Opinions regarding Nikon D800 or Canon 5D Mark iii

[Andrew Clope]

Looking at buying one of these. Torn between the two. I will use it probably 90% of the time for landscape. The Nikon does have a higher pixel rating, but how much of that will honestly amount to better quality? Likely not much. The Canon is a few hundred more expensive, but it seems far easier to use and get great pictures, quickly. The Nikon seems more of a pain to use from the reviews that I see. I do notice that the vast majority of the folks that I see out in the field taking pictures are using Canon, and I wonder if it's because picture quality is all that I'll ever need, and it's easy to use?

Currently I have a Nikon D5200, but want to upgrade to full frame. I'm familiar with the 5200 so that is another point for the Nikon I guess, but I do not mind switching to a different camera and learning the system.

Thanks

 

[Brett Roberts]

For landscapes and storm photography, in my opinion, this is a no-brainer in favor of the D800. I actually went through great pains earlier this year to switch from Canon to Nikon (6D to D610) for several reasons. The primary reason is that Nikon uses Sony sensors, which have much better dynamic range at low ISO than Canon's in-house sensors. In layman's terms, this means the dark areas of a landscape picture are much cleaner when you inevitably need to brighten them up in post-processing. The other reason for me was the lack of quality Canon wide-angle zooms, although they did just release the 16-35 f/4L IS the other day which is supposed to be better.

After every single chase this year, as I've processed my photos in Adobe Camera RAW, I've been delighted with the Nikon files (versus what I was getting with Canon before).

Canon's primary advantages are in video and very high ISO (like ISO 10000 and above), neither of which are of use for landscapes and stormscapes. Honestly, I think the main reason Canon is still so popular comes down to inertia. They really did have a better product 5-8 years ago when DSLRs started really taking off, so many people bought into their system then and haven't looked back since. Nikon beats Canon in dynamic range, sensor resolution, and the selection of quality wide-angle zoom lenses. I'd stick with Nikon for sure.

 

[Mark Blue]

If you have money invested in two, three, or more lenses specific to Nikon that's something else to consider if you want to change to a different brand Andrew. I guess it all depends on what you already have invested with your current D5200 setup. I went with a Pentax Kx body only a couple, three years ago and already it seems outdated to me at 12 MP, but it does take very nice pictures. I have the Pentax kit lens 18-55 mm, a Sigma wide angle zoom lens 10-20 mm, and a Pentax zoom lens 50-200 mm. At the price point you are looking at, I would say either model would be an excellent choice, although I like the Nikon better myself. The next camera body I buy will need to have GPS built in, so I can keep better track of where my pictures were taken. I've heard other chasers echo this in social media recently as a nice to have feature. I've had good luck with both B&H and Adorama when purchasing online, if you're even close to that stage yet! There are members here who know much more about this subject than I, but those were the basic items that immediately came to mind.

 

[MClarkson]

Nikon sold me a camera that almost immediately failed. Their customer service was hostile and combative, and refused to fix or replace it. Looking through the reviews, this ended up being a fairly common problem. It was only a cheap point and shoot, but still, I'll never buy Nikon products again.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

For landscapes and storm photography, in my opinion, this is a no-brainer in favor of the D800. I actually went through great pains earlier this year to switch from Canon to Nikon (6D to D610) for several reasons. The primary reason is that Nikon uses Sony sensors, which have much better dynamic range at low ISO than Canon's in-house sensors. In layman's terms, this means the dark areas of a landscape picture are much cleaner when you inevitably need to brighten them up in post-processing. The other reason for me was the lack of quality Canon wide-angle zooms, although they did just release the 16-35 f/4L IS the other day which is supposed to be better.

I had a professional landscape photographer with me this year and he seemed to indicate the same thing about the dynamic range. Briefly poking around at reviews there's a few that back up this idea. I remembered this because he had previously been very much a 'Canon guy', at least with the DSLR body. Supposedly Nikon may be releasing an update to the D800?

 

[Andrew Clope]

Robert, yes they are releasing the Nikon D810. The announcement should officially be this evening and should be available end of July... I may wait and see how it's reviewed.

 

[Brett Roberts]

Thought I'd add some real-life demonstrations of Nikon's superior dynamic range, for anyone trying to decide between brands.

Here are two examples of photos I intentionally underexposed with the D610 in order to avoid clipping the highlights, and was then able to recover the foreground very nicely in RAW conversion.

OU Field House (Nikon D610 @ ISO 100): original | processed
Severy, KS supercell on 5/10/14 (Nikon D610 @ ISO 100): original | processed

Files from any current Canon DSLR, even the 5D3 or 1D5, would simply laugh at you if you tried to recover such deep shadows!

I know a direct side-by-side comparison would be ideal, but I didn't own both brands concurrently for long enough to do any good tests. But here's an example of what happened when I'd try to use the same technique with my Canon 6D. Note the nasty noise and banding in the caverns (and I didn't even pull the shadows up as much as you'd probably want to ideally):

Cathedral Caverns (Canon 6D @ ISO 100): original | processed

Be aware that this Nikon advantage is most prevalent at ISO 100, and slowly tails off as you increase to ISO 1600. From ISO 3200 up, noise performance is pretty similar between the D610/D800 and 6D/5D3, with Canon actually holding a slight advantage at the most extreme settings.

 

[Andrew Clope]

Wow, that's actually incredible. I plan on seeing what this Nikon D810 is all about. But will probably wind up with the Nikon again. I like mine (D5200) but struggle with the wide angle stuff and shoehorning enough into the image, along with the noise seems to be way too excessive at reasonably low ISO's such as 600.... So I figured I don't have a ton invested in lenses and such, so I'd rather just make the jump now before I've got the money invested in DX lenses that likely won't work with the FX Full frame Nikons (or Canon's equivalent).

 

[Derek Weston]

Everything Brett Said. Use a D800E here. Nikon has the best Landscape oriented shooting gear currently.

Dynamic range kills on storms. (resolution is great too for flexibility in post)

 

[chrisbray]

Does this logic apply to low end DLSR cameras as well? Looking for $500-700 DSLR that shoot hd video as well and figured this may be easier than starting a new thread

 

[Brett Roberts]

Does this logic apply to low end DLSR cameras as well? Looking for $500-700 DSLR that shoot hd video as well and figured this may be easier than starting a new thread

I'm not completely sure what you're referring to, but I'm going to assume the sensor differences discussed in the last few posts. If so, similar differences do apply between the low-end Nikon and Canon models. That is to say, models like the Nikon D5200/5300 or D7100 will have better image quality at low ISO than the Canon T4i/T5i or 70D.

Unfortunately, the decision is more complicated (in my opinion) in that price range because Nikon's low-end offerings are really bare-bones in build quality and features. So while I'd easily take the D5200/D5300 sensor over the T4i/T5i sensor, I might still consider the T4i/T5i because they're better-built and don't lack extremely basic features (like a dedicated ISO button, or the ability to autofocus with all compatible lenses). Someone once described Nikon's D3xxx and D5xxx series as "feeling like toys," and now that I own one as a backup, I couldn't agree more.

Actually, the D7000 is several years old now, but still being sold new for around $600. If I were starting from scratch and had a budget of $700 for the body, that's probably the direction I'd go.

 

[chrisbray]

It's more like 700 dollar budget for everything, camera plus lens/lens kit. I've been using an Olympus E-510 since Christmas 2007 and I really need a new camera. One that will give me quality lightning pictures by actually focusing properly at distance/in low light. There's just so much out there it is hard find where to start, I thought this might be the best place.

 

[Mark Blue]

You can actually use the search filters on B&H to show you all camera kits within your budget Chris, then you can start to narrow it down from there. It seems to me that chasers are either in the Canon or Nikon camp for the most part, with the remainder using Sony, Pentax, Olympus and so forth.

I've been wondering for awhile how many chasers have ditched their dedicated camcorders and exclusively use a DSLR for both pictures and video now? It seems the gap is narrowing every year with what the DSLRs can do video-wise, not to mention my Canon HV-40 is now 5 years old and becoming dated with the use of mini DV tapes. For my purposes it's fine for now though.

 

[chrisbray]

Thanks Mark. I will check that out.

 

[Rob H]

I would have to ask if you're debating between the D800 and the 5DM3, why you're spending so much money on a body. Most people don't come anywhere close to needing what these cameras offer, especially for landscapes. With landscapes why aren't you considering the D800E? You mention you want to go full frame, but why - what scenario did you have an APS-C sensor that didn't cut it? The difference in sensor size is pretty small. Are you printing larger than A3? Probably still wouldn't matter.

Gear doesn't make the shot. My evidence for this is that there are a lot of pictures taken with a D800/14-24 that don't look as good as some Mike H. shots with a Rebel/kit 18-55. A good photographer can make a good shot with any camera, but when shooting thousands of pictures maybe there are a few things that frustrate them, and they shell out extra money to remove those annoyances.

but struggle with the wide angle stuff and shoehorning enough into the image, along with the noise seems to be way too excessive at reasonably low ISO's such as 600....

A new camera won't help with "shoehorning enough into the image". That's a composition problem. Either learn to think differently about your compositions, or get a different focal length. The noise can be offset by a few different things: position yourself to where lighting is better, bracket exposures, work on your post processing techniques, try exposing differently. If you under expose your shadows, which I almost guarantee you are doing, and then try add contrast it's going to look horrible no matter which camera you use.

As for sensor dynamic range, you can check DxoMark, but be warned that the values go beyond pixel peeping into the theoretical:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...S-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-D800___850_795_792

I have a $500 camera that can curbstomp the D800 in resolution *and* dynamic range. I have no storm pictures to show for it (yet), because it's a pain in the ass to use! The most important thing is to get a camera that you like shooting with above everything else. If just buying landscape gear for specs and money wasn't a concern, I'd personally go:

DSLR: Nikon D800E/14-24
MILC: Sony A7R/Zeiss Distagon 21mm

I've been wondering for awhile how many chasers have ditched their dedicated camcorders and exclusively use a DSLR for both pictures and video now?

Well I don't use a DSLR for pictures, but I do keep my video separate. There were too many times I wanted pictures and video of something, and it was frustrating trying to choose which had priority.