On Location with the 5D Mark3, D4 and D800
I just got down to So Cal yesterday for a 10 ad shoot, armed with some fun new toys.
Between the 3 shooters on this job, we have a 5D Mark2, 5D Mark3, two Nikon D4 and a D800.
I know there are a lot of you out there looking into the new Nikons and Canons, so, I thought I would post this up and try to keep it somewhat updated day by day as I put the new cameras through a real world test / shoot.
We have some studio shots in a good controlled environment and then lots of location action stuff to do.
Fast moving action, scenics, still life, product and life style shots are all on the shot list and should give me a very good over all idea of how they all preform in a wide variety of uses.
I am a "best tool for the job" kinda guy, and while I mostly shoot Canon, I have rented and owned many Nikons, so you wont find any bias from me. I rent stuff, test it, if it works best then I buy it. Thats the way you kinda need to be in the commercial world.
Anyway, my hope is to pass along my opinion on these new cameras as the days go by. We shoot sunrise to sunset most days, so we will see how beat I am at the end of the day, and if I can stay awake, I will post my experiences of each new body.
First thoughts from the studio.
The D800 and the Mark 3 are VERY similar in look and quality. The file size is obviously bigger on the Nikon, but quality wise I feel its a wash ( at 100 asa ).
A quick focus test today before the actions tomorrow revailed GREAT results from the Mark3. Tested against the D4 the keeper rate was about the same (80% ish) Obviously you get twice the frame rate with the D4, and depending on what sport you are shooting that may be very important! For this perticular job its not to crucial and the larger file size along with a much nicer looking image makes the Mark3 the better of the two for this perticular shoot.
Long day tomorrow and should have 2k to 3k shots on each body by the end of the day.
I'll try to post up what I learn from each asap.
Between the 3 shooters on this job, we have a 5D Mark2, 5D Mark3, two Nikon D4 and a D800.
I know there are a lot of you out there looking into the new Nikons and Canons, so, I thought I would post this up and try to keep it somewhat updated day by day as I put the new cameras through a real world test / shoot.
We have some studio shots in a good controlled environment and then lots of location action stuff to do.
Fast moving action, scenics, still life, product and life style shots are all on the shot list and should give me a very good over all idea of how they all preform in a wide variety of uses.
I am a "best tool for the job" kinda guy, and while I mostly shoot Canon, I have rented and owned many Nikons, so you wont find any bias from me. I rent stuff, test it, if it works best then I buy it. Thats the way you kinda need to be in the commercial world.
Anyway, my hope is to pass along my opinion on these new cameras as the days go by. We shoot sunrise to sunset most days, so we will see how beat I am at the end of the day, and if I can stay awake, I will post my experiences of each new body.
First thoughts from the studio.
The D800 and the Mark 3 are VERY similar in look and quality. The file size is obviously bigger on the Nikon, but quality wise I feel its a wash ( at 100 asa ).
A quick focus test today before the actions tomorrow revailed GREAT results from the Mark3. Tested against the D4 the keeper rate was about the same (80% ish) Obviously you get twice the frame rate with the D4, and depending on what sport you are shooting that may be very important! For this perticular job its not to crucial and the larger file size along with a much nicer looking image makes the Mark3 the better of the two for this perticular shoot.
Long day tomorrow and should have 2k to 3k shots on each body by the end of the day.
I'll try to post up what I learn from each asap.
0
Comments
Headed out tonight after dinner to wander around a bit and shoot some hi asa Mark 3 images.
These are.......
6,400asa
hand held at F4 at 1/8 sec
24 to 105 with the IS on
large jpg pretty much straight out of camera with a little croping
10:30 at night with as bad as it gets light
autofocus on
no mirror up but 2 sec timer set to help with camera shake
Simply amazing what you can do and the quality you can get with these cameras now a days!!!
5 days of 13 to 15 Hr a day and we are only 1/2 done!
As tired as I am, I wanted to take a few minutes to put down a little of what I have learned about these 3 great cameras.
Over the last 5 days I have shot around 5k images with the 5D Mark 3 / 12k with the D4 and about 2,300 with the D800 and as expected, have found some good and bad with each.
To make it simple and quick ( need to get some sleep) here is the run down so far.
Studio
Still a wash for me as far as quality between the Mark3 and the D800
With controlled lighting, the great hi ISO of the Mark3 is of little advantage, and some art directors (clients) just love the idea of the huge file so the D800 my be a better choice for some. I for one don't go by the bigger is better formula and still prefer the look of the Canon file, but that is just my opinion.
Both are great, with the Canon being a bit more versatile and for me having a better layout and design.
Location
While I have owned and shot way more Canons over the years, I must say I really like the feel of the new Nikons. The build quality on both cameras is very nice and just feel a bit more rugged than the Mark 3. While I never had issues with my Mark 2, it always worried me a bit when out in some bad conditions. While the 1D series were flat out bullet proof ( -27 on a snowmobile shoot in Montana to a 125 degree shoot at Glamis) I never once had any issue or worry with the build quality. While the Mark 3 seems a bit more rugged than the 2, it still seems a bit less than the D800 or the D4 and feels almost toylike when compared to the feel of the 1DX.
Metering seems a bit better on the Mark 3 than either Nikon.
Just a bit more consistent is all. Not a huge difference by any means. I just notice that in general I need to tweak it a bit more on the Nikons.
The D4 with the 300 2.8 seems to be about a tie for the best focusing combo I have shot with (and I have litterley used them all) The Canon 1D Mark 2N with the older 300 non IS version had top honors for many many years, but now it finally has an equal.
I have yet to shoot much action with the D800 but will be using it a lot tomorrow so should have some good new info at the end of the day.
All these 3 cameras are great! Just like anything, you just have to pick the right tool for the job. From the little I have worked with these 3 so far, the Canon seems to be the king of the "Do it all" cameras. Good but not great build quality, great video (already did a TV spot with the new Mark 3 and have shot over a dozen with the Mark 2) amazing at hi ISO and IMO a better layout and a little easier to use.
While the D800 may be geared a little more towards studio work and land scape, it is still no slouch in the "do it all" category.
Pretty impressed with the auto focus of the Mark 3 but I am really looking forward to putting the D800 through the works tomorrow.
I will post back later with the results
Learned a ton about all these new cameras over the last two weeks.
Conditions and hours were brutal as always, and the cameras held up well during their first go around.
D800
Great all around camera with a little better build quality than the Mark 3
Auto focus works ok but not as good as the Mark 3
Larger file size will be a big seller for some photographers and clients but IMO the Canon file still looks a little better. Just opinion here. When copmaired side buy side I just found myself liking the look of the Canon better. Just a little sharper with a little more punch.
Hi ISO settings are just OK, and falls way short of the Canon.
D4
GREAT build and layout! Really happy with just about everything about this camera
Stock focus settings worked really well so I did not really play much with all the adjustments.
Images looked good for the file size and the higher ISO settings were nice as well.
Not that I would ever need it, but it was cool to fire off 70 frames at 10 frames a sec in RAW and never have to wait on the buffer.
Mark 3
If you can only have one camera and shoot a lot of different things, this is the camera to have IMO.
I wish the build quality was a little better and I sure wish they would have left a few things the same when they rebuilt the layout. Kinda drives me crazy they just seemed to change things for the sake of just doing it, and not making it better or eaiser.
Atuo focus worked really well, and seems to be a huge improvement over the Mark 2
Hi ISO is great and really nice to fall back on if you need to.
Video
At the end of the print ad shoot we did a 2 days video shoot for a TV spot.
We had tested the video on all 3 cameras before the shoot and the quality of them all was great. I dident see anything that would make me say one was better than the other.
We had many other cameras going to get the video footage aside from the 3 listed above. We used some GoPros for mounting directly to the vehicles, the new RED for slow motion and this cool set up with a sony mounted to a gimbal for some super cool arial shots
Sorry I cant show any images from the shoot as it is all new product, but I wanted to give my honest opinion of each to help others out if they are looking to buy one.
If anyone has any questions just let me know
Dave
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
It is funny how this seems to be the emerging consensus among people who have used both, yet DxO falls all over themselves to rank the D800 higher for ISO.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Not really. Canon and Nikon approach "noise" differently. Canon tends to apply more smoothing to the image at the expense of detail, while Nikon is biased the other way. Greatly depends on what you prefer. Some of us who shoot both brands prefer Nikon, others Canon.
I have not shot the 5Dmk3, but would like to. I have shot the Mk2, and the new camera seems to be leaps and bounds beyond...
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
This is likely partly procedural and partly perceptual.
1) The procedural difference is that many folks are comparing the Canon 5D MKIII and Nikon D800 using different methodologies and different software. It seems that the Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) is doing an exemplary job now (since being corrected) and may be the RAW converter of choice for that camera.
DxO labs are obviously using DxO Raw Engine, probably from within Optics Pro.
DPReview will undoubtedly use Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) for their comparative review.
Each of these RAW converters will produce different results, and DxO Labs allows normalized measurement, which closely approximates printed results.
2) The perceptual difference will relate somewhat to the method of viewing. If you view a 22MPix 5D MKIII image and a 36MPix D800 image at 100 percent, you are seeing a different magnification of the relative views of each scene. The Nikon image will be more magnified and allow greater scrutiny of details and noise.
The DxOMark site allows both images to be measured when they are normalized to 8MPix. Since that site only uses the DxO Raw engine, the results may not directly correlate to DPP or ACR results.
To summarize: It's extremely important not to generalize camera measurements to try to say which one is definitively "best". The Canon 5D MKIII and the Nikon D800 are both exemplary tools, and both are capable of exemplary results, especially after understanding the true nature of each optimized imaging workflow (which will evolve over time).
Just about the same time as everyone optimizes their workflow, the camera companies will introduce new models with new properties and new traits, and the whole process will start over again.
New post-processing software is allowing more options and capabilities than ever before, and, if you shot to RAW files, even older cameras' image files are worth a second glance using the new software.
Only one thing is absolute and certain; we truly live in a rather miraculous time in the history of photography, ... and it just keeps getting better and better.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
True dat. ISO 1600 that looks like ASA 100 film? 6400 that looks like 400? What??
I think some people have unreasonable expectations. We have to remember we are talking about small format cameras. In 35mm film days an 8x10" was considered a big print! And you only printed that large if you had a real corker of an image! We are now getting medium format performance or better, in a 35mm package.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
interesting observations
Boy if THIS isn't the truth! I remember how I couldn't WAIT to print my big 8x10s after I'd looked at the film on a light table under a loupe, and then done a contact sheet to "be sure". That 8x10 paper didn't come cheap!
Now I am printing 16x20s as my normal size and 24x30s for my "enlargements". From my 12MP cameras... Lord only knows that my D800 files are going to look like at large sizes. I may print one next week just to see.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
And you couldn't even take that shot indoors on ASA 100 film!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
wow!
ISO 6400 on the 5DmkIII does look like the "old" ISO 100
This shoot will have way more hi speed action so i'm sure the D4 will be in my hands 80 percent of the time. But I will be pulling out the others from time to time for lifestyle and video shots.
Before we shoot, me are meeting with an editor of a big post bay in LA. He will be looking at samples from the last shoot from all these 3 cameras (plus the RED) and giving us his input as to which files work best for them. Very excited to hear his input!
________________________
http://troybn.smugmug.com/
Love this thing for hi speed action
Ill try to report in later tonight or soon after the shoot. But after around 15k clicks on this shoot alone, I gotta say, the Canon 1Dx has its hands full if its gonna compete with the D4. This thing rocks!!!
Can you tell us what was said by the editor in LA?
Phil
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
First off, Video
The editor had some surprising info. While most say its best to shoot the video on all the DSLR's as flat as possible to help give it some latitude in post, he said not to.
His reason was simple. If you know the look your going for, best to shoot it that way and not alter it in post. All 3 of these (and the Mark2) are all of about the same quality in his eyes and have such little latitude, the most important thing by far was to expose it perfect. Exposure was his main concern with the files, then contrast and color.
As far as the print shoot here is some more info about the cameras.
Love the D4.
Only issue I had was that the headlights seemed to effect to auto focus a bit more than I remember on the D3. The Canons have always seemed to handle this issue a little better that the nikons, and even more so now. Also, on the rare occasion I shot on auto (product moving quickly in and out of trees and constant rapid changes in cloud cover) the headlight flare also had a much bigger effect in exposure than the Canons. It would stop way down with the flare where as the Canon seemed to read it a bit better and not under expose as bad.
D800
Still love the build quality and the images are great. My experience with it shooting action was very poor. Slow frames per second and the auto focus worked really bad with fast moving subjects.
Mark 3
I still really hate the way they changed a few things with the layout of the buttons. I have gotten used to it, but they simply were way better off the way they were!!!
Still not a great sports camera, but IMO way better than the D800. Faster frame rate and a much better working auto focus.
It's still my pic for the best all around camera if you can only have one body and shoot a wide variety of subjects.
So, after 20 days on location with these 3 my opinions are about the say as the first few days.
They all are great.
You just need to realize which is best for you and what you shoot.
Thanks for your comments. I am curious about what AF settings you used on the D800. I have been using mine as primarily a sports camera since the first day they were released in the wild and have been VERY pleased shooting a variety of sports with them. I've even shot Olympic level sprinters from next to the track and have had no problems with the AF system at all.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Monte
After four years or so of happily my primary genre, modeled-street portraiture within the blur/movement of candid living urban surrounds (at least that's what I try, occasionally even get it right, lol), I'm ready to step up to full-frame sensor size and the latest generation of tech wizardry. My focus as of now is on Canon's 5DIII coupled with its 24-70 f/2.8 L (or LL, don't even know the difference yet, but I will). I shoot all in RAW, and till now have relied on ACR for RAW conversion. Although I diligently chase the ever-evolving curve of the tech universe, I'm an older guy, my drive to know technically all the details has somewhat diminished, and I'm realizing at times it's just more practical to turn to results for tech answers rather than in-depth scientific understanding of how the results got there. In this spirit, I found your comments on RAW conversion right on point, and wonder if you'd comment generally on the topic of gear manufacturer conversion software vs. Adobe's ACR. I've employ Photoshop from the beginning, so just naturally gravitated to ACR as I developed a comfortable workflow. After all, when a pretty reliable Mt. Olympus is right in front of you, why look further? I know there's a certain laziness in this, but we're talking here of a single neat integrated package of Bridge/ACR/Photoshop, all of stellar reputation in an industry way beyond my in-depth tech savvy and probably even need-to-know, and results in my estimation have been more than acceptable. So I pose the questions: (i) do Canon/Nikon/etc truly know more than they pass on to Adobe in terms of their particular digital wizardry and how best to convert it, and (ii) do the Canon/Nikon/etc RAW converter engines tie-in seamlessly with Bridge/Photoshop? And since I perform most post processing in ACR, generally entering Photoshop only to smooth over skin blemishes/age-lines, perform occasional chin/neck/gut reshaping, and size and convert to JPEG, I'll throw you one more: (iii) do Canon/Nikon/etc RAW converters include the kinds of post processing tools so conveniently and productively included in ACR, or will they doom me to performing these basic tasks in Photoshop, thereby dooming me to a whole new workflow in what to me would be a far more complicated world?
I hope asking all this isn't taking advantage of your time and good intent here at DG, and thank you in advance for the assist. Wisdom of contributors here has gotten me much further than I'd ever hoped to progress in the art, I certainly don't ever mean to take advantage.
My comment, which you quoted above, was meant for absolute image quality, not for workflow efficiency.
For a "fine art" application, where the rendering from RAW to 16 bit RGB color tones without too much manipulation is desired, Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP), corrected version, is doing a great job for many users. As a workflow, you would export to a 16 bit TIFF for processing beyond the capabilities of DPP.
For a high-volume project, where you need a high level of automation without individual image manipulation, Lightroom is exceptional and, if required, you can still export images to an external image editor for more manipulation, correction or alteration. (I don't use Lightroom, but I do have a similar workflow which provides a high level of automation.)
As you become familiar with each software's capabilities and limitations you will find where they meet your needs.
I am most familiar with the Canon DPP application. It does not "tie in" to external applications at all. You can use the program in batch mode and process to 16 bit TIFFs. From there you would use Bridge/Photoshop, for instance, or any other image editor, along with it's automation. Basically a 2-step workflow (or as many steps as you desire).
Such drama.
DPP is mostly a RAW image processing engine. It is not designed to be an image editor.
I regard DPP as an "option" to my entire repertoire of image processing capabilities. I chose the best workflow and method for the task at hand. DPP is included with the camera, so why not use it when it meets your needs?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Very good! That second "doomed" was a typo, no question, certainly did add to the drama.
Many thanks for taking the time. Adopting what you've offered, it seems logical that I do RAW conversion in DPP after graduating to FF Canon (presumably Canon), with a workflow producing saved DPP-converted TIFFs, which I then open in ACR for the simpler (to me) editing talent there, which I then save and re-open in PS for its more nuanced editing talent and ultimate sizing/conversion to JPEG. I've always considered Adobe such pros in the area, Photoshop's king to these unpracticed eyes, never even considered a manufacturer's software might be even better for initial RAW conversion. a lesson learned.
As long as I have you, I've experienced an ACR quirk over the years I'd love to resolve. Using CS3 (in process of changing to cS5), sometimes ACR-converted RAWs, saved as TIFFs after editing in ACR, would re-open only in PS, not again in ACR for further ACR editing. I can't find a pattern to it, some of the saved TIFFs just would refuse to re-open in ACR, would only re-open in PS. Thoughts?
Interesting how the come-on of upgraded gear entices. I did an indoor natural light modeled shoot yesterday with my E-3 and Zuiko equiiv 28-70 f/2. As I fought the dim light of the place with this great but in today's world relatively limited arsenal of effective ISO and DOF magic, all at times I could think of were the significantly increased low-light capabilities of FF f/2.8 and even possibly secondary f/1.4 or 1.8 prime. Certainly would dress things up! Talk about drama!
Just remember, I said you have options.
Learn what DPP can do for you and use it when it makes sense. For instance, the DLO feature of DPP does not exist in Photoshop, and you may find it useful to improve image quality with some lenses.
Similarly, the anti-moire feature of DPP has no simple counterpart in Photoshop. (If you do use the anti-moire feature, I suggest processing the image again with the anti-moire turned off, and then layer the 2 images in Photoshop and just use the anti-moire parts of the image as needed. It will unnecessarily blur the other parts of the image that don't need the treatment.)
Nothing I can think of just now. I suggest asking this question in the "Finishing School" forum, where we discuss software issues and software techniques.
Both the Canon 5D MKIII and the Nikon D800 have some amazing features for the enthusiast, pro-sumer and professional shooters. Drama for each of them is richly deserved. Attach a fast, large-aperture prime (like a Canon "L" or a Nikkor "Gold-Ring") and they are capable of pure magic. (Flair for the dramatic.)
My favorite lens for portraiture, when it makes sense, is the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. The background truly just melts away into a creamy-smooth bokeh at larger apertures, while the sharpness and contrast are just amazing at any aperture. (There I go again with the superlatives, but this lens is deserving, no lie.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Many thanks as always for your time. DG is a gold mine for talking the innards of photography. Your presence lies somewhere between adviser and prophet, artistically either holds true.
Im not really sure. They are night and day different in performance is all I can tell you.
They just released the TV spot we shot, thought you guys might like to see it.
The footage is from a mix of the RED, 5D3, go pros, D4 and a Sony HD mounted to the RC helli.
http://youtu.be/PwLMD79kom8
I have read a few different articles regarding the AF question I mentioned and the two cameras have exactly the same Phase detection AF system.
The night and day performance you speak of must be the frame rate, buffer performance etc. that makes the difference. Or, if you were talking about video AF then the D4 wins that hands down.
The reason I mentioned it was you said that you loved the D4 AF and was not impressed with the D800 AF which was confusing.
Monte