Planning to switch from D800 to 5DIII Locked

Started Aug 2, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

chironNYC wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

I'd wait on the 24-70 f/4 IS kits coming soon. Or get a tamron 24-70 VC or splurge and get 24-70 II anything but the 24-105.

I think you are way overstating the case against the 24-105L lens. When mounted on the 5d3 (as opposed to the 1dsmk3, for example) the 24-105 performs extremely well coming in with about the same DXOmark score as the new Canon 24-70L f/4 or the venerated Canon 35L 1.4. So what's not to like?

First, yeah the OP may be perfectly fine with it. Certainly you don't need a fancy lens to take awesome photos. It's just that he is going through huge expense to swap systems and if you are willing to spend to swap I figure he wants something amazing on the other end to make it feel worth the bother.

As for what is not to like.... Mushy edges near 24mm even at f/8 or f/10? Smeared corners 24mm even f10? Ugly purple fringing longitudinal CA all over in the corners when you shoot branches against clouds? Not as sharp center, mid or edge on the wide end than the much less expensive (well formerly, not it's not so different and since Canon has IS and better range....) Tamron 28-75.

I don't care what DxO says about them, they also say that center frame 200mm f/2.8 the 70-200 2.8 IS is sharper than the 2.8 non-IS than the 2.8 IS II. That the 70-300 non-L is better than 70-300L and I think even 300L f/4 at 300mm. That the 16-35 2.8 has the sharpest edges near wide open, etc. Maybe they have update things but they used to say all sorts of crazy stuff.

Look at photozone numbers for 24-105 vs 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-70 II.

And I've compared them all myself and believe me the 24-105 at 24mm even f/8 was easily very noticeably worse looking than the other two, even center frame the 2.8 II even at f/8 looked richer and crisper. And edge to edge at f/4 it's not even close (other than getting near 70mm where the 2.8 II struggles a little at the edges and the 24-105 reaches it's prime).

I've looked at three 24-105 and quickly disliked each at 24mm. I looked at 24-70 f/4 IS at 24mm and was quickly pretty pleased.

If you mainly shoot subjects that are not edge to edge or are simply not that picky or your eyes/brain just don't notice sharpness and blur and CA all that easily then maybe they are not as radically different.

Of course it is true that the 24-105 is $600-650 these days and not $850-1150. At the current price it is a really good lens for the price.

Given that the OP is stretching his funds, I think the 24-105 is an outstanding choice.

Given the money it is a very good lens. I still wonder though given money constraints if it makes sense to bother switching, since if you spend $$ to switch I'd think you'd hope to blown away by the switch, but I guess there are other ways he could be blown away.

It is very unlikely that he will ever be able to see a noticeable difference in image quality in pictures that he is actually looking at as pictures (instead of test shots of fabric swatches), but he will have a versatile and moderately fast constant aperture zoom lens that will help him to capture a lot of real images that he wants to get and that he otherwise might miss.

If he wanted to add low light capability that would be nice for portraits and available light, he could do it very cheaply with a Canon 50 1.8.

bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

David Hull wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

David Hull wrote:

chironNYC wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

I'd wait on the 24-70 f/4 IS kits coming soon. Or get a tamron 24-70 VC or splurge and get 24-70 II anything but the 24-105.

I think you are way overstating the case against the 24-105L lens. When mounted on the 5d3 (as opposed to the 1dsmk3, for example) the 24-105 performs extremely well coming in with about the same DXOmark score as the new Canon 24-70L f/4 or the venerated Canon 35L 1.4. So what's not to like?

Given that the OP is stretching his funds, I think the 24-105 is an outstanding choice. It is very unlikely that he will ever be able to see a noticeable difference in image quality in pictures that he is actually looking at as pictures (instead of test shots of fabric swatches), but he will have a versatile and moderately fast constant aperture zoom lens that will help him to capture a lot of real images that he wants to get and that he otherwise might miss.

If he wanted to add low light capability that would be nice for portraits and available light, he could do it very cheaply with a Canon 50 1.8.

Yea... that lens gets a bad rap for some reason, mostly by people who don't own it, I suspect -- I guess that makes sense, why would you own something you don't like. When I got teh 24-70 II, I thought I might sell the 24-105, but I still use it a lot.

-- hide signature --

I've seen more than one copy of the 24-105L and can see why some like or dislike it. IMO a *good* copy of the 24-105L has very little to complain about and at 24mm it can out-do or be very competitive with a 17-40L at 24mm.

I also do not think that given an excellent copy of the 24-105L why I would ever get a more expensive 24-70 f4 IS unless I truly want its macro capabilities or slightly better 24mm (but an excellent copy of the 24-105L is very good at 50mm which the 24-70 f4 IS is not so much...and for its limited range thats a bit dissapointing).

Yea... maybe I got a good one but I don't really have too much to complain about with mine.

-- hide signature --

I suspect some small percentage of this lens, maybe 10-20% might be much better than most other copies. I tried three and was not impressed. It's a funny lens in that no other lens so regularly appears on BOTH most hated and favorite lens lists. Some of it may also be down to what people shoot with it, focusing on corner to corner landscape stuff on high density FF or maybe more portrait stuff. And how how attuned some people's eye/brain systems are to fine details. And, in some cases, whether people have ever had access to try better to get any reference points. And some may well be down to some smaller group of people getting much better copies than most of the rest, I think there could be something to this. I didn't used to think so, but I am starting to wonder more and more these days.

Timbukto Veteran Member • Posts: 4,988
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

You also can't chimp this lens on a pre DIGIC V camera.  DIGIC V DSLRs will clean up a *lot* of CA.  So will ACR, etc.  I am an MFT shooter so my tolerance for some CA is high as long as its not so significant that *after* correction it still posses an issue.  For a $700 street price lens if you get a good copy I think the CA is a trivial issue and would not expect prime like performance.  My expectations are tempered a bit in that not many lenses with this much useful range hitting 24, 35, 50, 85, 100mm's, all in one etc can really deliver sharp consistent results.  IMO there are copies that exist that do just that at all focal lengths especially when stopped down to f5.6 and not many lenses in or outside of Canon can really do that.

My Panasonic 14-42 II I am testing on MFT camera for example behaves *very* kit lens like where some focal lengths just have unexplained zones of softness.  But to be honest I have not kept a 24-105L myself for size reasons and that I feel it'd usurp some really delicious prime usage...

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: Planning to switch from D800 to 5DIII

JackM wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

24-105L is one the least sharp Canon L lenses. It does come at an amazing price these days though. 24-70 f/4 IS is sharper

Hogwash.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Hah well yeah you just happen to pick the ONE weak zone of the 24-70 f/4 IS, 50mm edges near wide open. You can get a $80 50 1.8 that will do better than either at 50mm anyway. You can't get a better 24mm than the 24-70 f/4 IS for less than a $700 24 2.8 IS prime.

I admit the 24-70 f/4 IS can be a bit rough at the edges near 50mm. But it is solid everywhere else (maybe even better edges at 70mm than the 24-70 II) and much better near 24mm (sharper across the frame, less PF, less distortion). If you don't care about edge to edge on the wide side then it's probably not worth it, fair enough. If you do, then it is a heck of a lot better.

and 24-70 2.8 IS II is crazy good.

That would be the only way to get significantly better IQ in a zoom, at about three times the price.

Yeah the price is horrifically worse. Too much for many no doubt at all.

I still say that, at least at the wide end, the 24-70 f/4 IS and tamron 24-70 vc are noticeably better though too (of course now the price is only like 2x as much hah). Lens Rentals data and photozone.de charts also back that up.

For the money, at the new prices the 24-105L can be had for, like $600-650 it is darn good, tamron 28-75 can be better in some ways for even less but the range is weaker on both sides by a lot and the AF much slower (and would not be good for the OP I don't think at all) and it has no IS andit has weird bokeh on the long end near the edges on FF so it doesn't fair as well these days as when it used to be $325 and the 24-105 $850-1100.

If you want to take advantage of better Canon glass the 24-105L wouldn't be the way to introduce yourself to it at all. Tamron 24-70 VC would be a better way to start than the 24-105L for sure too.

Nah.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

How does that link show the 24-105L to be better? The tamron crops look sharper there (and this is on the website that seems to drop each of their Tamron lenses before testing them). And what about http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2 where the tamron now reallllly looks much sharper.

bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: Planning to switch from D800 to 5DIII

iseeu wrote:

, regarding the grip I mean not the vertical grip, the canon even without it I feel more comfortable than nikon.

I like the canon bodies better too and especially the user interface too.

bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: L vs EF

iseeu wrote:

JackM wrote:

iseeu wrote:

Keith, I thank you for educating me about the code of the lenses, probably I will use the 430 EXII for the time being, maybe better to prioritize the lenses more important.

Yes, the 430 is a great unit and a great value. Some EF lenses are not "L" but still have L image quality. The L designation also has to do with construction quality and some L lenses are weather sealed. For example the EF 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2, and 100/2.8 macro are generally considered hidden L lenses due to their excellent image quality. They just don't have the same build. Also the new 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, and 35/2 IS have very high image quality, easily on the L level, but they're not sealed and have more plastic in the construction, so they're not L.

Jack have you ever compared the Sigma 50mm 1.4 with the Canon 50mm f/1.4? I am about to buy the Sigma from kijiji $400.

I've never tried the sigma, but I hear that it is sharper near wide open than the canon although a bit less sharp when stopped down. I hear some complaints about the sigma AF but the canon 50 1.4 is one the poorest focusing canon lenses so I doubt that you can hold AF against the Sigma in comparison. And the canon 50 1.4 AF is quite prone to breakage.

Optically the canon 50 1.4 seemed almost identical to an old zeiss 50 1.4 contax mount lens that I used with an adapter.

Keith Z Leonard Veteran Member • Posts: 6,007
Re: L vs EF

Generally the Sigma is regarded as a better lens than the Canon 50 f1.4.  Some reviews state that it's sharper wide open, especially in the center, and the Canon wins stopped down, that's true enough.  The Sigma AF is nice and quick and silent.  I own this lens and it's probably my most fun lens to use right at the moment.  I did send mine in for calibration for my 7D, my 5D3 has been quite good with it, I'd say better than the 7D was.

A popular thing to do seems to be to try one, and if it doesn't work return it and try 3 more, then complain about quality assurance.  If it isn't working on your camera that means it needs adjusted to your camera's PDAF, seems silly to me to keep blindly buying them in hopes that one will be properly calibrated at random.  I do wish they'd reissue this lens as part of the Art line though, so that people could calibrate them at home.

In the end I think the only real problem with the Canon 50 f1.4 is the micro-USM which is prone to breaking.

 Keith Z Leonard's gear list:Keith Z Leonard's gear list
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EOS 400D +16 more
David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,021
Re: Planning to switch from D800 to 5DIII

bronxbombers4 wrote:

David Hull wrote:

(particularly if I am just “out and about”). As a general purpose, all around lens it is hard to beat. In my case, it was the first “L” lens you bought; I bet that it will be the last one I sell.

24-105L is the only lens I have purchased three times and either sold or returned within a week each time.

I must have got a good one (it was kitted with my 5DII).

-- hide signature --
 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 5D Mark III
David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,021
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

bronxbombers4 wrote:

David Hull wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

David Hull wrote:

chironNYC wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

I'd wait on the 24-70 f/4 IS kits coming soon. Or get a tamron 24-70 VC or splurge and get 24-70 II anything but the 24-105.

I think you are way overstating the case against the 24-105L lens. When mounted on the 5d3 (as opposed to the 1dsmk3, for example) the 24-105 performs extremely well coming in with about the same DXOmark score as the new Canon 24-70L f/4 or the venerated Canon 35L 1.4. So what's not to like?

Given that the OP is stretching his funds, I think the 24-105 is an outstanding choice. It is very unlikely that he will ever be able to see a noticeable difference in image quality in pictures that he is actually looking at as pictures (instead of test shots of fabric swatches), but he will have a versatile and moderately fast constant aperture zoom lens that will help him to capture a lot of real images that he wants to get and that he otherwise might miss.

If he wanted to add low light capability that would be nice for portraits and available light, he could do it very cheaply with a Canon 50 1.8.

Yea... that lens gets a bad rap for some reason, mostly by people who don't own it, I suspect -- I guess that makes sense, why would you own something you don't like. When I got teh 24-70 II, I thought I might sell the 24-105, but I still use it a lot.

-- hide signature --

I've seen more than one copy of the 24-105L and can see why some like or dislike it. IMO a *good* copy of the 24-105L has very little to complain about and at 24mm it can out-do or be very competitive with a 17-40L at 24mm.

I also do not think that given an excellent copy of the 24-105L why I would ever get a more expensive 24-70 f4 IS unless I truly want its macro capabilities or slightly better 24mm (but an excellent copy of the 24-105L is very good at 50mm which the 24-70 f4 IS is not so much...and for its limited range thats a bit dissapointing).

Yea... maybe I got a good one but I don't really have too much to complain about with mine.

-- hide signature --

I suspect some small percentage of this lens, maybe 10-20% might be much better than most other copies. I tried three and was not impressed. It's a funny lens in that no other lens so regularly appears on BOTH most hated and favorite lens lists. Some of it may also be down to what people shoot with it, focusing on corner to corner landscape stuff on high density FF or maybe more portrait stuff. And how how attuned some people's eye/brain systems are to fine details. And, in some cases, whether people have ever had access to try better to get any reference points. And some may well be down to some smaller group of people getting much better copies than most of the rest, I think there could be something to this. I didn't used to think so, but I am starting to wonder more and more these days.

Some may not be as critical either. Most of my work seems to be events and portrait stuff lately so, to some extent I am not concerned if the corners are tack sharp.

One observation I have made over the years is that "sharp" is far more important to photographers than clients.  For most of what we do, most of these lenses will work just fine.

-- hide signature --
 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Horshack Veteran Member • Posts: 5,803
Re: Planning to switch from D800 to 5DIII

David Hull wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

David Hull wrote:

(particularly if I am just “out and about”). As a general purpose, all around lens it is hard to beat. In my case, it was the first “L” lens you bought; I bet that it will be the last one I sell.

24-105L is the only lens I have purchased three times and either sold or returned within a week each time.

I must have got a good one (it was kitted with my 5DII).

I've got a good copy too. What I like about the 24-105 over the Nikon equivalent is that the Canon retains excellent sharpness at the long end (where I find myself using it alot) whereas the Nikon gets mushy in the corners.

stratobill Senior Member • Posts: 1,874
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

My 24-105 is really very good, but maybe it's a very good copy? Yes, the 24-70 is better (I tested one) but the dollar and weight difference is huge. For critical pro applications it is probably the way to go. For us mere humans, not so much.

When I got my 6D I was planning to sell the 24-105 and move on, after all of the negative comments I've seen. But having shot with it a bit, it's a lot better than it gets credit for.

Is it as good as my 16-35 at 24? heck, no, but who would expect it to be?

Is it as good at 100 as my 70-200 F/IS? Ditto.

Is it as good at 40 as the pancake? Ditto.

But it does all of those things, and the others don't. When I travel overseas, that matters a lot.

I think of it as sorta like the 15-85 on crop, which I had great results with.

You could go for quite a while with the 24-105 and get some nice shots. If i have any complaint, it might be that it lacks a bit of contrast. Which I punch up a bit in LR. I would say always shoot with this lens in raw and you are going to do OK.

YMMV, etc.

 stratobill's gear list:stratobill's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS Rebel SL2 Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +4 more
Timbukto Veteran Member • Posts: 4,988
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

It's better than the 15-85 and not much more expensive. It's better than Olympus 12-50 which does offer similar equivalent lengths but definitely is not a very sharp lens and very slow at long end equivalent to past f11 on FF.

I do not know another lens that hits the same range with same overall quality.

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,021
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

stratobill wrote:

My 24-105 is really very good, but maybe it's a very good copy? Yes, the 24-70 is better (I tested one) but the dollar and weight difference is huge. For critical pro applications it is probably the way to go. For us mere humans, not so much.

When I got my 6D I was planning to sell the 24-105 and move on, after all of the negative comments I've seen. But having shot with it a bit, it's a lot better than it gets credit for.

Is it as good as my 16-35 at 24? heck, no, but who would expect it to be?

Is it as good at 100 as my 70-200 F/IS? Ditto.

Is it as good at 40 as the pancake? Ditto.

But it does all of those things, and the others don't. When I travel overseas, that matters a lot.

I think of it as sorta like the 15-85 on crop, which I had great results with.

You could go for quite a while with the 24-105 and get some nice shots. If i have any complaint, it might be that it lacks a bit of contrast. Which I punch up a bit in LR. I would say always shoot with this lens in raw and you are going to do OK.

YMMV, etc.

My wife shoots a 50D with the 15-85 and it does a good job. There is a definite place for lenses like these where you just want one lens with good wide and some reach.

FWIW, anyone can pull up ny Flickr stuff referenced below and look at the Comic Con shots (right at the top of the photostream). All of those are good acceptable shots made with the 5DIII and the 24-105 L. It is stuff like this where the lens proves its worth. The 24-70 would have been good as well and somewhat sharper but I don't think it really mattered that much for this stuff.

-- hide signature --
 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 5D Mark III
chironNYC Senior Member • Posts: 2,357
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

I think you are talking about critiquing a lens, and the OP is talking about taking pictures.

DXO gives the 24-105 a score of 20 on the 5d3. While 20 is not a perfect score, it is a good score and similar to the 24-70L f/4 or 35L 1.4. It actually fits with about what most users reports on this site.

The 24-105 covers a wide range with a decent constant aperture. I don't know any wide lenses, especially zooms, that are not a bit soft in the corners and edges. CA is easily fixed. For the uses the 24-105 is designed for, I don't think any of your criticisms of the lens will matter a fig when looking at the real pictures with minimal post-processing.

 chironNYC's gear list:chironNYC's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R III
bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

chironNYC wrote:

I think you are talking about critiquing a lens, and the OP is talking about taking pictures.

DXO gives the 24-105 a score of 20 on the 5d3. While 20 is not a perfect score, it is a good score and similar to the 24-70L f/4 or 35L 1.4. It actually fits with about what most users reports on this site.

The 24-105 covers a wide range with a decent constant aperture. I don't know any wide lenses, especially zooms, that are not a bit soft in the corners and edges. CA is easily fixed. For the uses the 24-105 is designed for, I don't think any of your criticisms of the lens will matter a fig when looking at the real pictures with minimal post-processing.

For doing comic-con stuff like another guy here was talking about maybe not. For doing landscape work at the wider end maybe so. The difference between 24-105 and 24-70 II/24 1.4 II/24 T&S II/24-70 f/4 IS at 24mm is pretty easy to see with real pictures of that type. Not everyone cares about those types of shots or cares even if they do but the difference is pretty large all the same whether you care or not.

Picturenaut
Picturenaut Regular Member • Posts: 330
Re: Planning to switch from D800 to 5DIII

iseeu wrote:

I am planning to make a switch from the D800 to 5DIII for some reason:

1. D800 lock me up few times and I have to take out the battery and insert it to make it work again, this really annoying.

I wouldn't change systems just based on frustration with one single camera, did you send it to Nikon service? That said, I'd recommend you to rent a 5D3 with the kit lens you want and play with it. If you like it, change. I personally love the way how the 5D3 feels and how it performs just in real world photog, but I am biased as a 5D3 owner. Others prefer Nikon's ergonomics.

2. The grip (not the battery grip) made 1 of my finger so painful after 10 hours of work, this is never happened with my D700.

That falls into the category "feel", which isn't important IMO...

3. The outer left AF point back focus severely.

4. Can't lock focus in low light so I missed few important shots.

(3) + (4): If the best possible AF performance is really what matters for you, in particular when you shoot action, go for the 5D3. We have both an extended Canon and Nikon system in our household, and do a lot of wildlife supertele shooting which drives every AF system to its limits (birds in flight are the hardest real life test - soft contours, often soft contrasts, vivid background). Canon's new AF system simply smokes Nikon's 51 pt AF system. This one here fits exactly into our own side-by-side experience:

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

I only have the Nikon 24-70mm for now, so I am not heavily invested in Nikon glass. Do you guys think 5D III will not give me those problems? I will buy the 5DIII with 24-105mm f/4 kit lens. Does 5D III will give me better high ISO performance? Can you please help me to decide.

If you reduce the D800's images to the size of the 5D3's during PP high ISO noise levels are about the same. That said, the 5D3 delivers really great images at high ISOs. You will love it.

Based on my personal (!!) experience I'd make this list:

Con 5D3:

- less dynamic range, about 2 EV less is huge! Depends on how much you like to shoot extremely contrast rich scenes. With the D800 you can pull shadow details better during PP, with the 5D3 you may see noise creeping in (with you turn off NR). That can be a huge advantage of the D800, but it really depends much on your preferences (HDR can fix it partly, as long as you don't shoot action or video). So, ask yourself how important shooting of extremely contrast rich scenes is for you. If yes, stick with Nikon, if not (like me, I do sunsets with Cokin filters anyway), you'd surely be happy with the 5D3's performance.

- less resolution, but only with some very sharp lenses! Personally I find the D800's potential gain of resolution in real life does often not really catch up with the huge files it produces. Check this interesting DxO lab review:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

Pro 5D3:

+ better AF system together with faster burst rate (if you need that sometimes) gives you more keepers in critical situations.

+ more natural and stable color rendition out of the camera. The D800's sensor is able to provide a tad more color depth according to lab reviews (see DxO) but IMHO real life performance is what counts. The D800 tends like a typical Nikon e.g. to shift greens to blue and to turn blues that contain strong reds (mauve) into cold blue etc. with auto settings. If you want to get realistic colors out of the D800 you much more often need to make tests shots with a color checker card and post process (or tweak more often your in-camera settings). The D800's LCD screen with its greenish cast doesn't help either. This video shows how the 5D3 manages complex mixed light situations better:

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

(starts at 12:30).

+ better LCD screen. Digital photography is about chimping, isn't it ;-)? The nice thing about the 5D3 is that its really great LCD screen shows the colors exactly how the camera got it. Another nice feature I love with Canon's DSLRs since years is that you get fully resolved details when you zoom in on this screen. This really helps when you want to control sharpness in critical situations (e.g. macro shooting).

+ bigger pixels allow f = 10-15 without visible losses in sharpness due to light diffraction. The pixel pitch of the D800 is about the same as of Canon's 7D which I also have and know extremely well. Shooting the 7D with a really sharp and brilliant prime, e.g. a Zeiss 18mm/3.5 for landscape/ cityscape, I can see how pictures get visibly softer when I close aperture to f >= 8. The reason is that the light diffraction turns sharp points into growing Airy discs with small apertures. Airy discs don't contain any contrasts/texture information (I know what I am talking about, I studied physics). As soon as such a disc exceeds about the size of the pixels the sensor loses its full resolution visibly. The 7D has its optimum aperture already at f = 7.1, whereas with the 5D3 you can go for f = 14 without severe losses of texture information. So, if you do landscape shooting in a classic f-stop range to get a best possible depth of field, then a D800 with small pixels produces big files that don't contain more texture information than the smaller files of a 5D3. It is simply limited by the physics of light waves. Btw that's reason why I'd personally would change to mid format if I'd mainly shoot landscape (I do not) and not stick with 35 mm sensors.

+ silent shutter mode: simply great, in particular in the street! The 5D3 is my first (D)SLR I'd even not hesitate to use during a silent moment of a preaching in a church.

Overall I'd say that a D800 (in particular E) is like a Ferrari, capable of producing fascinating images. The 5D3 reminds me more of a top Audi model: no breathtaking specs but just a reliable and well designed tool for everyday use.

Thanks in advance.

It's a hard decision (I once changed from Nikon to Canon when I went digital...). I wish you good luck! Don't forget: there is no camera without any flaw on the market...

-- hide signature --

Picturenaut

 Picturenaut's gear list:Picturenaut's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM +13 more
Picturenaut
Picturenaut Regular Member • Posts: 330
Re: Planning to switch from D800 to 5DIII

2. The grip (not the battery grip) made 1 of my finger so painful after 10 hours of work, this is never happened with my D700.

That falls into the category "feel", which isn't important IMO...

Sorry, this was a typo in my previous post which DPR does not allow me to correct anymore, I meant "which IS important IMO" of course...

-- hide signature --

Picturenaut

 Picturenaut's gear list:Picturenaut's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM +13 more
chironNYC Senior Member • Posts: 2,357
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

bronxbombers4 wrote:

chironNYC wrote:

I think you are talking about critiquing a lens, and the OP is talking about taking pictures.

DXO gives the 24-105 a score of 20 on the 5d3. While 20 is not a perfect score, it is a good score and similar to the 24-70L f/4 or 35L 1.4. It actually fits with about what most users reports on this site.

The 24-105 covers a wide range with a decent constant aperture. I don't know any wide lenses, especially zooms, that are not a bit soft in the corners and edges. CA is easily fixed. For the uses the 24-105 is designed for, I don't think any of your criticisms of the lens will matter a fig when looking at the real pictures with minimal post-processing.

For doing comic-con stuff like another guy here was talking about maybe not. For doing landscape work at the wider end maybe so. The difference between 24-105 and 24-70 II/24 1.4 II/24 T&S II/24-70 f/4 IS at 24mm is pretty easy to see with real pictures of that type. Not everyone cares about those types of shots or cares even if they do but the difference is pretty large all the same whether you care or not.

But you are advising him not to get a specific, very versatile lens by specifying a specific type of picture that the OP has not said he is interested in, i.e. you are arguing a limited case (landscapes shot wide) that does not particularly apply here. The OP seems to be more interested in versatility and value.

Also, I think this has nothing to do with what aspects of image quality I personally care about or can see. I have and use a lot of excellent L or high quality non-L primes like the 24mm f/2.8 IS and the 35 f/2 IS, but I also use the 24-105L extensively. There are different lenses for different purposes and situations, as I know you know.

 chironNYC's gear list:chironNYC's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R III
OP iseeu Contributing Member • Posts: 845
Re: Planning to switch from D800 to 5DIII

Picturenaut wrote:

iseeu wrote:

I am planning to make a switch from the D800 to 5DIII for some reason:

1. D800 lock me up few times and I have to take out the battery and insert it to make it work again, this really annoying.

I wouldn't change systems just based on frustration with one single camera, did you send it to Nikon service? That said, I'd recommend you to rent a 5D3 with the kit lens you want and play with it. If you like it, change. I personally love the way how the 5D3 feels and how it performs just in real world photog, but I am biased as a 5D3 owner. Others prefer Nikon's ergonomics.

2. The grip (not the battery grip) made 1 of my finger so painful after 10 hours of work, this is never happened with my D700.

That falls into the category "feel", which isn't important IMO...

3. The outer left AF point back focus severely.

4. Can't lock focus in low light so I missed few important shots.

(3) + (4): If the best possible AF performance is really what matters for you, in particular when you shoot action, go for the 5D3. We have both an extended Canon and Nikon system in our household, and do a lot of wildlife supertele shooting which drives every AF system to its limits (birds in flight are the hardest real life test - soft contours, often soft contrasts, vivid background). Canon's new AF system simply smokes Nikon's 51 pt AF system. This one here fits exactly into our own side-by-side experience:

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

I only have the Nikon 24-70mm for now, so I am not heavily invested in Nikon glass. Do you guys think 5D III will not give me those problems? I will buy the 5DIII with 24-105mm f/4 kit lens. Does 5D III will give me better high ISO performance? Can you please help me to decide.

If you reduce the D800's images to the size of the 5D3's during PP high ISO noise levels are about the same. That said, the 5D3 delivers really great images at high ISOs. You will love it.

Based on my personal (!!) experience I'd make this list:

Con 5D3:

- less dynamic range, about 2 EV less is huge! Depends on how much you like to shoot extremely contrast rich scenes. With the D800 you can pull shadow details better during PP, with the 5D3 you may see noise creeping in (with you turn off NR). That can be a huge advantage of the D800, but it really depends much on your preferences (HDR can fix it partly, as long as you don't shoot action or video). So, ask yourself how important shooting of extremely contrast rich scenes is for you. If yes, stick with Nikon, if not (like me, I do sunsets with Cokin filters anyway), you'd surely be happy with the 5D3's performance.

- less resolution, but only with some very sharp lenses! Personally I find the D800's potential gain of resolution in real life does often not really catch up with the huge files it produces. Check this interesting DxO lab review:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

Pro 5D3:

+ better AF system together with faster burst rate (if you need that sometimes) gives you more keepers in critical situations.

+ more natural and stable color rendition out of the camera. The D800's sensor is able to provide a tad more color depth according to lab reviews (see DxO) but IMHO real life performance is what counts. The D800 tends like a typical Nikon e.g. to shift greens to blue and to turn blues that contain strong reds (mauve) into cold blue etc. with auto settings. If you want to get realistic colors out of the D800 you much more often need to make tests shots with a color checker card and post process (or tweak more often your in-camera settings). The D800's LCD screen with its greenish cast doesn't help either. This video shows how the 5D3 manages complex mixed light situations better:

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

(starts at 12:30).

+ better LCD screen. Digital photography is about chimping, isn't it ;-)? The nice thing about the 5D3 is that its really great LCD screen shows the colors exactly how the camera got it. Another nice feature I love with Canon's DSLRs since years is that you get fully resolved details when you zoom in on this screen. This really helps when you want to control sharpness in critical situations (e.g. macro shooting).

+ bigger pixels allow f = 10-15 without visible losses in sharpness due to light diffraction. The pixel pitch of the D800 is about the same as of Canon's 7D which I also have and know extremely well. Shooting the 7D with a really sharp and brilliant prime, e.g. a Zeiss 18mm/3.5 for landscape/ cityscape, I can see how pictures get visibly softer when I close aperture to f >= 8. The reason is that the light diffraction turns sharp points into growing Airy discs with small apertures. Airy discs don't contain any contrasts/texture information (I know what I am talking about, I studied physics). As soon as such a disc exceeds about the size of the pixels the sensor loses its full resolution visibly. The 7D has its optimum aperture already at f = 7.1, whereas with the 5D3 you can go for f = 14 without severe losses of texture information. So, if you do landscape shooting in a classic f-stop range to get a best possible depth of field, then a D800 with small pixels produces big files that don't contain more texture information than the smaller files of a 5D3. It is simply limited by the physics of light waves. Btw that's reason why I'd personally would change to mid format if I'd mainly shoot landscape (I do not) and not stick with 35 mm sensors.

+ silent shutter mode: simply great, in particular in the street! The 5D3 is my first (D)SLR I'd even not hesitate to use during a silent moment of a preaching in a church.

Overall I'd say that a D800 (in particular E) is like a Ferrari, capable of producing fascinating images. The 5D3 reminds me more of a top Audi model: no breathtaking specs but just a reliable and well designed tool for everyday use.

Thanks in advance.

It's a hard decision (I once changed from Nikon to Canon when I went digital...). I wish you good luck! Don't forget: there is no camera without any flaw on the market...

-- hide signature --

Picturenaut

Hi Picturenaut, I thank you for long explanation and suggestion, I never had any plan to switch brand when I have the D700, but the disaster came after i sold the D700 and get the D800, talking about image quality is excellent and lots of details on the D800 if you can get it in focus, the problems with this camera is the AF not reliable and I only trust the center AF point, so what's the point in having 51 AF points if we can't use in confident, and the lock up happened to other people too and as Nikon said they fixed in the latest firmware which is totally BS, and the other thing I don't like is the grip that made 1 of my finger/nail so painful, I never had this problems when I hold my D700 for 10 hours of shooting. All these that made me switch to Canon as all my Canon friends also convinced me to do so if I have all these problems.

 iseeu's gear list:iseeu's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G
ArchiDeos
ArchiDeos Junior Member • Posts: 48
Re: Planning to switch from D800 to 5DIII

Hey Pal.. check this one..

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

and considering Magic Lantern for video as well.

cheers..

 ArchiDeos's gear list:ArchiDeos's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads