Review: D800 and 5DIII for Video, a Shootout is out!

[Asher Kelman]

Dan Chung has reviewed, in dslrnewsshooter.com, the 5D Mark III vs. D800 in video shootout here. He points out that Canon has cleaner files at higher ISO's, but Nikon gets more out of the dark shadows. But the advantage of Canon is the ability set the camera for still photos and then those settings will carry over for video, whereas in the Nikon, the settings are not linked!! Also one can silently adjust sound levels with Canon 5DIII whereas the Nikon D800 is fixed at what ever level one starts with, not to professional really! The Nikon then has a tiny advantage in fine detail but hardly noticeable. The Canon, on the other hand, appears to give stronger reds at higher ISOs in low light.

All in all, the idea that comes across is that there is little need for Canonites to jump ship. I'd like to hear from landscape photographers to learn whether or not the extra detail in the D800 is a practical advantage. For me, it would seem a great camera to mate to the Nikon 14-24 G lens which is likely the best in its class for wide angle work. If detail needs great lenses, then that's likely the way to get the extra edge here.

Asher

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Dan Chung has reviewed, in dslrnewsshooter.com, the 5D Mark III vs. D800 in video shootout here. He points out that Canon has cleaner files at higher ISO's, but Nikon gets more out of the dark shadows. But the advantage of Canon is the ability set the camera for still photos and then those settings will carry over for video, whereas in the Nikon, the settings are not linked!! Also one can silently adjust sound levels with Canon 5DIII whereas the Nikon D800 is fixed at what ever level one starts with, not to professional really! The Nikon then has a tiny advantage in fine detail but hardly noticeable. The Canon, on the other hand, appears to give stronger reds at higher ISOs in low light.

Hi Asher,

An interesting review. The lack of moiré is important, as is the capability to record in higher quality compression. The video's are often not the final product, so image quality should be as uncompromised as possible. The somewhat lower sharpness is due to the downsampling method, since both cameras have more pixels than they use in the final video output. According to other sources, the 5D3 images really come to life with a bit of sharpening in postprocessing. The apparent lack of moiré also allows to sharpen more.

For those who are really after resolution more than image quality, e.g. because the camera output must be made available immediately without a chance to postprocess, the adventurous shooter's assistent removed half of the AA-filter from the 5D3 with good results.

All in all, the idea that comes across is that there is little need for Canonites to jump ship. I'd like to hear from landscape photographers to learn whether or not the extra detail in the D800 is a practical advantage. For me, it would seem a great camera to mate to the Nikon 14-24 G lens which is likely the best in its class for wide angle work. If detail needs great lenses, then that's likely the way to get the extra edge here.

Extra resolution will always help, and the dynamic range of the D800 is also impressive, according to DxOmark.com . For added resolution one can often also use stitching, but it is nice if the postprocessing can be simplified.

Cheers,
Bart

[Jerome Marot]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

He points out that Canon has cleaner files at higher ISO's, but Nikon gets more out of the dark shadows.

All this vain agitation about high iso noise is just a waste of anybody's time. The interested reader may wish to download raw files from today's and yesterday's cameras and see wether there is much difference in prints. There is not, for a given sensor size. All the difference you see is nothing more than slightly different choices in how post processing will affect the data which, in turns, means that one can get the same results by processing the raw output with today's software. So it boils down to the issue of convenience when one needs jpeg files. Not a world shattering innovation.

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Jerome Marot

All this vain agitation about high iso noise is just a waste of anybody's time. The interested reader may wish to download raw files from today's and yesterday's cameras and see wether there is much difference in prints. There is not, for a given sensor size. All the difference you see is nothing more than slightly different choices in how post processing will affect the data which, in turns, means that one can get the same results by processing the raw output with today's software. So it boils down to the issue of convenience when one needs jpeg files. Not a world shattering innovation.

Jerome,

You're spot on as far as claimed differences in hight ISO shots. But the 5DIII and D800 are going to be improvements for wedding and event photographers using available light.

In practical terms, being able to shoot one extra stop from the 5D II would already be marvelous.

What else interests me, for my own work about the 5D III, especially over the 5DII is the following:

• Ability to set ISO etc for stills and have those settings remain in video. (present in 5DII, not D800).
  
  
• Quiet on screen adjustment of sound levels while shooting video, (Absent in 5D II and D800).
  
  
• Major AF and tracking improvement (5DII is not so brilliant here).
  
  
• Mike input and headphones output, (new for the Canon but the D800 might have a better headphones output).
  
  
• Basic weather protection with some sealing. (an improvement over the 5DII).

Asher

[Jerome Marot]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

You're spot on as far as claimed differences in hight ISO shots. But the 5DIII and D800 are going to be improvements for wedding and event photographers using available light.

In practical terms, being able to shoot one extra stop from the 5D II would already be marvelous.

Then, your best choice is to get the new Tamron stabilized 24-70 f/2.8