The question that shouldn't be asked: 5D MKIII or D800 for me

Damnations Fury · 7 Mar 2013 at 12:28

First off, lets not turn this into Dpreview.

My backstory goes that I had to sell my D700 and all the rest of the kit last year due to buying a house and neeing money for a new kitchen (it was a painful time), so I am starting from scratch again. I have a had an NEX 7 for a while, but that has only reminded me of how much I miss the punch off Full Frame, so am in the procss of selling that.

I have been playing with the two cameras with similar lenses, but can't decide which way to go, pretty much down to one feature. Now this preference is mine, I am not saying what I think is verbatim, but these are my feelings on the two.

Overall I prefer the 5D for:
* The ergonomics feel bettter to me. I wouldn't say the D800 is bad, just 5D better. This is the reverse of the MKII and D700, where to me the MKII felt a little cheap comapred to the D700, which felt like a £2k camera.
* The autofocus was better in poor store lighting on difficult surfaces. The D800 got there quickly, the MKIII prety much instantly.
* I prefer Canon colours (skin tones especially). I know they might not be accurate and I know I can get the same results post processing, but I don't want to have to post process every shot and the Canon photos are more pleasing on my eye.
* I prefer the MkIII's noise profile in JPEG. I don't think there's much in it RAW, but I do prefer the MKIII's noise profile for the sutff i don't wantto PP.
* Would like to try canon's lense lineup (specifically the new 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8 IS)
* A strange one, but maybe for the change. If I still had a D700, i'm not sure that I would sell it for the D800. The megapixels don't worry me that much and other than the extended dynamic range at low ISO and slightly better noise performance, i'm not certain i'm getting a whole lot.

Sorry for the long list, but all in all, I preffered shooting with the MKIII, I just found it more enjoyable and that counts for a lot. The problem that is putting me off purchasing it is the the fact that spot metering doesn't link to AF point.

Now i'm by now means a pro, but was starting to head to more than just a hobby and used to help out a friend who did gig reviews, usually in some very dark dingy venues, with terrible, ever changing lighting. 90% of these photos would have dark to black backgrounds, and other than locking the metering and recomposing on the MKIII, i'm not sure how I would deal with this. On my D700 I could meter on the face of the person I was focussing on, adjust the meter and the camera would handle the changing lighting. With having to lock, i'm not sure how I would deal with this other than in post processing on the MKIII.

How do MKIII owners here deal with this? Is the evalutive metering up to this or is there another, better method than locking the meter than recomposing?

Thanks for any advice

Raymond Lin · 7 Mar 2013 at 13:14

You clearly seem to PREFER the 5Diii more than the D800 from what you've said by some margin except 1 feature. I guess you should borrow one and try it in a real life situation and see for yourself.

That is my advice.

Ksanti · 7 Mar 2013 at 13:27

Alright I had to weigh up the same decision you did, though my needs were quite different so I'll try and adjust my reasoning to your circumstances.

For my usage, the D800 did everything the 5D3 did, and more, for less money. That was basically what sealed it for me. Better dynamic, higher resolution, built in commander flash - on paper it was a very easy decision.

I've been using the D800 for a few weeks now and there are some changes with the Nikon system that I don't like so much.

The build is decidedly more plasticky than my old 5D classic, it feels about the same weight so I don't doubt the actual build quality is just the same, but the exposed metal surfaces on the 5D just made it feel that bit more tanky. I'm not sure if the 5D3 has the same metal surfaces but if it does I'd prefer those.

The ISO button is in a stupid place and while I don't mind using auto ISO it seems to stick at random points (I know that it's just me mucking it up, not the camera, but while I'm learning the ins and outs of the camera I'd prefer just to be able to set it manually).

The grip design is a surprising source of irritation. The fact that the battery grip only takes on battery means you need to take the grip off every single time you want to charge both battteries (A potentially huge source of irritation). I infinitely prefer the Canon L solution for this.

The AF point illumination is really poor and I definitely preferred my 5D's viewfinder. That said the 100% coverage is nice and it's not really a dealbreaker. Being able to see that the camera is autofocusing from in front of the camera (red light visible through the front of the lens) is actually a nice perk.

However there are still a lot of redeeming features that one me over, though I don't know that they'll be the same for you. This is compared to the 5D3 for me.

The Nikon fast primes are much sharper than the Canon's in general . While I prefer the option of the 85L and the like for web usage, for prints I'd rather have the Nikon system particularly given the D800's resolution.

As I've mentioned, the resolution for my work is a huge boon. Not only does it allow me to make massive prints from fine art work for galleries, it also gives me a huge amount of control for retouching in post. The file size will mean you'll need new cards - but 64Gb SD cards are available for as little as £30 nowadays so it's not going to be a huge difference.

I was shooting Sigma primes anyway and I'm shooting Sigma primes now. Nikon lenses are definitely more expensive than either Canon or Sigma but the quality you get out of them I'd say makes them a nice option to have. Sigma is increasingly rendering Canon's lineup moot, whereas it doesn't seem to be having the same effect on Nikon's lineup.

Futureproofing and cropping. A huge irritation for me is when I have an image I love from say my 5D, but because of a combination of my cropping (not in terms of laziness with moving around but because I quite often frame in squares in my mind) and the low resolution has meant I can't reliably go bigger than 18*12 inches on a lot of my prints. Having the resolution of the D800 means even square crops are about 24MP in size which is very nice to have. The 5D3 will also give much better resolution than the older cameras but it's not quite to the same extent.

Ergonomically I prefer the shape of the D800 if not the build. It's taller and squatter than the 5D cameras which means I can use it ungripped without my pinky dangling off the camera which is very nice.

With regard to your point on colours and jpeg noise... If you're buying a camera like this you really shouldn't be shooting jpeg except in dire circumstances. Even if you don't want to do post processing you should at least be just processing one of them and batch processing the rest. The noise on the D800 is no worse than the 5D3 at all, and it's much better than the 5D3 if you start pulling shadows out etc. As you go to higher ISOs the 5D3 pulls ahead marginally until you downsample the D800 to 22MP. It's only in video where the 5D3 has a real low light advantage. Colour profiles shouldn't be an issue at all.

Ksanti · 7 Mar 2013 at 13:32

TLDR on mine:
I think I'd probably marginally prefer shooting a 5D3 just as a result of being v familiar with the Canon system. If you're coming from a D700 it might go the other way.

I prioritised image quality as I don't want to look back in 3 years and wish I'd gone with a better sensor because now I can't print my images at the same sizes with the same sort of quality.

Decide what you want to do with your images. If you're not getting any money from your prints or you're not printing large on a regular basis, the 5D3 will likely offer that little bit better in most regards if it's what you prefer. There are quirks of either system that I'm sure many people would be irritated by, but I've noticed more on Nikon than I did going from Nikon to Canon the first time.

Also Nikon's entire lens lineup is pretty much up to date now and has been revamped almost universally. The lenses are also v. competitive on price/performance particularly in the mid range lenses. Canon on the other hand has a lineup that consists of an awful lot of lenses from the 90's, and they've shown that when they update their lenses they also double in price. Hopefully Sigma's and Tamron's new found form will limit this effect but I wouldn't be surprised if Canon ended up being the expensive option in all but the top end prime optics, once their lineup has been revamped in the same way Nikon's has.

Raymond Lin · 7 Mar 2013 at 13:35

I don't want to take this thread off topic but with regard to you comment "Sigma's line up is increasingly rendering Canon's lineup moot"

Sorry..lol that is not true at all, it is like 99% false.

35/1.4 and a 84/1.4 rendered Canon's line up moot? That is 2 lenses out of how many out there? It took Sigma 15 years to release a 35/1.4, so it is not like they are doing it in a hurry either. And the 85/1.4 is erm, a 1.4. It may match on quality but it is not a like to like the same lens - 1.2, I know it is only a fraction difference, but just comparing that at least the 35mm are.

Plus, what about

The bog standard 24-70? Sigma's version is really bad, it was bad against the Mk1 of the 24-70, it is even worse against the Mk2. There is no 16-35 or 17-40 is there, not at the same quality.

TS lenses?

70-200 ranges?

100mm macro? or the 65mm?

Wide angle primes like 24/1.4?

200/2.0, 135/2.0, 400/2.8...or the cheaper 40mm/2.8 Pancake.

I am not saying the Sigma's new lenses (all 2 of them) are bad, they are really good but to say Sigma making Canon's line up moot is as far from the truth as you can get. At the rate Sigma releases updates to their lenses, if the 35mm is anything to go by, we all would be dead before they release what I have at the moment in my bag (discounting the 35/85) - 16-35, 24-70, 24/1.4, 45/TS, 100/2.8 IS.

Ksanti · 7 Mar 2013 at 13:42

I said increasingly. In that the Sigma's are offering the same quality as the Canon's, at much lower prices points. The 35 1.4 in particular.

The 50 1.4 is a better lens than Canon's and with an A-line update will be better lens overall than the 50 1.2.

Same goes of the 85.

The Sigma 105 Macro is better than the Canon by many accounts.

The 70-200 2.8 has for many replaced the cheaper Canon 70-200Ls, to no great extent but it's noticeable.

The 24-70, 70-200 etc. are all old Sigma lenses which do not reflect their current drive on quality over cost. and are not the lenses I'm referring to when I talk about this stuff.

By comparison, Nikon's N primes are ungodly levels of sharp and occupy a different market space to the Sigma lineup even after this new found quality drive. The Canon lineup on the other hand is in much tighter competition with Sigma due to its general age. I'm sure Canon will be updating these but I'd be surprised if they're anywhere near the old prices - if the 35, 50 etc. get updated then Canon will have once again separated itself imo, but at the moment Sigma is offering a fair bit more to the Canon system than it is to Nikon.

(I realise given my 2 main lenses for my D800 are Sigma's that sounds odd, and to be honest I think I exaggerated a bit, but what I mean was more that there are some lenses in Canon's lineup (35 primarily) that have been almost entirely superseded by 3rd party lenses whereas with Nikon that's a much rarer event even if the price on the current Nikon top end is a little higher for the most part than the Canon).

An Exception · 7 Mar 2013 at 13:45

@Ksanti

"The ISO button is in a stupid place and while I don't mind using auto ISO it seems to stick at random points (I know that it's just me mucking it up, not the camera, but while I'm learning the ins and outs of the camera I'd prefer just to be able to set it manually)."

What do you mean exactly? it's just there isn't really anything you can do to muck it up?
Your not using easy exposure compensation are you?

Raymond Lin · 7 Mar 2013 at 13:48

Increasingly/35mm in particular....it was a 15 years gap between Canon's 35mm to Sigma's...and you said Canon's line up. Canon's line up has more than 2 lenses. okay, 3 if you count the 50mm. But 3 out of how many?

I mean if you want to wait that long for say the same for a 24mm or a 70-200/2.8 IS, sure, but we are all increasingly getting older. I mean if it was a 2 months' wait to save £500. I would do it. But like YEARS and unknown when they will release something? Come on....that is not a reason. It is hoping that they will in an unknown time scale.

If you had said Sigma has upped their game and has released recently a great 35mm and 85mm.

I would accept that. But to say their line up...that is not true, percentage wise, most of their stuff is not in the same ball park to Canon's standard, it may be old, but it is still current, just like the Canon's 35mm. It may be old it is still good. The Sigma's 24-70 is old but it is also awful. I know, I had two.

King Damager · 7 Mar 2013 at 13:49

To be honest, between the two, I think it really does come down to personal preference, and which system you prefer. Right now it seems you prefer the 5d

kd

Ksanti · 7 Mar 2013 at 13:57

An Exception said:
@Ksanti

"The ISO button is in a stupid place and while I don't mind using auto ISO it seems to stick at random points (I know that it's just me mucking it up, not the camera, but while I'm learning the ins and outs of the camera I'd prefer just to be able to set it manually)."

What do you mean exactly? it's just there isn't really anything you can do to muck it up?
Your not using easy exposure compensation are you?

Having it on the left is a real pain. Having the majority of the significant camera controls on the left is a real pain. On Canon I never had to take my eye away from the viewfinder or my left hand away from the lens until I was reviewing whereas on Nikon with AF modes, the ISO button etc. it gets to be a lot more of a pain. I'm sure I'll get used to it.

An Exception · 7 Mar 2013 at 14:04

@ Op

Sounds to me like the 5d3 is for you overall. This spot metering exposure thing not being linked to an AF point sounds like a pain. If you can just press the exposure lock button once and it remembers so you don't have to keep holding the botton or keep taking multiple readings, then it should be ok, but just one more thing to think about.

An Exception · 7 Mar 2013 at 14:06

Ksanti said:
Having it on the left is a real pain. Having the majority of the significant camera controls on the left is a real pain. On Canon I never had to take my eye away from the viewfinder or my left hand away from the lens until I was reviewing whereas on Nikon with AF modes, the ISO button etc. it gets to be a lot more of a pain. I'm sure I'll get used to it.

I was referring to issues with auto ISO. Yes if you use the ISO button constantly it would be a pain, but I never do, nor do I need to take my face away from the viewfinder (as auto ISO works better that I could possibly do it manually).

ElDude · 7 Mar 2013 at 14:11

The sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than the canon one, I agree with that as I own the sigma one. I've been lucky enough to directly compare the sigma 105 to the canon 100L and the sigma is not better at all. There's not much in it but for colour rendition I'd definitely go with the canon macro there.

Ksanti · 7 Mar 2013 at 14:31

ElDude said:
The sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than the canon one, I agree with that as I own the sigma one. I've been lucky enough to directly compare the sigma 105 to the canon 100L and the sigma is not better at all. There's not much in it but for colour rendition I'd definitely go with the canon macro there.

Are you talking about the new OS model or the old one? The new OS one is meant to be a stunner. Also I don't get the whole issue of colour rendition - nothing is done by a lens that can't be made up for in post and they're all pretty much identical unless you start using multiple lenses for a single series/video etc.

An Exception said:
I was referring to issues with auto ISO. Yes if you use the ISO button constantly it would be a pain, but I never do, nor do I need to take my face away from the viewfinder (as auto ISO works better that I could possibly do it manually).

I don't like auto ISO. I prefer using manual because it keeps me more conscious of what sort of light I'm playing with and also it means I know what sort of file I'll be getting when we get to post. I find auto exposure seems to blow highlights a hell of a lot on the D800, which is why I get frustrated with the exposure compensation system :/

Damnations Fury · 7 Mar 2013 at 14:41

Ksanti said:
TLDR on mine:
I think I'd probably marginally prefer shooting a 5D3 just as a result of being v familiar with the Canon system. If you're coming from a D700 it might go the other way.

I prioritised image quality as I don't want to look back in 3 years and wish I'd gone with a better sensor because now I can't print my images at the same sizes with the same sort of quality.

Decide what you want to do with your images. If you're not getting any money from your prints or you're not printing large on a regular basis, the 5D3 will likely offer that little bit better in most regards if it's what you prefer. There are quirks of either system that I'm sure many people would be irritated by, but I've noticed more on Nikon than I did going from Nikon to Canon the first time.

Also Nikon's entire lens lineup is pretty much up to date now and has been revamped almost universally. The lenses are also v. competitive on price/performance particularly in the mid range lenses. Canon on the other hand has a lineup that consists of an awful lot of lenses from the 90's, and they've shown that when they update their lenses they also double in price. Hopefully Sigma's and Tamron's new found form will limit this effect but I wouldn't be surprised if Canon ended up being the expensive option in all but the top end prime optics, once their lineup has been revamped in the same way Nikon's has.

Thanks for the posts, gave me a lot to think on.

To me, my head is telling me that the D800 is the obvious way to go as I don't need the extra fps and for many of the reasons you say. But my heart is telling me i'd enjoy using the 5D more (metering aside).

Damnations Fury · 7 Mar 2013 at 14:44

An Exception said:
@ Op

Sounds to me like the 5d3 is for you overall. This spot metering exposure thing not being linked to an AF point sounds like a pain. If you can just press the exposure lock button once and it remembers so you don't have to keep holding the botton or keep taking multiple readings, then it should be ok, but just one more thing to think about.

The problem is that the lighting can be changing quickly somethies in these gigs, so locking the exposure can cause it's own problems.

I have managed to already reproduce the issue photographing an object against a white background causing the image to under expose. Recomposing worked fine, but I don't know if there would always be time for that with every shot.

Raymond Lin · 7 Mar 2013 at 14:49

Some perspective need to be taken with regard to Sigma's lenses. Much has been said with their 35mm and I do agree that their 35/50 and 85mm are all fantastic optics, these are in the last 5 years, the 50mm being the first of out of the block of the better one, and the new updated one is better. If you discount the older 50mm one, then only the last 2 years Sigma has been upped their game, as that was when the 85/1.4 was released.

The lenses people are saying and comparing to Canon's version, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4...the Canon 35mm is 15-16 years old and I think the 50/1.4 was released in 1991? 22 years ago?

Between that time, the 24-70 has a mk2, the 16-35 has a mk2, the 70-200 has a mk2, the 24/1.4 has a mk2, the 24TS has a mk2, the 100macro came out, the 85/1.2 has a mk2, the 50/1.2 came out (replacing the 1.0 which was never really that great), the 135/2.0 came out, the 200mm has a mk2, and there are bound to be others that i forgot. The only thing left under 200mm really are only the 35/50mm from Canon's line up to be updated (and a couple of TS) and if you are a betting man, you wouldn't bet against them to update these 2 in the next batch of releases. There really isn't anything else left unless they start making mk3 of some other ones.

And to say Sigma is catching up, it would require Canon to stand still and not improving and not updating their lenses. The fact of the matter is that Canon is moving at a pace much much higher than Sigma, both in quality and quantity in the last 20 years. In the last 5 years Sigma has released 3 nice lenses. In that time scale Canon has released 3x more.

It is nice that as a consumer we have more choice, especially at a lower price point but the goal posts are being moved all the time and the standard set higher. Sigma has increased quality whilst selling at a "relatively" lower price than Canon, and no doubt the Canon update, when it does arrive, it will cost more. However, in terms of quality, it should be better than the current one, I hope.

D.P. · 7 Mar 2013 at 15:23

Ksanti said:
Having it on the left is a real pain. Having the majority of the significant camera controls on the left is a real pain. On Canon I never had to take my eye away from the viewfinder or my left hand away from the lens until I was reviewing whereas on Nikon with AF modes, the ISO button etc. it gets to be a lot more of a pain. I'm sure I'll get used to it.

Can't remember the last time I ever touched this ISO button on my camera since I control ISO through the second dial without ever taking my eyes from the viewfinder.

D.P. · 7 Mar 2013 at 15:25

ElDude said:
The sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than the canon one, I agree with that as I own the sigma one. I've been lucky enough to directly compare the sigma 105 to the canon 100L and the sigma is not better at all. There's not much in it but for colour rendition I'd definitely go with the canon macro there.

The Nikon 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 are better than the sigma, same at 85mm (but the the Nikon 85mm f1.8 is better optically than the f1.4G anyway).

a1ex2001 · 7 Mar 2013 at 16:35

There really is so little bettween the D800 and the 5D mkiii in real world use that you won't notice, buy which ever you prefer and then go out and get shooting both will produce incredible pictures for years to come.

Arguing which is best has been shown to be a pointless circular debate that never resolves itself. If I were you I'd get the nikon purely because your already familiar with the system and control layout there is no reason to get the 5D and re-learn everything.

The same thing is true of lenses if your buying the best quality canon, nikon, sigma, tamron etc glass you will notice very little real world difference buy what you can afford that covers what you need.

kit doesn't take good pictures photographers do and neither the 5D mkiii or D800 will limit you in any serious way.