1,070 of 1,185 people found the following review helpful
Unbiased Review of 5DmkIII vs D800,
This review is from: Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) (OLD MODEL) (Electronics)
I'm a Sony shooter with only a few lenses. I use to shoot Canon during the film days. I tested both the Canon 5D mkIII and the Nikon D800 and here are my results. I tested a 5DmkIII with a 24-70 f2.8 lens and a Nikon D800 (not D800e) with a 24-70 f2.8 lens.
About the same, except D800 has a lot more detail to work with. In Lightroom, I can save a higher percentage of ISO 6400 shots because the D800 has more detail. Canon seems cleaner initially in Lightroom but when the picture fits into a 24" 1920x1080 monitor or a 64" Samsung plasma TV, the Nikon looks a tad cleaner, noise less noticeable. I think the Canon looks cleaner in Lightroom because it is just a smaller picture. But displaying ISO 6400 shots on a monitor or TV, Nikon looks nicer in general. Both cameras at ISO 12,800 look awful and not recoverable in Lightroom. It might look acceptable as a really small pic but why the heck would you buy an expensive camera to display crappy looking pictures?
Frames per second:
Easy winner. Canon can shoot 6 FPS, Nikon 4 FPS. However, in practice I think 4 FPS is pretty good. None of these cameras are really Olympic style sports cameras.
Easy winner. Nikon's RAW files are more detailed, almost 3D like. I can't really explain it other than the pictures look more real. I can crop a photo to 1/3 it's size (12 megapixels) and it still looks stunning. I wonder how much better the D800e version is. I'll have to wait until my friend receives his to find out.
Easy winner. Out of the camera, the Canon JPEGs are phenomenal. The processing done is quite remarkable.
Easy winner. If you shoot RAW, Nikon is it. Also there is an issue with the Canon with the color red. I think the color is overblown at times because all the details are loss and not recoverable in Lightroom. Not always but it has happened at least twice. The same photo on the Nikon kept all the details.
About the same. Canon and Nikon have awesomely quick autofocus and I couldn't determine a difference. The only caveat is that Nikon focuses better in lowlight (without the autofocus assist lamp) and also the Nikon focuses when there is almost no light (with the autofocus assist lamp). Why the heck doesn't Canon include an autofocus assist lamp is beyond me. Also, Nikon's face detection is extremely useful because it focuses right on the eyeballs.
Easy winner. Canon doesn't have built in flash. Nikon flash worked surprisingly well.
Easy winner. Nikon knocked it out of the park. I got a lot less blown highlights with shots with white clothing and more realistic blue skys. Also, there is a lot more headroom on both the highlights and shadows on the Nikon when editing in Lightroom. How did Nikon have better shadows and highlights! They have to share some of that technology!
Suprisingly about the same. I would have thought that Canon's lead in video would maintain. Surprisingly, the Nikon's video was just as awesome as the Canon. Nikon's video has a bit more detail and is definitely a little sharper than the Canon. I didn't test Nikon's uncompressed HDMI out, although it seems to be a useful feature (this is like RAW HDMI output for video). Canon should adopt uncompressed HDMI out also.
Easy winner. Why anyone (who doesn't already have Nikon or Canon lenses) would buy this Canon for $500 more than the Nikon would need to think twice. I can see why the Nikon is selling so much better than the Canon, at least on Amazon.
Both about the same weight. Both feel nice in the hand. Canon possibly slightly more comfortable if you have bigger hands. Nikon maybe more comfortable with smaller hands. Both are fine though.
Nikon wins with USB 3.0. Skipping the card reader altogether by just plugging in the camera to the computer is convenient. Also the transfer speed is much much faster than Canon's older USB 2.0. This saves a lot of time.
Canon has slightly better screen in direct sunlight (LCD facing up towards the sun). Nikon is better when the LCD is not directly facing the sun. Nikon's screen is crisper and more 3D like.
My last day of shooting was in a light mist/drizzle. I was shooting both cameras again for about 20 minutes when the Canon 5D mkIII developed some fogging inside the viewfinder screen. I could not wipe it away as it seemed to be inside the camera. I could no longer take pictures normally without live view. Nikon didn't have this problem and I continued to shoot the rest of the day with the Nikon in the same wet conditions without issue. I had planned to shoot at least 2 weeks with both cameras so this was definitely a bummer.
Both Canon and Nikon's 24-70 2.8 lenses are great. I would say the Canon 24-70 2.8 is just a tad faster on focus. Nikon is slightly sharper in the corners. Both Nikon and Canon seem to have a very comparable lens assortment (although my wallet won't be happy buying so many new lenses!)
Well, after using both cameras for about a week, I kept the Nikon D800 and returned my (possibly water damaged) Canon 5D mkIII. Both are phenomenal cameras but D800 has definitely outclassed the 5D mkIII in this round. Maybe Canon will come back strong with its next version. It definitely has some catching up to do.
Thanks for reading my review and I'll also post this on the Nikon D800 and Canon 5D mkIII review page. Best of luck to all you photogs and enjoy these phenomenal cameras!
Tracked by 7 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 82 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 5, 2012 9:56:15 AM PDT
Roger P. Kirby says:
I shoot mostly commercial and wedding photography, the commercial is studio and the wedding mostly on the beach and as you can imagine, in difficult lighting conditions. For the weddings things are getting tough. Artistically I get rave reviews from my clients and peers. My style is usually creative. I will only do one lens change, that being to a faster lens when the light gets bad. The one drawback I have is my D7000, I am now beginning to push the limits of this camera (direct sun, low light, motion etc) and was thinking of upgrading to this camera. I do not have the time to fiddle around with manual settings, and I usually perform only one lens change (forget changing lens on a beach!). I like the 6fps of the Canon, but have Nikon glass. SO MY QUESTION is, knowing all this would anyone advise me to buy the D800? I see this review says it gets better blue light, better facing into the sun and has less weather problems (last three weddings it has poured down). It's also $3k
Posted on Apr 5, 2012 10:43:43 AM PDT
So you returned a 'water damaged' camera (by your own admission) back to the retailer? Wow! You damage the camera and then return it back for a full refund. You certainly seem to have 'good ethics', don't you? Shame on you!
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 5, 2012 11:08:01 AM PDT
En Trance says:
You should consider the D700. No problems handholding and moving around during a wedding. Nikon informational materials report you are best served using the D800 with a tripod and using F/8-F/11. Two things that aren't practical for weddings.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 5, 2012 4:31:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 5, 2012 4:34:00 PM PDT
what does the ethics got to do with this?!!
if the seller allows it why can't you?
not useful at all.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 5, 2012 4:48:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 5, 2012 4:50:16 PM PDT
@ ahmed: So you think it's okay for him to return a camera, which by his own admission, he damaged, back to Amazon? Wow, you have some nice morals, don't you? Let's damage stuff and then just simply give it back with no consequences. It's one thing if he had not damaged it and the camera was as-is. But since he has got water damage on it, he should keep it and sell it himself. These cameras are not water-proof that one goes around using them in rain. And if you do so and get water on it, all bets are off and the buyer should bear responsibility for the item. Some poor soul is going to get his 'water damaged' camera from the retailer, thanks to his lies.
But I guess for people like you, doing the right thing is hard. Pathetic people...
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 5, 2012 6:31:49 PM PDT
J. Ewing says:
I would have to argue that if the Nikon did NOT have the same fogging issue as the Canon under the same circumstances, and both Canon and Nikon lenses are protected from moisture equally, than the Canon had a manufacturer's defect in the build. Ahmed did nothing wrong.
Posted on Apr 5, 2012 9:30:52 PM PDT
Scott Bourne says:
IMO Nikon gives up high ISO performance for detail. If you need detail - buy the D800.
Autofocus - really? I would love to have a chance to test the D800 you used. Because in my tests the D800 isn't even close to the 5D MK III. In fact - yours is the first review to say they are comparable. I think the D800 AF needs work.
Six frames per second gets you in the ball park for sports/wildlife - four frames not so much.
I shot the 5D MK III in Alaska for a solid week and had no issues due to weatherproofing - none.
I agree with most of the rest of the review although in places where you seem to think the Nikon is the "clear" winner, I think the two cameras are quite close.
If I shot for billboards or large prints and didn't need the fast AF I'd pick the D800. Nothing comes close on that detail in the price range. But you give up high ISO performance and get poor AF (except in low light - there Nikon has the advantage because it has AF assist in low light and the III does not.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 4:42:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2012 4:43:24 AM PDT
@ Joshua - irrelevant topic..we really just want a review on the cameras - Thanks and Good bye!
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 12:20:57 PM PDT
Deepak Chourasia says:
Scott you seem to be a canon guy. All new cameras come with certain issues. And we have wait for the next lot. I have seen differences in my canon 7ds. We gotta wait on both brands at least 6 months for getting a defect free camera.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 3:45:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2012 3:48:03 PM PDT
Oded Shopen says:
@Joshua, You do realize that Canon is marketing this product as a weather-sealed camera, right? There is no reason in the world that it should have gotten this fogging!