford a 400mm lens because I already spent most of my money on the body, in which case I would like more MP. All of this is a moot point (moot points) for me as I shoot with my panasonic GH2, which I know will not give the same quality stills (more like nowhere near) if I shot with Mark III/D800 + 600mm lens, but it gives me useable images and great video, which actually rivals these more expensive cameras. And did I mention it is portable

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Mar 28, 2012)

Thank you all for those involved replies. I have really learned that more MP are of benefit. And, by the way I had pre-ordered the Nikon D800 (lala feelings, smile). But I also I do 6x9 on Fuji film, then drum scan few just to speak about landscape views and resolution.

Maybe in about 5-8 yrs. from now digital will have that. But we all must believe in where we come from: seeing and feeling with human eyes; not sensors. But in some time ahead sensors will adhere quite close to human eyes. Today, they do not. And in the near future, I will really do wildlife pictures. I confess (Sylvain) not knowing much about this. Lots of space to grow from.

Let’s take pictures!

2 upvotes
Sylvain Larive
By Sylvain Larive (Mar 28, 2012)

Thomas,

I don't want to come across as rude or even want to bash the 5D. Both cameras would do fine in any aspect of photography. To me the D800 with high MP has an edge for wildlife because getting closer isn't an option a lot of times. Carrying larger lenses neither because you often have to crawl to get in position.

A lot of people are impressed with the D800 crop ability and yet, they'll probably never use it beyond reframing their kids in their pictures...

As a Nikon user I'll get a D800 when it becomes available to me but that doesn't mean its the best camera for everyone...

2 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

Whilst all the fanboy bickering about what camera is better I'm watching an article on Sky News about face transplants.
Seems to put all the camera resolution issues into perspective when there are severely injured individuals that are (presumably) more than satisfied with their reconstructive surgery no matter how 'rudimentary' their 'image' may seem.

1 upvote
Paul Farace
By Paul Farace (Mar 28, 2012)

You are sooooooooo right on target!!!!!!

1 upvote
Lanski
By Lanski (Mar 28, 2012)

Haha, and there are children starving in Africa, wars, tsunamis... All real events. All very important. All in no way related to an article about Canon 5DIII studio samples.

4 upvotes
kuklukklak
By kuklukklak (Mar 28, 2012)

5D3 vs D800 Raw: Same noise at <1600. From 3200 the 5d3 is about 1/2 stop better.

But a big surprise as both are well beaten by the D700 regarding to noise.

And the D3s is still the lowlight king.

Waiting for the 1DX.

6 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Mar 28, 2012)

Are you including the D4 when talking about low light?

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

Your analysis basically echo's mine on a 'per pixel' basis. Not surprising as 'latest gen' photosites are smaller.
D3S>D4>D3/D700>D800>D7000>D300S/D90 for Nikon Cameras - in order or superior noise performance.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
llopart
By llopart (Mar 28, 2012)

Maybe you can answer this question.
Why Canon Mark III JPGs in high iso (6400 - 25600) are much better than the Mark II and D800?
If is only a software issue... this mean you can achieve the same results with the mark II and d800 with the right software? it you can why they don't have it on the mark II and d800?

0 upvotes
Superka
By Superka (Mar 28, 2012)

at least 1.5 stop better new 5D is over new Nikon.

4 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

@llopart,
JPEGS ex camera are optimised for the camera in question which is why one sees diferences.
Just as sensors change so does the software.
Don't forget that that there's also the in camera CPU between the sensor and the output too which plays a part.
If one wants to see what can be done 'in camera' with JPEG production have a look at what Olympus can do with the 'inferior' Panasonic m4/3 sensor.

2 upvotes
llopart
By llopart (Mar 28, 2012)

@Antony John
So you can achieve the same jpg results with a D800 RAW file that the once we see on a Canon Mark III lets say at ISO 12800?
That leaves me also with another question. I also shoot all the time with raw and, as far as i know, everyone have to process their raw file at some point to get the image they want.
If having the best RAW files to work with to produce your final image is important isn't the process to do this is also very important?
I use Canon software and wonder if I can achieve the JPG samples we see on camera once you shoot RAW with this software?

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

@llopart,

I'm not a Canon user so can't answer questions about which PP software is better.
However, as I shoot nikon I can say that Nikon's own Capture NX is better than Lightroom - some of the time.
You'll also find references to this disparity by pro photographers on the Net - so it's not something I'm dreaming up.
The reason is very simple - nobody knows the nikon NEF (RAW) files better than Nikon themselves.
Finaly, to answer your question, in camera JPEGS can always be re-produced externally by some PP software - sometimes with better results. One way or another it's just 'bit manipulation' - there's no magic.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Mar 28, 2012)

DPR, I think you can now update your standard test scene by replacing the two black square targets at center with something better, like the one you use on resolution tests.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Mar 28, 2012)

I think it's all good except for the price of the mark III. To end arguments in ISO performance, I think you have to trust DXOmark on this one. One thing you forgot when comparing ISO performance is the "gray shades", not only on the dark or light shades.

0 upvotes
Eugeniu Sofroni
By Eugeniu Sofroni (Mar 28, 2012)

noise is not just one property, there can be noise that is the same when it comes to simple measurements that DxO does but can be viewd by the human eye differently from different sensors on screen/print.

1 upvote
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Mar 28, 2012)

The Mk III price will go down. The D800 price has already started to go up (in Britain)...

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

There's a coin next to the dog's (forget cartoon name) ear.
Canon MKII and MKII show colour moire (if that's what it is) at base ISO.
Not visible on the D800 or D700.
if the colour is actually representative of the actual coin then that's a big plus for the Canons. If not ...
If one pixel peeps one can always find lots of faults.

2 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

ISO 12,800, RAW, Kodak Color Input Target, model at top right:
D800, eyelashes look like mascara was put on by someone with a nervous disease. Eye lashes at bottom of eye obliterated by noise as compared to MKII, MKII and D700.
Who said pixel peeping can't be fun :-)

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
1 upvote
llopart
By llopart (Mar 28, 2012)

Same picture at ISO 12,800 (jpg) check the nose and lips...
Better color, less noise, even better detail on the mark III.
At some point you will need to do conversion and seems canon have it better from camera.
Pixel peeping can be nonses depending on what the purpose is...

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

@llopart,
The purpose of the post is that most cameras these days offer more than users can, well, use and all have defects of one kind or another - as I hope to have pointed out.
If one pixel peeps one can find problems with all cameras.

0 upvotes
froutosalata
By froutosalata (Mar 28, 2012)

i would bet a large sum of money on the fact that most people would not see the blurred eyelashes on the d800 at iso12,800 as a problem. seriously! 100% viewing on an iso 12,800 shot??? ROFL. oh yes, because we're all snapping away at iso 12,800! in the ISO ranges that matter to most of us the Nikon is incredible given its pixel count.

1 upvote
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 29, 2012)

@froutosalata,

The comment was made below that the D800 'beats' the MKIII at all ISOs. Simply not true as pointed out.
No camera is perfect.

0 upvotes
Michael S.
By Michael S. (Mar 28, 2012)

Too less for too much money!

Mk III is lightyears behind the D800. Will be intersting seeing the upcoming products from Canon, for sure the Mk III delievers not what so many, including hardcore Canon-fanboys have been waiting for.

16 upvotes
llopart
By llopart (Mar 28, 2012)

You will be surprise. We Canon users love mediocre pictures quality and as one of them the Mark III has everything I wanted including lots of MP but not as much as my customers will hate me for giving them files their computer can't open. So as a mediocre Canon user this is my dream camera for the type of pictures I need to take. Some people just have bad taste and we are willing to pay more for these terrible products that clearly everyone can see are so bad is worth to post it time after time to ensure to convince you and other about it...

12 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

You mean there's an error in the practice of buying a 36 MP camera to get clean 12 MP files?
Now who would have thought of that :D

2 upvotes
llopart
By llopart (Mar 28, 2012)

No I am not saying that. What I am saying is that not everyone at this time want a 32 mp camera. Someone that takes pictures of landscapes and do lots of enlargement might love a 32 mp camera.
Other types of jobs benefit of the Right amount of mp for today. In my case since I give my customers the images files that I take for them they will not benefit from this since they do not do enlargements as big and their PCs cant process these types of files efficiently. For some of us 22 mp is the right amount.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

@llopart,

Actually I was being facetious.
I actually agree with what you are saying.
I don't actually need (or want) a wall sized mural of my black cat taken in a dark alleyway at midnight.
Horses for courses.

1 upvote
Michael S.
By Michael S. (Mar 28, 2012)

Oh boy...all those "hate" coming from the Canon guys who can't bear it...

It's almost impossible to imagine how it would have been the opposite - Canon bringing out a Mk III with the specs of the Nikon D800 and Nikon just an update of its D700, like from 5D Mk II to Mk III. I am sure thousands of posts by Canon fanboys will have been posted here and in the NIKON (!) forum to "laugh" about Nikon...

And if your computer can't open Nikon D800s files then get a slightly newer PC then one who is still using a 486 processor!

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Eugeniu Sofroni
By Eugeniu Sofroni (Mar 28, 2012)

it is pretty retarded to say the 5DIII is "light-years behind" the 5DIII is everything Canon users have been asking, superior AF system, weather sealing, more FPS ... only Nikon users have been asking for more MP, since they have always been behind on MP. Canon users got what they wanted and Nikon users got what they wanted.

2 upvotes
VJVIS
By VJVIS (Mar 28, 2012)

Why does everyone think that more MP is only needed if you want to print large. It is a huge advantage if you crop closely. And you don't have to give your customers the full size images. Batch reduce them in photoshop and give them 12MP versions.

2 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 28, 2012)

@Eugeniu Sofroni

Actually Canon was already topped by Nikon D3x which had better resolution and better DR.

After 3 years wait Canon has been able to give us only marginally better DR. It is surprising. Nikon has more resolution and much better DR at the same time.

Canon says it could release high MP camera if they just wanted. I don't believe it.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 29, 2012)

@Michael S,
Pretty amusing talking about Canon users bashing the D800 on the D800 thread by a NikonFanBoy bashing the MKIII on a Canon thread.

0 upvotes
Michael S.
By Michael S. (Mar 29, 2012)

@Antony John:

Ahhh...so what specific of the words used in my short post has given you the impression I am bashing Canon?
The only fanboy here is YOU.

I don't care what brand I am using - if you check - I do have Fujfilm, Leica, Nikon AND Canon.
So stop blameing Nikon for as it seems that you are not satisfied with what Canon brought recently on the market.

0 upvotes
llopart
By llopart (Mar 28, 2012)

In RAW there is little difference. Jpg samples is another story since the mark III do an impressive job. My question is why? If this is only matter of software, does this means you can achieve same results once you convert both files to jpg? if it does, why can't the other cameras have the same quality with jpg as the mark III?
Also I was told you can do RAW edition of pictures on the Mark III. Can someone confirm these and give a quick review about it?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Superka
By Superka (Mar 28, 2012)

Concerning the resolution - DPReview studio seems to be outdated to see the difference :) Really need to shoot distant trees at infinity to see the expected difference. 5D M3 shines at high ISO here (even better then Nikon D700!), but I''m suprised how good Nikon D800 at high ISO too, even delivering some little more details then Canon, though these details are seen through noise.
Definitely these cameras are different now, both performs very good.

7 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

Umm, no. The D700 shows less noise on a per pixel basis than the D800, MKII or MKIII. It has larger photosites thus this is expected.
judge by the 'white' of the watch case at any ISO you care to look at.
Not knocking the other cameras but this is just reality.

2 upvotes
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (Mar 28, 2012)

well well
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20II,D800,EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,D4

a sensor design from 2003 can not live forever, time for Canon to start working out new modern sensors or buy them from Sony

9 upvotes
Marcus Beard
By Marcus Beard (Mar 28, 2012)

To my eyes (and the varying opinions below show that this is apparently quite subjective!)
(1) the jpeg engine in the MkIII is amazing. There is a vast difference at high ISO - 12800 and above. However, to most people shooting cameras of this price, this must be of relatively little interest as they'll shoot RAW

(2) in RAW it is less clear. The resolution advantages of the D800 are clear at lower ISOs. As ISO increases the MkIII perhaps has half a stop or so of noise advantage per pixel compared to the D800?

(3) I own a 5D MKII and find it interesting that there is about a one stop (to my eyes) improvement of the MkIII over the MkII at high ISO in RAW. No more.

This suggests that, as ever, the RAW converters for these cameras will be very important in delivering the best from the sensors.

5 upvotes
jkrumm
By jkrumm (Mar 28, 2012)

I just listened to Martin Baily's review of the MkIII, and he's pretty sure it's at least two stops from what he can see shooting outdoors. But it sounds like he was a little conservative with his mkII, which he limited to 1600 usually. With the III, he says he would have no problem using 12,800.

http://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/podcasts.php?ep=328#Ep328

1 upvote
Marcus Beard
By Marcus Beard (Mar 28, 2012)

Yes I saw that, and can conclude only that it's interesting how opinions are varying so much. I suppose some of it is subjective, and some depends on how you've used the camera, conditions etc. I'm not in the market for a new camera - simply interested in all these developments.

0 upvotes
Eric Napa
By Eric Napa (Mar 29, 2012)

@Marcus Beard
My eyes match yours. I was really impressed by the Canon jpeg engine, but I doubt I would ever shoot jpeg (okay maybe raw + jpeg) I will say I was surprised by the noise performance. From the hype, I was expecting the 5DmkIII to set a new level of high ISO performance...but in my opinion it didn't. It looks to me like the real difference between which is a better camera, the D800 or 5DmkIII comes down to what glass you own. For me, I print really big, I own Nikon glass and I have a D800e on order. If I owned Canon glass, I'd have a 5DmkIII on order and I'd be really happy. No matter the brand, we who enjoy photography are really lucky to have today's equipment. The fact that we have several manufacturers leads to competition without which we wouldn't be able to experience this incredible progress. I can't wait to see the 1DX, I hope it stomps all over the D4 because if it does the D5 will be incredible.

1 upvote
jglaser757
By jglaser757 (Mar 28, 2012)

did the price drop at best price photo

0 upvotes
treepop
By treepop (Mar 28, 2012)

grrrrrrrr....this isn't two stops better in high ISO! Looks like I will be using my 5D2 for quite some time...

5 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

What's actually wrong with your MKII?

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

From my view (low to high ISO raw) the MkIII is marginally better than the MKII. Certainly not a huge difference though.
At higher ISOs the MKIII is better than the D800 for S/N - which just shows that the laws of phsics have not, in fact, changed.
All in all, hope that Canon have rectified the other problems with the transsition (focus accuracy for one) then I guess some will upgrade.
Ultimately MKII, MKII or D800 will all render great photos in the right hands - as will the D700 via comparison.

5 upvotes
Azfar
By Azfar (Mar 28, 2012)

err..i see clear difference in sharpness between MKII and III. don't move the box, just churn up the ISO to 3200 or even 6400. the difference is clear.

0 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Mar 28, 2012)

That's great...if you always shoot at 6400. At 100-800...where most people normally reside...the difference is pretty much zero.

6 upvotes
wskb
By wskb (Mar 28, 2012)

Err, what difference do you expect from similar size sensors at 100-800? the 5DII was awesome in that range, what improvement did you want - that you can see on a test chart...

0 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Mar 28, 2012)

At lower iso, there really is little difference between even the 7D and 5D2/5D3...and this is at 100% screen view. On print, it'd be pretty much invisible. Another interesting one to compare to is the new Olympus OM....it looks very good compared to even the 5D3 up to 1600 or so. Canon is falling behind.

3 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 28, 2012)

ISO 6400: for me as an amateur almost no diffence between III and II (RAW). But will wait for full review because I'm not able to judge frome these examples. But if there's indeed only 1/2 stop of diffence the II is a big steal for sure!

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (Mar 28, 2012)

Pelasfd
they are very similar, it is in low iso and shadows noise, banding the 5dmk3 is much cleaner then old 5dmk2

0 upvotes
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (Mar 28, 2012)

please show me lfinger and then i will point out 3 different places in the all pictures from 100-25000Iso raw and from shadows and up there D800 is clearly better regarding quality

0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Mar 28, 2012)

I cannot tell any difference between Mark II and III. All RAW images up to ISO 12800 look similar with D800 resolving more due to resolution. A900 performed worst but that might just due to the lens.

3 upvotes
russbarnes
By russbarnes (Mar 28, 2012)

Castle Cameras in the UK is selling the MKII at £1529 - you can have two for the same price as a MKIII. Looks like an awesome deal to me.... 5DMKIII price needs to plummet fast to sell all that excess stock everyone is tripping over in these camera stores.

3 upvotes
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (Mar 28, 2012)

Looks a great great camera. However this won't sell like the 5D2 did:

- Many 5D2 owners won't upgrade like they did from 5D1 to 5D2
- D800/D800e will be more appealing for Landscape and Studio people going into a system from scratch
- More expensive than 5D2 on launch dates

If I was still working a 5D1 and already had L glass, I'd buy it, but as a happy 5D2 / 1DsIII owner, This will be the first time in 10 years I don't crave for any of the latest full frame Canon offerings.

8 upvotes
Kristian Rickert
By Kristian Rickert (Mar 28, 2012)

The price for the 5d2 was less than the 5d1, so it also got people from the 20D/30D to upgrade to a full frame.

I gotta say, I'm a lil disappointed in the performance so far.

1 upvote
CBuff
By CBuff (Mar 28, 2012)

Going from 5D to 5Dmk2: 75% more pixels, 2 stop lower noise, first 1080p DSLR video, $700 less, not a single competitor in sight with the mix (resolution, 1080p, price)

Going from 5Dmk2 to 5Dmk3: 5% more pixels, 1 stop lower noise, $1500 more, strong competitor (similar video, more resolution, lower price)

Now someone tell me what's wrong with that picture ? Has the Canon exec lost their minds or are they simply committing a collective suicide ?

3 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Mar 28, 2012)

Not much difference - 5DIII, D800, D4 (I'm looking at the raw files). They all look pretty darned good. ISO 25,600 on any of them looks a lot like ISO 400 film - that's 6 stops of difference!

You can get down into the very deep details and say stuff like the 5DIII is a touch better in the mids and brights, the D800 a touch better in the darks, the 5DIII has a little better retention of low-contrast detail, the D800 has a little better retention of fine detail. But, honestly, these differences are very slight even looking as we are here at the equivalent of a 60x40 inch print viewed from 18 inches away!

23 upvotes
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (Mar 28, 2012)

+1

0 upvotes
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (Mar 28, 2012)

I would still say the D4 has noticeably better noise control than the D800 and MkIII. But £2000 better?

Anyone heard a peep about the 1DX yet?

1 upvote
wskb
By wskb (Mar 28, 2012)

I think it's far to say the D4 rules the very high ISO roost. noticeable better then 5DIII here (talking about 52800 and 102400 or whatever those obsurdly high numbers are...

Frankly, I'm very impressed with all offerings...

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 28, 2012)

Slight difference?

Not really so if you need high dynamic range, or want do to much post processing:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=41049871

Please come on Canon...

1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Mar 28, 2012)

Yep - even your 4-stop push is a slight difference.

I didn't look above ISO 25,600.

0 upvotes
Teila Day
By Teila Day (Mar 28, 2012)

You're absolutely right, not much difference between the D4, D800, or 5d3 at all. The largest difference occurs at ISO levels that most people will never use for doing actual work in the first place.

Seriously... a stop difference at 51200 with todays cameras simply means that a particular camera at that iso looks less "horrible" than another camera which is one stop more horrible at such a high ISO ;)

From a reality standpoint the obvious is crystal clear... all these cameras perform so similar at the what I call "useable" ISOs, that it isn't worth quibbling over.

The 5d3 (as wonderful as it is) doesn't impress me over the 5d2 at the ISOs that I'm most likely to use.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Eric Napa
By Eric Napa (Mar 29, 2012)

I felt that at ISOs through 12,800 the D4 was cleanest and above that the D3S looked better.... On the other hand it is pretty amazing that we are discussing images at these ISO levels.

0 upvotes
MichaelK81
By MichaelK81 (Mar 28, 2012)

Ok, I admit, I pixel-peeped. Am I the only one who thinks 5D III has absolutely no advantage over 5D II when shooting RAW at high ISO? In fact, in some images, 5D III has noticeably more noise.

I think we're reaching a point where technology is limited by the laws of physics?

3 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Mar 28, 2012)

I'd say the 5DIII is 1/3-2/3 of a stop better than the 5DII in raw, based on these samples.

4 upvotes
russbarnes
By russbarnes (Mar 28, 2012)

No, you're not the only one Michael!

4 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Mar 28, 2012)

Yes, Michael is right, at high ISO (ISO6400+) 5D II has less noise than 5D III.

JPG output of MkIII is cleanest of all those four thanks to very strong noise reduction (at the cost of some loss of detail, though).

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Mar 28, 2012)

Mark II has weaker AA filter than Mark III to me eyes

0 upvotes
russbarnes
By russbarnes (Mar 28, 2012)

Where is this 5DMKIII "low light king" blah blah blah? So much for lower resolution being cleaner - it's obvious the sensor is old tech now and shows nominal to no improvement over the MKII. No comparison to the D800 - it's light years ahead. The only improvement is JPEG noise reduction, whoopee doo, problem is most serious photographers don't use JPEG. MKII owners should be very happy indeed because there's nothing to upgrade for here at that ridiculous premium...in fact I'm expecting the MKII price to start increasing across the board because it looks like a bargain now.

14 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Mar 28, 2012)

The D800 performance is not different from that of the 5D2 and 5D3. However, given its pixel count, that is an incredible achievement... so yes, the D800 sensor is light years ahead.

2 upvotes
russbarnes
By russbarnes (Mar 28, 2012)

That's what I meant Mr Nuts ;) For the D800 to get at least the same ISO performance out of a sensor that delivers at least 14MP MORE that the Canons is incredible. But at low ISO, it is a landscape photographer's dream.........the detail is off the chart.

1 upvote
vlad_b
By vlad_b (Mar 28, 2012)

In RAW, at 12800 and up, do you honestly not see a difference?

0 upvotes
Eric Napa
By Eric Napa (Mar 29, 2012)

On a per pixel basis at 6400 and above I'd say the 5DmkIII is slightly cleaner than the D800. If you shrink the D800 image down to the 22mp 5DmkIII size, that is no longer true.

0 upvotes
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (Mar 28, 2012)

That was that, up to 25600iso Raw the d800 is better than 5dmk3 and without rezicing down to 5dmk3 picture size

How about the lowest levels and base iso
let us se

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (Mar 28, 2012)

is Canon exposed longer?

0 upvotes
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (Mar 28, 2012)

At 25600iso D800 has still better resolution then5dmk3 and better information in the shadows, and not down sized to 5dmk3 picture size

6 upvotes
trekkeruss
By trekkeruss (Mar 28, 2012)

Of course the Nikon has better resolution; it has 36MP vs. 22MP.

4 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 28, 2012)

At high ISOs most of the fine detail advantage of the D800 has gone - it's swamped by noise.
Sorry but no downsizing algorithm is going to recover detail that is no longer there in the data file.
Perhaps "pixel faries" do exist?

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Mar 28, 2012)

So, all you more-pixels=lower-noise people... where is your god now? ba ha ha.

1 upvote
sandy b
By sandy b (Mar 28, 2012)

Jack, are you looking raw or jpg? In raw I see virtually no difference. And in raw, the 5D3 does not improve on the 5d2 much, if at all, i would call all three within 1/2 stop either way, depending on what part of the image you look at. Very strong showing by all three, and kudos to Nikon/Sony hanging in there with36 mp. No megapixal penalty.

6 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Mar 28, 2012)

Resized to 22 mp Nikon samples have less noise at 3200 ISO but they are a bit darker (at f11 sutter speed for Nikon was 1/500 for Canon 1/400)

0 upvotes
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (Mar 28, 2012)

From a base ISO pov, no real improvement. NEX 7 clearly outresolves it up until ISO 800 for 1/3 of the price....

I'll stick with my Canon 5D2 for landscapes, thanks.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Mar 28, 2012)

Sure, for landscapes there's no need to upgrade.

0 upvotes
wskb
By wskb (Mar 28, 2012)

One thing's for sure, the Canon JPEG engine is hugely impressive. Comparing jpegs above 1600, the Canon smokes everything. RAW... well I'll let other people jump on that one, looks like a fairer fight between 5dIII and D800, though I have to say, the Canon files at 12800 & 25600 are very clean...

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

yupe d800 has a little bit more detail, but abt almost 1 stop worse than mark 3 in iso performance. all in all, they both are good camera, no matter which one, you will be very pleased to have either one of those. Very good....:) i would like to see the dynamic range performance on canon mark 3

2 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Mar 28, 2012)

Let me guess, you are looking at JPEG ?!

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Stanley zheng
By Stanley zheng (Mar 28, 2012)

ARTASHES are you the only one who knows abt raw file??????

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Mar 28, 2012)

Nice try !!! how then you see a stop difference between D800 and Mark III ISO performance? then let me guess again !!! you compare 100 % crop instead of comparing same size prints or resized pics from those cameras ?! if yes then with this logic a 1mp 4/3 would a better ISO performer then all those FF Canons Nikons and Sonys

1 upvote
Stanley zheng
By Stanley zheng (Mar 28, 2012)

bla bla bla bla yada yada yada..... yawnnnn......Artashes, reading your comment makes me sleepy...

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Mar 28, 2012)

Well I like yours !!! it makes me think that I'm right even more !!!

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
sandy b
By sandy b (Mar 28, 2012)

They look pretty damn close to me, slight edge to the Nikon on one part, slight edge to canon on the other part, I only looked raw. NO WAY 5D3 2 stops better than 5DII, maybe 1/3 to 1/2 stop. Considering 36 mp, D800 did very well indeed. As did both canon 5d2 and 5d3, not a dud in the bunch.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 28, 2012)

There's a test in the Canon showing the 5D III high ISO performance about 1/2 stop better than the 5D II. This and the better AF should make this decent upgrade to the 5D II, but maybe not as dramatic a difference as some had hoped.

5 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Mar 28, 2012)

I have both cameras and I did a test. It is more dramatic at 3200 and above. Like 1 2/3 stops I would estimate.

1 upvote
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (Mar 28, 2012)

Even att Raw 12800 Nikon d800 shows more information in the shadows
and higher resolution, before down sampling to 5dmk2 picture size

color noise is similar but is seen more clearly in the Nikon because of the larger image size

5 upvotes
KTSFotos
By KTSFotos (Mar 28, 2012)

I believe the ultimate goal of most is to have quality photos, with details and less noise as possible. If achieved this using Nikon 36MP for $500US. dollars unless 5DMKIII, so for me the D800 is better yes! No matter if it has more or less MP, but have a better outcome at a lower price. If I need a 22MP image and if it is necessary to reduce from 36 to 22, it's great, to me is perfect.

2 upvotes
KTSFotos
By KTSFotos (Mar 28, 2012)

If there was a 16MP camera with more quality and details that one of 36MP, sure I would buy a 16MP if the price was affordable and fair, then for me it is not competition of MP, but best result. I can turn my photos at 16MP to 100MP in photoshop if I wanted, but the quality and detail? This is my opinion.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
dbm305
By dbm305 (Mar 28, 2012)

Oh well. I haven't downloaded and normalized the D800 RAW pics yet, but based on how they look (only slightly worse than the 5dIII at 1:1) I'm guessing it'll come out the same or slightly better normalised. And all those nice pixels. Still, I don't regret my 5D III: it's handily better than the II (2/3 stop in RAW? That's really pretty useful = especially if it cleans up better which is my experience so far) and it would take me three years to get as proficient with the Nikon interface, by which time who knows who'll have the nicest sensor? And I do love my 17mm TSE....

0 upvotes
ianimal
By ianimal (Mar 28, 2012)

All this fuzz...
In RAW more or less the same 5DMkIII vs. D800
16 MP APS-C sensor in e.g Sony NEX-5N is about 1 stop noisier then 5DMkIII.
All in all, nothing new.
All this fuzz...

0 upvotes
Natan Lorenzi
By Natan Lorenzi (Mar 28, 2012)

In my opinion, 2/3 EV better than D800, and just 1/3EV worse than D4. Of course iso > 12800.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andycnv
By Andycnv (Mar 28, 2012)

What an incredible work have both Canon and Nikon made with their latest cameras!

4 upvotes
Donglei
By Donglei (Mar 28, 2012)

You can check it on the review page of any other camera.
Seems only 1 ev better than 5D2, a bit disappointing.

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Mar 28, 2012)

It's more like 1 2/3 ev better. I have both.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 287
123