Canon 5D MK III vs Nikon D800 with Nathan Elson (youtube)

[Chris G]

Quite a interesting review throughout with both cams pretty much on par with each other..


http://youtu.be/omTo7UxbJX8

[I @ M]

Quite a interesting review throughout with both cams pretty much on par with each other..


http://youtu.be/omTo7UxbJX8

I got as far as about the 50 second mark and turned it off. Along with the typical septic approach to attempts at humour they started talking "real life" situations including "sport". Sorry but if some goose claims to be doing a review of a camera so unsuited to one particular genre then they really aren't worth listening to in my books.

Once again, if people start worrying about fast frame rates, slow cards and limited file transfer rates after hand holding that body then they really need to examine whether that camera is suited to them or whether they simply want to join the plethora of internet whingers who are too stupid to realise what a particular camera is for.

[bouwy]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing the Link.

[Chris G]

Andrew, actually they never tested the performance of the shutter at all in the whole 18mins odd, I think they meant that for another time..

It was all studio, focusing speed, low & high ISO & night handling with all shots as portrait pro..

[arthurking83]

I watched the video and it was good to see no fanboism anywhere .. like the man said, if you had one system or the other, there'd be no reason to change.

Having said that, they did say that this is one of three vids in a series over the next three weeks, and that they'll also do a sports one.
If they had any sense of validity, you wouldn't really compare a D800 to a 5DIII in a sports shoot situation, just as you wouldn't have compared a D700 to a 5DII back then for a sports shoot situation.

D800 may have some features that will work in a fast paced situation, but for serious sports you simply wouldn't choose a D800 now just as you wouldn't have chosen a 5DII back then!

(This is where I think Nikon stuffed up!)

They should have had D800 and D4 cameras in both normal and x versions for whichever situation was required!

Now if you want a top end Nikon camera for some low priced serious sports shooting, you're stuffed(by comparison to the Canon camp).

If the D400 remains in the Dx format you're truly stuffed for the next few years .. at least until Nikon figure out a way to get higher bandwidth from the D800's system for at least 6fps shooting.

I find it weird that Nikon and Canon have both switched philosophies on the D800 and 5DIII respectively.

The D800 is now more like the 5DII was then, and the 5DIII is more like the D700 was back then!

[Steve Axford]

I agree Arthur, it is odd that the two camps have swapped so completely. I've just got the 5D3, mainly for video and low light work, but also for some of the other features - and I need 2 cameras. I would have like 36MP as well, but it is no longer the most important feature. I guess Canon and Nikon have had to choose where to put their resources and Nikon had the option of a 36MP Sony chip and that was too tempting to refuse. Canon, on the other hand had to develop their own chip and it was a choice of where to put their money. Only time will tell who made the best decision. I'll stick with Canon mainly because I have lots of their glass and there is no Nikon glass that I pine for..

[geoffsta]

Ok.. After watching the whole video I got the idea both cameras handled quite well. Nikon had the focus issue, while Canon couldn't focus in very low light.
I would have liked both cameras to use the same lens... I'm not to sure about some members, but some of us have more than the one brand of lens. I have Nikon, Sigma and Tokina. All very nice lenses. If they had done the test with two lenses, both exactly the same. Just the different mount. I think the test would have been more conclusive and accurate.

This test did not only put the bodies to the test, but the lenses that were mounted as well.

[Xebadir]

I point out here that the *Low ISO test* used is not actually a test of ISO characteristics but actually performance of dynamic range resulting from a very uneven lighting scenario, which probably doesn't reflect the true performance ability of the respective sensors.

It is however very nice to see an unbiased and honest assessment of the cameras, and the cameras being put through a range of scenarios no matter how ill conceived.