User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  5
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: 5dmkIII vs D800 image comparison

  1. #1
    Shore Crawler Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,428
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    5dmkIII vs D800 image comparison

    I thought this was interesting
    Someone's done some comparisons of high iso work between these 2 cameras
    Going to do some landscape shooting hopefully this weekend with the mkIII and try to take the same shot with the mkII to see if there's any difference noticeable ( I don't expect much for landscape work!)

    http://www.slrlounge.com/on-imaging-...ple-comparison
    Call me Dylan! www.everlookphotography.com | www.everlookphotography.wordpress.com | www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh
    Canon EOS 5dmk3 : 17-40 F4 L, 70-200F2.8 canon L, 24-70mm canon L, Gitzo Safari +1178 ballhead. |Canon 5dmkII, 16-35mmF2.8 II L, Gitzo 2541 )
    Singh Ray/Hitech/Lee assorted filters, Z pro modified system Cokin holder
    Post : Lightroom 3.6 catalogue -> Export as 16bit TIFF, Edited CS5 -> resized for web.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Apr 2010
    Location
    Bribie Is Sunny South East
    Posts
    1,047
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Canon/Nikon rivalry has always been there Dylan, just the same as Holden/Ford, but I have never seen it as active, or even as cutting as it is with the release of these 2 models. It seems to be the talking point everywhere with one side claiming victory over the other and vice versa. At the end of the day though we as the consumer are the winners because camera technology is really coming of age now. It makes me wonder what the next few years holds for us.
    Lloyd
    Canon 5D2+40D+L+Σ+S100
    Never make the same mistake twice, there are so many new ones, try a different one each day
    Flickr

  3. #3
    Shore Crawler
    Threadstarter
    Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,428
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    definitely Lloyd - that's why I thought I 'd do the comparison between mkII and mkIII which I reckon is more meaningful for most since most aren't going to jump camp!

  4. #4
    Drifter, Racer and Picture Taker
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenwich
    Posts
    1,708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    From what I can see at 6400, the Canon wins hands down.
    The Canon image is very useable, where the Nikon one is very speckled, and to me, would be unuseable.

    Maybe Canon is right.
    Bigger pixels = better high ISO quality.
    All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
    Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney (Nth. Beaches)
    Posts
    1,190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To me these tests would only be meaningful when the same lens is used on both cameras and AF has been micro adjusted.

    I'm a firm believer that you only get what you pay for and I don't care which of these two cameras I bought I think the "bang for buck" is incredible for both.
    Cheers
    Darey

    Nikon user, Thick skinned and wanting to improve, genuine C & C welcomed.

    Photographs don't lie ! - Anonymous Liar

  6. #6
    Shore Crawler
    Threadstarter
    Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,428
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    if you ask me, had i been with nikon from the start, I'd have ordered a D800 ages ago! but since I have a long term investment with canon, 5dmkIII aint half bad either

  7. #7
    A. P's Culinary Indiscriminant mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Cronulla, Sydney
    Posts
    8,331
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mongo's view of the results puts Canon out ahead of the Nikon at a number of different ISOs and better overall (and Mongo is a Nikon user). The lenses will play some part in sharpness and contrast but Mongo would not think they can very seriously affect noise.
    Must say though that the nikon image was far more magnified and it is pointless sometimes to not use the same focal length of lens or the equivalent resulting focal length of lens on each camera if you are going to do a "side by side" "apples with apples" comparison.
    Last edited by mongo; 23-03-2012 at 9:14pm.
    Nikon and Pentax user



  8. #8
    can't remember
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The incompetent tools have done the comparison using 100% crops! This is idiotic! You can absolutely guarantee an undeserved walkover "win" to the camera with the lower pixel count if you are dumb enough to "test" it that way. Meaningless drivel.

    The correct (and indeed only useful) way to compare noise in cameras with identical sensor sizes but different pixel counts is to compare equal portions of the image. You MUST compare like with like, otherwise the "results" are ridiculous.

    I can't believe people are still getting stuff as basic as this wrong.
    Tony

    Edit and critique at will. Tokina 10-17 fish, Canon 10-22, 24-105, 100-400, TS-E 24, 35/1.4, 60 macro, 100L macro, 500/4, Wimberley, MT-24EX, 580EX-II, 1D IV, 7D, 5D II, 50D.

  9. #9
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,260
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    In the end we are all photographers, and share a love for capturing the world around as withing a fleeting moment of time. Whether you capture that moment with 'the best sensor' or not, is really irrelevant. We use the gear we have, and capture it to the best of our abilities. There is not perfect camera, there will never be the perfect camera (or lens), and whilst the comparisions (good or badly done) are interesting, next year, or the year after a better sensor will come out.

    Use what you have, take your photos and enjoy the results. Those who lament the miniscule differences in what a sensor or two can achieve are missing out on the opportunities that awaits them with their present gear. Just cause a new sensor has been released, doesn't automatically make your existing gear bad!

    Sometimes we get to absorbed by the technical to remember that the D200 or 40D of years ago, can still take damn good photos.
    Last edited by ricktas; 24-03-2012 at 9:34am.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  10. #10
    Way Down Yonder in the Paw Paw Patch jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jun 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,685
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Damned right Rick. Though if I'm going to drop three grand on a camera—and it appears that I am—I'd be quite interested in a well designed comparison study to see how it stacks up against its competitors.

  11. #11
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,874
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    I can't believe people are still getting stuff as basic as this wrong.
    Wow, that is a bit harsh!!!!
    That site has done absolutely the right thing with their testing, how can they possibly be wrong when they have a a side by side comparison of the latest and greatest bodies on the net very soon after release --- to start a little controversy and invoke a million more hits to their site each day to keep the advertisers happy.

    Tony, you used the word tools to describe them, I really think that is a little to complimentary a term. As you point out the highest res sensor is always going to look worse of in a flawed comparison such as that and if one uses their comparison tool you only have to reverse the scenario and insert a 5D Mk11 and D700 side by side to see similarly skewed results. Those two models have been out for aeons in digital camera terms and both have proven to be excellent bodies for their intended roles just as I am sure the latest models from both companies will perform perfectly for the non pixel peeping measureabators in the future.

    Of course their are other points to consider in their "testing" process such as did they shoot raw files and process them identically through the same converter such as ACR?
    Somehow I doubt it, the end result images look very much like jpeg shots with default in camera noise reduction and sharpening settings and everyone knows that C and N vary a fair bit with their default profiles.

    Tools? Maybe left handed metric shifting spanners.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  12. #12
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,759
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennymiata View Post
    From what I can see at 6400, the Canon wins hands down.
    The Canon image is very useable, where the Nikon one is very speckled, and to me, would be unuseable.

    Maybe Canon is right.
    Bigger pixels = better high ISO quality.
    LOL! you got it the wrong way round .. Nikon is right and that bigger pixels = better higher ISO images!
    (Nikon have simply hedged their bets now with the D800. D4 for low light, D800 for more detail.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Darey View Post
    To me these tests would only be meaningful when the same lens is used on both cameras and AF has been micro adjusted.

    ...
    AF and micro adjustingments will not affect their results.
    If Tony(below) is correct and these folks are in fact "tools" and used AF through the viewfinder to acquire the best possible image detail, then the tests can be discounted and deleted from the database without hesitation.
    They'd have almost certainly used manual focus .... or alternatively Liveview auto focus where micro adjustingments won't make any difference to AF

    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    .... You MUST compare like with like, otherwise the "results" are ridiculous.

    I can't believe people are still getting stuff as basic as this wrong.
    This is true for detail in the images where they're trying to show how much detail can be retained from an image, but when it comes to colour accuracy or abnormalities, looking at 100% pixel view is of the utmost importance when analysing the sensors raw performance.
    100% pixel view still has it's merits if you know what(or why) you are looking at it.

    D800 is certainly bettered by the MkIII, and this will show up even when normalised for a print of equal size, in much better colour reproduction.
    But in saying that D800 has nothing to be ashamed of considering the pixel density .... and as Dylan said ... if you were getting into a system(ie. any system) now, you'd be better off going with the Nikon system is money wasn't a major factor.
    But as always it goes around in circles .. in a few years time, Canon will find the edge it needs to better Nikon's technology at the time .. just as Canon had the edge over Nikon for many years, many years ago!

    The most important conclusion to come out of this is simple .. us consumers win as the manufacturers keep pushing the envelope.
    And in he very near future we'll have 100Mp sensors with 20Ev of dynamic range and noiseless ISO500K performance!
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  13. #13
    Shore Crawler
    Threadstarter
    Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,428
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    wow, what a response to this thread haha - I've just got home from using the 5dmkIII at a wedding without using fill flash and using 3200 iso - will post some later on - the lCD rendered jpegs look great but i suspect the rAWS not as good - will let you know later - I'm not touching the can of worms that is the D800 since i won't be using one ;P

  14. #14
    can't remember
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not harsh at all, Andrew. Over-kind, if anything.

    I have no idea how good or bad the balance of their procedure was, nor do I need to know - as their failure to select a valid fundamental basis of comparison makes all other methodological questions moot. To compare two cameras for noise it is ESSENTIAL to compare equal areas. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. This is the essential basic equality without which comparisons are meaningless.

  15. #15
    Capturing God's Creations
    Join Date
    27 Nov 2008
    Location
    Wunghnu Victoria
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes in practical terms, if you are printing these images at the same size then the D800 noise will look better than it does at the pixel level. Also these are jpegs so likely some in-camera NR happening which can throw things out. The interesting thing to me is that the exif says the D800 is 2/3 stop faster than the 5D3 (1/1250 vs 1/800). If this holds true across the comparative Nikon & Canon lenses this is significant for low light handheld shooting.

    Dylan I would also be interested in a comparison of the 5D2 & 5D3 using the same the lens with identical settings to see if the exposure is the same for each camera.

    Cheers
    Leigh

  16. #16
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    26 Nov 2008
    Location
    Booval, Qld (near Ipswich)
    Posts
    2,018
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't mean to be rude, and this is not an attack against you Tony, but I appreciate the effort put into these, and not being a purest can appreciate them for what they are, an indicator. How about showing us some of your photos again instead! They were awesome and some of the best I had seen and kept me striving for the same in my work.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •