Hey guys,

A good friend of mine put together this side-by-side comparison that's pretty cool:

The F%^&ing Nikon D800 vs. Canon 5D mkIII Shootout - YouTube

The 5DIII kills on low light performance... wow.

A nice comparision video and the light-hearted stuff helps maintain interest (although I agree with Rich that it could have been cut after 4:10).

The simulated high ISO levels are not really a true indication of performance, and both cameras are unusable at those extreme 'pushed' ISO levels anyway, but it does show what we've seen in earlier tests, that the Canon is far better in very low light conditions. In normal light both are equal in most respects, and although the Nikon is sharper, with a little extra sharpening in post, the Canon is similar.

Even though editing software provides a better platform and superior results for boosting sharpness levels in the 5D mk3 video, an added problem in that last regard is extra time needed on your workload, especially when it comes to the need to sharpen hundreds, or even thousands, of seprate video clips in post.

Loved the final "green screen" shot.

Definitely more entertaining than the typical side-by-side. Thanks for posting,

Glad you like it. The final green screen shot was done with the Nikon D800, BTW.

Yes, I agree, that the green shot at the very end was one of the best parts!

Well of course it was, the Canon was already smashed at that point. :)

How was that last shot accomplished? Was it rotoscoped?

I think this explains it? :)

Kevin:

As a second cam in your tool box... Would you get another Nikon D800 or Canon 5d Mark 3?

That's a good question. I think they're very similar-- insanely so. And while the Canon looked much better than the dog^%$# of the Nikon at 12K ISO, I wouldn't really consider either "usable" in that range. It is still clearly better in the extreme low light in video though.

I am very very happy with the D800's stills performance. I think the files are robust and clean and fantastic. I just haven't had as much of a chance to scrutinize the stills against the 5D.

I guess I'm happy with my purchase, and not jumping ship, and if I got another body I'd get another of the same cause sharing batteries, lenses, etc is just too convenient. And if I had bought a 5D3 I'd probably be happy too. Neither one "wins" emphatically enough across the board to make me want to switch.

I think this explains itAlas, the simplest solutions are always the best...

That's a good question. I think they're very similar-- insanely so. And while the Canon looked much better than the dog^%$# of the Nikon at 12K ISO, I wouldn't really consider either "usable" in that range. It is still clearly better in the extreme low light in video though.

I am very very happy with the D800's stills performance. I think the files are robust and clean and fantastic. I just haven't had as much of a chance to scrutinize the stills against the 5D.

I guess I'm happy with my purchase, and not jumping ship, and if I got another body I'd get another of the same cause sharing batteries, lenses, etc is just too convenient. And if I had bought a 5D3 I'd probably be happy too. Neither one "wins" emphatically enough across the board to make me want to switch.

Cool. That's good to hear.

I do some wildlife videography... since the D800 has a 2.7 crop option that's an appealing feature to me. I currently own 5D mark 3 and Mark 2... Considering selling the mark 2 and get a D800.

You do have a good point in sharing batteries and lenses.

Here's another review of the D800 and Mark 3... but more on their photography features.

Canon 5D MK III vs Nikon D800 with Nathan Elson - YouTube

Thank you for pointing us to the link, John.

The Nathan Elson video review is one of the best comparisons (from a stills image viewpoint) between the Mark 3 & D800 that I've so far seen. For many people, the stills image side of both cameras is not so important as the video mode, but for me, who uses both 50/50 on a professional level, the stills photography aspects of each camera is just as important as the video.

Just a note on the extra video at the end of the review by Jorden: I'm not sure I quite agree with what was said about the D4 in crop mode and that wide angle lenses are 'less' sharp in the centre of frame...

Sure thing. I don't agree with the last video review either.

After seeing a few video reviews, they are both excellent cameras.

It just comes down to how you use them... as it was always. :)

But it's always fun to geek out on the specs and pixels.

Here's an amazing short film done with 5D3

W A L K - W I T H - M E on Vimeo

The Walk With Me short film was OK with a nice 'feel' to it, especially the emotional close ups of the bonds between human and dog at the end.

David filmed the entire sequence with the lens wide open and I felt that the focus plane used was ultra thin throughout when it needn't have been in some scenes. What spoiled the film for me was the fact that the focus wasn't spot on in a lot of the tight shots.

Here's another review of the D800 and Mark 3... but more on their photography features.

John -- when posting a YouTube link, please just post the direct URL of the clip.
That way, it's automatically embedded into your post instead of appearing as an
off-site link. I've already edited your link above... thanks in advance,

Sure. No Problem.

The Walk With Me short film was OK with a nice 'feel' to it, especially the emotional close ups of the bonds between human and dog at the end.

David filmed the entire sequence with the lens wide open and I felt that the focus plane used was ultra thin throughout when it needn't have been in some scenes. What spoiled the film for me was the fact that the focus wasn't spot on in a lot of the tight shots.

I agree, it could've been more focused during the closeup shots.
But I liked the Nostalgic and dreamy take on it.
I think he just threw that together one weekend.
I don't think he was going for perfection.
Just testing to see what 5D3 is capable of.

There are quite a few issues ongoing with the Mk3's so-called softness in images and video without the need for the added use of sharpening techniques to produce full quality video clips and still photos.

Bryan Carnathan of The-Digital-Picture has also opened a case with Canon on the problem:

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx)

There are quite a few issues ongoing with the Mk3's so-called softness in images and video without the need for the added use of sharpening techniques to produce full quality video clips and still photos.

Bryan Carnathan of The-Digital-Picture has also opened a case with Canon on the problem:

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx)That's an issue with Canon's DPP software & nothing to do with video.

My experience with the camera the video image is that the 5D3 is at least as sharp as the 5D2 & can be enhanced with sharpening in post which would have been impossible with the 5D2.

The need to actually sharpen every single video clip in post is also an issue, Nigel.

The need to actually sharpen every single video clip in post is also an issue, Nigel.It's not an issue if your happy with the image as it is without sharpening. It's not an issue for us either as when we edit we apply a filter of some sort to every single clip even if it's just a broadcast safe filter so adding a sharpen filter is hardly any extra work. If the footage is all 5D3 then in Premiere Pro you just take your sequence & make a nested sequence then you can apply the sharpen filter to the whole sequence as though it were one clip. It only takes a few seconds & I am sure that other NLEs have similar features. I really don't see how this is an issue for anyone. Nobody is just taking the clips straight out the camera they are always edited in some way even if they are not carefully balanced & graded.

Never say 'nobody'...Life isn't clear cut and the world of photography and filming would be a boring place to be if everyone followed the same rules. :)

Chucking all your sequences together and applying the same strength filter across the board is not always desirable. Some of us have widely varying subject matter to film, and placing extra sharpening filter affects to one clip might not work or even be wanted in another clip.

Everybody has their own way of working with chosen subjects. It is up for each person to make up their own mind of how to work around the limitations of the Mark II, Mark III and D800. Of those three cameras, my preference is for the D800, although it is not clear cut and the Mk2 & Mk3 are slightly better than the D800 in some areas, and visa versa.

A nice comparison review by Dan Chung on the Mk3 and D800:

DSLR News Shooter | Nikon D800 (http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/category/nikon-d800/)

Of those three cameras, my preference is for the D800, although it is not clear cut and the Mk2 & Mk3 are slightly better than the D800 in some areas, and visa versa.

I don't get it. For YEARS we've been complaining about aliasing and moire. It has ruined countless shots and caused headaches for thousands. Now Nikon comes out with the D800 which is basically the same as the 5d mark II but maybe 5% sharper. And that sharpness is aliased badly with exactly the same amount of moire as in the old 5d mark II.

And still people want to buy it over a camera that is almost exactly the same, but no aliasing? I don't get it.

The Mark III is a considerable improvement over the D800 just because the moire is completely gone. Also the IPB codec is still measurably better than the one on D800. The ALL-i though does seem to cause some problems.

So let's get this straight. The d800 is very slightly sharper. But it's WAY worse in low light and moire. I choose the latters as being more important.

Mikko, I work with Canon, Nikon and Pentax equipment. Each have their plus & minus qualities in bodies, lenses and system, and is why I use what is best for my way of photographing and filming subjects. Nowhere have I said that the Canon or Nikon are THE best cameras, only that my preference between the two bodies is for the Nikon.

Moire patterns on jackets & walls ect rarely caused a problem for me with the Mk2, but fine rippling water sometimes did. In this respect, the D800 is better. The D800 also provides many advantages over the Mk3 in terms of both stills and video. Yes, the Mk3 is slightly better in low light and suprior when shooting walls and tweed jackets etc...but not enough reason for me to place it above the D800.

Let's not forget that in reality, most camcorders surpass the Mk3 and D800 in video handling and ease of use. DSLRs are, as we all know, 95% stills cameras with video an added bolt on. The huge benefit in my work to now carry only DSLR bodies over seperate bags of camcorders & DSLRs is mainly due to less weight, less bulk, and the added covenience of not needing to constantly swap between both to photograph and film the same subjects during expeditions.

I still use both Canon & Nikon, but, if I was forced to make a choice between the D800 or Mk3 for my combined stills & video work, then I'd hand back the Canon.

I'm with Mikko here.

When I shoot an 85mm interview and get the eyes in focus with the framing I like, shirt threads are right at the aliasing point and are exactly in the focus plane. Ugh. Same with five o'clock shadow. It's always in focus and looks like hard pixels. And most anything with detail that's in focus will start to dance when the camera moves.

Having the VAF is a breath of fresh air. Yes, it's softer, but much more filmic and pleasing to my eye. But it's a pain to install/remove, doesn't work on ultrawide shots (where everything is in focus), and has other side effects. OTOH, the 5D3 has the benefits without any of the downsides of the VAF.

But I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. After years of seeing too much aliasing, this beholder is glad that it's a thing of the past. :)

That first video was hilarious. With all the Nikon bias gags they should have thrown a few about pronouncing it wrong though.
More of this sort of thing.

Another Hi ISO range comparison test between D800 & Mark III:

Canon 5D Mark III & Nikon D800 ISO Range Test on Vimeo

Cool review! Thanks for sharing.

Has anyone tested the uncompressed HDMI out from the D800? How good (or bad) is it?

Nikon D800 v Canon 5D Mark III video test: high ISO, moiré, rolling shutter & dynamic range:

Nikon D800 v Canon 5D Mark III video test: high ISO, moiré, rolling shutter & dynamic range - YouTube

The need to actually sharpen every single video clip in post is also an issue, Nigel.

I've used the mkIII on a few gigs now and the sharpening (about 2-2.5%) in FCP, FCPX, and AE works like a champ. I can live with that since I grade most stuff anyway. What's amazing to me is how much better the mid-high ISO color representation on the mkIII is. Even that last video comparison, you can see the Nikon shift colors as the ISO goes up. And my 7D and mkII did the same thing.
Very happy with my purchase and I'm not knocking the 800 cause I've seen some beautiful stuff come out of it. As some have mentioned, right tool for the job no matter the brand! I'm just heavily vested in Canon glass. And my XF300 is a great videocamera for it's intended purpose. Best of both worlds!

Better DD and resolution, from the Nikon, that's what we've discovered in a test on Time Square, had the D4 though, which seemed also be less noisy compared to 5Dmk3.
Nikon D4, Canon 5dmk3, 5dmk2, (Panasonic GH2), comparative test on Time Square, NY on Vimeo

Canon seems to crush the blacks no matter the iso. At least a couple of dark buildings appeared on the Nikon when the iso was cranked.

Well the D4 is almost twice the price of the 5D3. I does look good though. I will be getting my own 5D MKIII in the next few days and look forward to putting it through it's paces.

As far as 5D3 vs D800. I personally like the 5D3 better. Like another poster said, not having aliasing/moire issues and having amazing low light capabilities is a big deal to me. I struggled with the terrible moire/aliasing issues in my 5D2. It can be amazing the things in your shot that can cause these issues. It's not just shirts, brick walls and water.

Also, having clean high ISOs is a big deal. There have actually been many times I was in a fairly dark area without the ability to set up lights and also needed to stop down quite a bit to increase my depth of field. This inevitably means having to use higher ISOs. It could be stressful trying to find the right balance between my Iris and ISO settings to get the best image. Having such a huge range of clean ISOs gives a lot of wiggle room.

Also, it does seem as though the 5D3 is more capable when it comes to sharpness and detail. There are two OLPFs in the camera and you can get one of them removed which has a pretty dramatic effect on the image. It apparently doesn't cause aliasing/moire issues.

It's seems Canon went a little overkill on the Anti aliasing filters.

It's seems Canon went a little overkill on the Anti aliasing filters.

Don't believe it. This is a complete load of crap. There is no objective evidence that removing the OLPF improves the resolution at all. Nobody shot any charts just voided the warranty then shot some footage & said "Doesn't that look sharp". Well it does but no sharper than the 5D3 (or 5D2) is capable of without any surgery. Those who have also performed the surgery did this weeks ago & yet after their initial enthusiasm have produced no other footage to demonstrate the supposed advantage to be gained by damaging the camera. I am guessing that they are too embarrassed to admit that they have screwed up their cameras & are just hoping that everybody will forget about the whole business.

Interesting point. Although I have considered having my OLPF replaced, I was definitely planning on waiting a while until more test had been done. His results were compelling though.

Interesting point. Although I have considered having my OLPF replaced, I was definitely planning on waiting a while until more test had been done. His results were compelling though.Compelling? You are obviously easily impressed. All we have seen is a few minutes of transcoded, edited & compressed video without any point of reference or comparison. The video looks nice but no nicer than plenty of other video from the 5D3. There is as much evidence that removing the OLPF improves 5D3 video as there is for the use of a green marker to improve your CD audio.

Stumbled upon this 5DMkII versus 5DMkIII versus Nikon D4 versus Nikon D800 test on Vimeo.

5D? vs 5DII/ D800/ D4 on Vimeo

The moire comparisons sure are interesting and telling ;-)

Compelling? You are obviously easily impressed. All we have seen is a few minutes of transcoded, edited & compressed video without any point of reference or comparison. The video looks nice but no nicer than plenty of other video from the 5D3. There is as much evidence that removing the OLPF improves 5D3 video as there is for the use of a green marker to improve your CD audio.

Well I was referring to the comparison pics from the link I provided. There was noticeably more detail (or so it seemed) in the image with the filter removed. It was certainly compelling enough to cause an uproar throughout the community. I wasn't going to be so hasty as to ship off my 5D3 next week to get it modded. However, I was going to keep an eye out for any updates on the matter.

Thank you for the link though. I will check it out.

Here is a Vimeo video with the OLPF removed. Not scientific, direct comparison shots with and without OLPF etc. but at least this guy is kind enough to share his footage whilst the debate on this goes on. Subjectively, at least to me, it actually looks softer than some of the other Vimeo footage I've seen with unbutchered 5DMkIIIs, although the early comments on Vimeo indicate some people think the exact opposite.....the jury's still out on this I think!

5D3 OLPF Removed on Vimeo

Thanks for sharing Andy. I wouldn't watch the video through Vimeo but instead download the file and watch that. It is considerably better looking than what is being streamed through vimeo. Having played with my 5D3 for several hours yesterday and today and I can say that his footage does look sharper out of the camera than mine. I was shooting very similar subject matter also.

I still find it interesting, and would love to see a proper comparison with charts. Surely somebody will make that happen soon. Also, I would like to know how unmodded 5D3 footage that is sharpened in post compares to the footage from the modded 5D3. It might turn out that there is a difference between a modded and unmodded 5D3, but that sharpening the unmodded would make them comparable.

However, there is no reason to run out and mod your camera yet for sure. It will be interesting to see what comes of all this.

Yeah I know, but it still looked pretty soft to me even when downloaded (I spend most days editing EX3 and TM900 footage that's razor sharp).

This teaser from Andrew Reid got posted toady and looks MUCH more promising, resolution wise....

5D Mark III - Zeroed AA Filter - Sneak Preview on Vimeo

I can understand that. I shoot and edit with EX3s at one of the places I do contract work for and they are far superior in image quality. I think the 5D footage is always going to have a little bit of that soft look, but the footage was a bit sharper than what I have experienced with my own 5D3.

This new clip you posted definitely looks sharper than what I have coming out of my camera. I would still love to see someone do a proper comparison though.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Thanks for sharing Andy. I wouldn't watch the video through Vimeo but instead download the file and watch that.Unfortunately the guy is too cheap to pay $60 a year for a Vimeo Pro account & the free account download limit has been exceeded so we can't. The resolution is fine but no better than any other 5D3 footage shot in bright sunshine & there is a terrible red cast to the whole image.

Evidently he is going to provide a tutorial so that others can butcher their cameras too but is disinclined to shoot some charts or proper comparative footage.

When I first got my 5D2 over 3 years ago I would have sworn that it had better resolution than my XHA1 or HV30 until I saw some proper comparisons done & then realised that sharpening & contrast can produce false detail that gives the illusion of increased resolution. I am not prepared to trust my eyes (or anyone else's) when it comes to deciding which camera resolves more detail only proper evaluation with charts or proper side by side comparison can be trusted.

Good point. I agree, a proper comparison is the only way to tell. Is the red tint from the IR filter they put in place of the AA filter?

I have now downloaded the 1920x1080 file of that 9 second clip with the OLPF removed. It's not as I expected the raw .MOV file off the camera as I can see from running exiftool that it's been processed by Premiere Pro. The only part of the frame actually in focus is a small portion over on the left that looks OK. The car looks nice & shiny. The pronounced pink/red cast is still present here. Apart from the colour cast it looks no different than I would expect from a 5D3 or 5D2 in bright sunshine. If it's meant to demonstrate improved resolution it's a very poor example. Just stopping it down so more of the frame was in focus would have made for a more convincing demo.

Here is an example of what video from the 5D2 can look like in bright sunshine. Download the 250MB 1920x1080 .MOV file to evaluate the full quality.
Coffee Time At Golfe Juan on Vimeo

Ok...
So can we come up with a list of pros and cons for the 2 cameras from people who have used the actual cameras? I have the 5Dii and thinking of upgrading. Here is some specs from research I ve done regarding video:


Canon 5DMarkiii
(: No Moire/Aliasing
? Sharpen in post - does this cause problems in grading?
? How does Codec compare? (to 5Dii or Nikon?)
If you own Canon no need to sell your glass..


Nikon D800
(: Higher Dynamic Range (~14 vs 11 on Canon)
(: Has FULL Hdmi output 4:2:2 (zero compression to recorder)
): Moire Shows up (much like 5dii?)
? What's the Codec from the cards?


I never use ISO higher then 800 so I don't really think for professional situations the ISO improvement is that big of a deal - at least for me - I always use lighting.

From time to time I look at footage I've shot with my EX3 and think to myself, "Man... it's as if I were actually standing right there looking at this scene for real. It's that sharp."

The thing is, I jumped on the 5D bandwagon because I absolutely fell in love with those dreamy images that are just outside the realistic ones of life. I'm hooked. And I'm anxiously waiting for Camera Works in Colorado Springs to call and let me know my new MK lll has arrived (it's about 3 weeks late, now).

One other thing: Not to pass judgment, but taking my camera apart to change something I paid a lot of money to get doesn't make much sense to me. If I wanted it to look like a soap opera, I'd use the EX3.

Lastly, my 5D ll had to go into the shop recently because the camera stopped formatting cards. Canon fixed it and returned it quickly and didn't charge a penny. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have happened if I'd ever ran Magic Lantern with it. I can imagine what they'd do if you had pulled the OLPF.

Just my two cents.

Resolution chart, 5DMkIII, no OLPF...

5D3 no OLPF on Vimeo