DgitalRev Review : Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 - Hands-on
- Thread starter flipfreak
- Start date
I'm actually surprised that he made a review that made some sense..although as usual they got hopeless models to demonstrate a "feature"
it's true that both camera serve different audiences altogether and IMO should not even be compared together…not until canon releases a high MP 5D something.
Landscape and advertisment shooters will definately go D800 because of it's resolution and resolving detail powess…however, not everyone falls under that catagory. I believe most people want an all rounder that works.and that's where the 5D3 comes in…so i'm not surprised Kai went for the 5D3..he's not known to be a high MP kind of guy.
it's true that both camera serve different audiences altogether and IMO should not even be compared together…not until canon releases a high MP 5D something.
Landscape and advertisment shooters will definately go D800 because of it's resolution and resolving detail powess…however, not everyone falls under that catagory. I believe most people want an all rounder that works.and that's where the 5D3 comes in…so i'm not surprised Kai went for the 5D3..he's not known to be a high MP kind of guy.
Better not post it in another section, people will march together and start burning Kai at the stake. :bsmilie:
as long as ppl understand a review is always subjective ...
I might be tempted when they make FF cameras lighter... I'm packing my camera bag for a trip and APS-C set of cheap plastic lenses already feels so... Heavy.. :bsmilie:
Actually, FF can work both ways..With a APS-C camera, if you really want to have the best of everything you will have to bring many lenses, for wide angle, for walkabout, for low light, for indoor etc…1 camera 4lenses (that was my experience)
However, with the 5D3..i actually only bring 1 lens…my 24-105…24 is wide enough most times, 105 is good enough to zoom…and in between it makes a good walkabout lens too..even in low light, jut bump up the ISO, don't really need to use a 1.4 type lens. Unless bokeh is what you're looking for..i pretty much just go around with my 5D3 and my 24-105…wheni was using the APS-C, i always had to bring at least 3 lenses out (11-16,24-105 and 30 F1.4)…so overall, the FF is actually lighter overall for me.
Er, my issue is with focal lengths, nothing to do with DOF.
For example, I'm bringing a 10-24, a 10-17 FE, 17-35, 70-300, and a 50mm... When you shoot cities you do want to have a bunch of focal lengths to get the optimal composition. If I was on a more landscape sort of trip I probably would skip the 70-300 and FE.
24-105 versus 11-16, 24-105, 30 f/1.4, you're still missing out on the ultrawide side of things.
That's not an apples to apples comparison. If you're willing to take in the limitations of the 24-105 using FF, then form crop cameras, there's also the 15-85. Though not-constant aperture, it has the same sharpness and even wider reach than the 24-105.
Well, the 15-85 would pretty much be similar to the 25-105 in FF, minue one thing, low light…that's why i said for FF cameras these days there's really no need to tug around a fast prime in the event of low light…just bump up ISO.
Depends on the location, i think a telephoto lens isn't necessary..or rather it might be the least used no?
Where i used to carry around 4 lenses when i travel last time, nowadays i bring only 2 if i have to, the 17-40 and 24-105….i believe that's enough to cover most ranges and situations minus a telephoto need…There's also less changing of lenses for every scene IMO…at least that's my personal opinion when i switch from APS-C to FF recently.
That kai fella forgot to mention the in-camera HDR function. LOL
that's is the only functions that 5D Mark III had. can't find in the 1Dx or nikon bodies. but for Sony, they do have.
that's is the only functions that 5D Mark III had. can't find in the 1Dx or nikon bodies. but for Sony, they do have.
that's because Kai absolutely hates HDR hehe..few seasons ago he did an episode on HDR and hated it so i doubt he'd even talk about it on the 5D3…
Its 23.4-132mm on FF.
And there in lies your own contradiction: The 15-85 is f/3.5-f/5.6 On the wider end, its actually marginally faster than the 24-105 IS. And it actually has a newer generation of IS than the 24-105. Its 'slower' only on the tele end. But the fact remains that you would want a sensor capable of high ISO to get some flexibility in the usage of just one lens when traveling.
"Fast primes" are not that frequently used 'for primary purpose of shooting in low light'. A lot more frequently,photographers use them for 'atmospheric' shots that project a different mood. Convey a different story. Some things which a deep DOF shot cannot replicate. And that's in the context of travel photography, in other realms, they have a much wider repertoire.
What you say is true, but not so much with APS-C..granted 15mm at f3.5 is faster than 24mm at f4..but even at f3.5, it's not good enough in low light indoor shots. It's not which is faster but which can do more at the same speed. In fact when i was using my APS-C, and when indoors i had to use my 11-16 at f2.8 at ISO1600 and that still wasn't enough..now with FF, i could just use F4 at ISO6400 no problems..so that's where the FF helps alot in terms of low light. I agree that fast prime is great for DOF shots but not everyone uses them for that. I personally do not…i use it mainly because i have to in low light…that's about it…i've never used fast primes for DOF shots because well, i'm not that into those kind of shots..personal preference…
I'm merely conveying my experiences from changing from APS-C to FF and how i find it much easier with FF not having to worry about which lens to use for what…bare in mind i still keep my APS-C camera for telephoto shots if i need to..that's when the crop factor really comes in handy for me.
Your opinions are based on your photography style and usage, so it's definitely valid. As for me, I carry the 10-22, 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS with my 60D when I travel just to make sure I am covered from ultrawide (landscape) to telephoto (wildlife). If I upgrade to FF, I see myself going with the 17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4 and 70-300 L. So, no change there.
FF does offer one particular capability that is hard to achieve with APS-C: shallow DOF. And it is for this reason alone, I see myself going down the FF route this year.
Has been debating about D800 vs 5D3 vs upcoming Sony A99 (?), and decided to stay with Canon. Again, the choice is based on MY own needs: Canon is able to provide me with smaller mRAW/sRAW files (vs rest of competition) and an optical viewfinder (vs Sony) in an affordable package (vs Nikon D800).
Last edited:
as long as ppl understand a review is always subjective ...
How dare you accuse Kai of being subjective!
Nikon really cannot save smaller raw files? Only 1size? Really? That'll be 70mb per file..they've really huge...it'll be good if they'd offer smaller raw since even half of 36mp is 18mp....same as 1dx...
Yes it can. 20 and 9 megapixels. I guess folks always want to shoot at full resolution since they have it?
Not in RAW format. You are talking about jpeg mode.
For RAW format, you must shoot at FX, 1.2 crop, 1.5 crop (DX) and 4:5 crop. You cannot shoot at FX and get the sensor to bin the pixels to give you smaller RAW files. Only Canon has this ability; the reduced RAW files are called mRAW or sRAW. For me, that is a BIG advantage.
Similar threads
