pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)  (Read 10629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

velocicarpo

« on: March 19, 2012, 20:56 »
0
Hi all,

I am really struggling with my decision if I should buy the mkIII or switch to the Nikon D800. I am one of those who really could use some extra MP, mostly for postprocessing concerns. Has anyone a good link for full res comparison pics? To be honest I don`t know too much about the Nikon (dark side of the force :D) universe beyond the basic numbers, but the price tag of the d800 is tempting.
What are you plan on doing? What would you do if you would want to spend the money now?


traveler1116

« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2012, 21:34 »
0
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7

dpreview just came out with this, I think it looks comparable to 5d mark II quality with a lot more megapixels.  I won't switch but hopefully Canon will come up with something to match Nikon with soon.

velocicarpo

« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2012, 21:41 »
0
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7

dpreview just came out with this, I think it looks comparable to 5d mark II quality with a lot more megapixels.  I won't switch but hopefully Canon will come up with something to match Nikon with soon.


Ver cool, thanks! Since I think I will be able to continue to use my 5D mkii a lot longer it may look like a good opportunity to get a bit into the Nikon world...basically shooting mainly with the 5D and using the Nikon as a second cam until I am convinced....

I have to say that I basically agree with the step of canon not to go further with the MP. There are other things more important. It is just that me personally with my style could use them a lot. The other reason is this incredible stupid "Rate" button  ;D

velocicarpo

« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2012, 21:52 »
0
Wow, I am really impressed by the fullsize image comparison D800 vs 5D mark ii. The D800 has incredible rich detail...a LOT better than the mkii ! Lets wait and see what the mk iii is bringing...

lagereek

« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2012, 00:59 »
0
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2012, 01:16 »
0
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

I agree with almost everything you are saying here, except saying that just because you go above 20MP you are in MF land - not exactly true. A MF sensor is a lot larger than D800, MII, D3X and gives a lot of advantages/increases ("better" pixels) in quality similiar to the step from a APS-C or small sensor compact up to full frame sensors.

For stock photographers, micro and traditional, the MP race is now ridiculous - there is no real justification alone in the increase in MPs to go ahead with any of the super high MP cameras. Only thing I can think of would be greater allowance for cropping, that's it, but a photographer with basic skills should at least be able to frame/compose properly and stop being so lazy, utilize their feet more, alternatively a longer lens and/or charm to get in close enough to their subjects.

Both in microstock and traditional outlets my experience is that the overwhelming majority of images sold are on the medium to small side, and trending in that direction.

« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2012, 01:45 »
0
For stock photographers, micro and traditional, the MP race is now ridiculous - there is no real justification alone in the increase in MPs to go ahead with any of the super high MP cameras. Only thing I can think of would be greater allowance for cropping, that's it, but a photographer with basic skills should at least be able to frame/compose properly and stop being so lazy, utilize their feet more, alternatively a longer lens and/or charm to get in close enough to their subjects.

That's the truth. I find simply amusing the excuse to "be able to crop more" from the image, I would send these guys back to school for that.

lagereek

« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2012, 02:11 »
0
Yes indeed!   the cropping argument is a joke!   its the arguments of diletants.

Martin!  many times have I blown up gigantic enlargements, even up to 90x70, cm, thats large and the standard affish-format. Ive compared these from MF.HD4, Nikon D3X, the Canon MII and the Leica-S2 and you know what, there is a differance but its so incredibly small it just isnt justyfiable to spend thousands extra.

Its like in the old days with LF, comparing Schneider optics to Rodenstock, one gives a slightly softer image then the other but they are both superb. Its all about the glass!
Stick a crappy lens on a top DSLR, and you got rubbish coming out in the other end. This is what the average guy simply dont understand, top notch cams, will need the best optics and in our cases, Primes, are probably the only answer.

« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2012, 03:45 »
0
Yes indeed!   the cropping argument is a joke!   its the arguments of diletants.

Martin!  many times have I blown up gigantic enlargements, even up to 90x70, cm, thats large and the standard affish-format. Ive compared these from MF.HD4, Nikon D3X, the Canon MII and the Leica-S2 and you know what, there is a differance but its so incredibly small it just isnt justyfiable to spend thousands extra.

Its like in the old days with LF, comparing Schneider optics to Rodenstock, one gives a slightly softer image then the other but they are both superb. Its all about the glass!
Stick a crappy lens on a top DSLR, and you got rubbish coming out in the other end. This is what the average guy simply dont understand, top notch cams, will need the best optics and in our cases, Primes, are probably the only answer.

Christian, I think you misunderstood me slightly, or perhaps I wasn't very clear. Blowing things up you get away with a lot less then most people expect, as you naturally view whatever images progressively from further away. Hell, 4-6MP can go REALLY big with proper interpolation and still look good.

What I meant in essence is that I rather have fewer/the same MP on a larger sensor than more MP on a smaller....the size of the sensor is way more interesting. And in other words, nothing really interests me after 20MPs+, I rather move up to MF territory where for example the Hasselblad 31MP sensor is more interesting than the 200MP one.

« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2012, 04:05 »
0
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7

dpreview just came out with this, I think it looks comparable to 5d mark II quality with a lot more megapixels.  I won't switch but hopefully Canon will come up with something to match Nikon with soon.


That's really useful. The D4 and the D800 don't look that much better than the D3s or D700 for shadow noise at ISO800 which is where I want improvement. Waiting to see the video tests now.

lagereek

« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2012, 04:14 »
0
Yes indeed!   the cropping argument is a joke!   its the arguments of diletants.

Martin!  many times have I blown up gigantic enlargements, even up to 90x70, cm, thats large and the standard affish-format. Ive compared these from MF.HD4, Nikon D3X, the Canon MII and the Leica-S2 and you know what, there is a differance but its so incredibly small it just isnt justyfiable to spend thousands extra.

Its like in the old days with LF, comparing Schneider optics to Rodenstock, one gives a slightly softer image then the other but they are both superb. Its all about the glass!
Stick a crappy lens on a top DSLR, and you got rubbish coming out in the other end. This is what the average guy simply dont understand, top notch cams, will need the best optics and in our cases, Primes, are probably the only answer.

Christian, I think you misunderstood me slightly, or perhaps I wasn't very clear. Blowing things up you get away with a lot less then most people expect, as you naturally view whatever images progressively from further away. Hell, 4-6MP can go REALLY big with proper interpolation and still look good.

What I meant in essence is that I rather have fewer/the same MP on a larger sensor than more MP on a smaller....the size of the sensor is way more interesting. And in other words, nothing really interests me after 20MPs+, I rather move up to MF territory where for example the Hasselblad 31MP sensor is more interesting than the 200MP one.

Sure!  Im with you. :)

lagereek

« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2012, 04:15 »
0
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7

dpreview just came out with this, I think it looks comparable to 5d mark II quality with a lot more megapixels.  I won't switch but hopefully Canon will come up with something to match Nikon with soon.


That's really useful. The D4 and the D800 don't look that much better than the D3s or D700 for shadow noise at ISO800 which is where I want improvement. Waiting to see the video tests now.


Yes and thats exactly no more, no less then I expected.

« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2012, 04:46 »
0
lagereek: Are you saying that the canon zoom L's (for example) aren't good enough for modern high MP cameras ?
Most already have a new and better MK II version.

« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2012, 05:19 »
0
So people that want more MP's so they can crop occasionally are lazy amateurs?  I did give some good reasons in another thread, I'm not wasting my time on that again.  Low noise at high ISO isn't an essential for me, I rarely go above 400 ISO, some of us want different things from a camera.

I'm sure Canon will have a higher MP full frame option later this year and I'll wait and see what that's like.  If they have stuck with pleasing the high ISO people only, then I'll be looking elsewhere.

lagereek

« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2012, 05:30 »
0
lagereek: Are you saying that the canon zoom L's (for example) aren't good enough for modern high MP cameras ?
Most already have a new and better MK II version.

The Canon L-zooms are splendid and they sure perform well on the MII, BUT! when I compare each of the zooms focal lengths to my fixed primes!  the primes, are well superior ( so they should be).

However, when you get sensors with say around 30 MPs,  well, who knows?

Many poor sod is now running for the D800, 36MPs, etc, without even knowing they have to opt all their lenses.

« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2012, 07:37 »
0
lagereek: Are you saying that the canon zoom L's (for example) aren't good enough for modern high MP cameras ?

I'm not lagereek but I'll still answer :)

Zooms are always zooms, they are compromized. I have a couple of zooms, but almost never use them because I get better quality (and larger apertures) with primes.

Sure, if you shoot with medium apertures and use shutter speeds that are borderline (regarding to camera shake), and with a low megapixel camera there might not be any real difference. But with 20+ Mp and strobes you really need primes to get every detail resolved as good as possible.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 07:41 by Perry »

velocicarpo

« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2012, 08:54 »
0

For stock photographers, micro and traditional, the MP race is now ridiculous - there is no real justification alone in the increase in MPs to go ahead with any of the super high MP cameras.

Well, if you are doing HDRI and extreme postprocessing you will need every MP you get. For quality reasons you have to downsize later a lot. Currently, when I heavily postprocess, the final image has around 4000x2666 or less.

velocicarpo

« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2012, 08:56 »
0
So people that want more MP's so they can crop occasionally are lazy amateurs?  I did give some good reasons in another thread, I'm not wasting my time on that again.  Low noise at high ISO isn't an essential for me, I rarely go above 400 ISO, some of us want different things from a camera.

I'm sure Canon will have a higher MP full frame option later this year and I'll wait and see what that's like.  If they have stuck with pleasing the high ISO people only, then I'll be looking elsewhere.

+1

« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2012, 10:27 »
0
I don't get the putdowns of cropping.  A 'real' artist - like a painter - can spend hours thinking about a composition, make sketches, throw them away, start over - all part of the process.   A lowly photographer is expected to do his composition in a split second and get it right the first time, otherwise he's a loser.  Sorry, but that's not how my brain works.  I see 'something' I like, I get a photo that includes all of it, with room to spare, then I work on framing it later.  And I'm very conscious of framing, of what goes in and how the elements balance.   So yes I'd love to have 36 mp, but a D800 is way out of my price range. 

« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2012, 10:47 »
0
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2012, 10:58 »
0

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

I'm a Nikon guy, and I agree, they are sort of ugly.  The logo is shouting, the red 'chevron' trim piece is tacky and the overall shape, while functional, does not exactly inspire .  Apple has introduced the technology sector to the importance of real design and eventually they'll all get on the bandwagon.  This would be a good time to be a young and talented industrial designer.

velocicarpo

« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2012, 13:19 »
0
How does the sensors compare? Is the Canon sensor usually less noisy?

« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2012, 15:15 »
0
I would like to have the 36 mp to push the edits at ISO 100 then downsize to XXXL or XXL.

« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2012, 16:16 »
0
I don't get the putdowns of cropping.  A 'real' artist - like a painter - can spend hours thinking about a composition, make sketches, throw them away, start over - all part of the process.   A lowly photographer is expected to do his composition in a split second and get it right the first time, otherwise he's a loser.  Sorry, but that's not how my brain works.  I see 'something' I like, I get a photo that includes all of it, with room to spare, then I work on framing it later.  And I'm very conscious of framing, of what goes in and how the elements balance.   So yes I'd love to have 36 mp, but a D800 is way out of my price range. 

I'd agree. Sometimes I only see the real 'money shot' when viewing the images well after the shoot. Occasionally it has actually been months later, when on my 3rd or 4th pass of the images for stock potential, that a megga-crop jumps out as a best-seller. I'd certainly pay for more MP and would be confident of getting a return from the investment.

velocicarpo

« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2012, 17:25 »
0


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1675 Views
Last post May 09, 2008, 15:18
by anonymous
8 Replies
4139 Views
Last post June 05, 2008, 22:36
by helix7
7 Replies
1712 Views
Last post July 19, 2009, 23:23
by microstockinsider
94 Replies
10975 Views
Last post February 25, 2012, 00:11
by luissantos84
17 Replies
2097 Views
Last post May 03, 2012, 10:14
by tab62

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors