The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

from Nikon to 5DIII?

Paratom

Well-known member
I am interested if any of you guys have switched from Nikon to Canon and could share some experience.
I shoot mainly Leica M and S, but with 2 small kids I sometimes think I sometimes might be able to get some shots with a faster AF.
I still have my Nikon D700 setup but for some reasons (for example color) I dont like the IQ so much compared to my Leica images. Also I like 50mm fov a lot and the Nikon 50/1.4 is just not such a great lens.
I believe the Canon 50/1.2 is much better. So I am thinking of replacing my D700+many Nikons with a 5dIII and few but fine lenses. The idea would be 16-35/2.8, 50/1.2 , either 85/1.2 or 135/2.0 and a Telezoom.
I wonder those who use the 5dIII-how happy are you?
How do you find colors?
How precise and reliable do you find the AF?
How is overall handling.
There is a lot of hype about the D800, but I still feel D800 grass is to green sometimes and skin tones slightly yellowish. I tried both Nikon 50/1.4g and SIgma 50/1.4 but they dont seem to be any close to the Canon 50/1.2.
Also while the Nikon 14-24 is excellent, I would find the 16-35/2.8 Canon range much much more usefull for me.
Thanks for any 5dIII experience.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Tom,

I have switched very often between Nikon and Canon, also owning a D700 and D3 and meanwhile the D800E. And I really liked the 5D2 some years ago and the main reason I bought into C at this time was because of the glass like 16-35, 1.2/85 etc. all really great lenses.

Meanwhile I configured my D800E that way, that the colors coming out of the camera are fine for me and not too green, yellow or anything wrong. I am using both LR4 and Aperture 3 and both deliver great results from the RAWs of the D800E. Lens selection is definitely a bit demanding with the 36MP, but for me a CZ 1.4/35 ZF.2 and Nikors 2.8/60, 1.4/85 and 2.8/70-200VR2 together with a TC2xIII deliver the IQ I am looking for - and I am pretty demanding. AF is similar to the D700 adding the 3D AF which is sometimes really a winner!

I had similar thoughts as you before I bought again into Nikon, but finally I decided for this route and so far do not regret. And the D800E is also a replacement for my H3D39, which it almost can handle without much IQ loss - a great complement for this camera!

Having said that the 5D3 is sure a great camera and AF should be on par with the D800E. Also the 2.8/16-35 I always found to be the BEST WA zoom ever, although different reviews come to different conclusions. I cannot speak about the 1.2/50 as I never owned this lens, but the 1.2/85 is a marvel of a lens - I am really missing it as I was much more happy with its handling and results compared to the Nikkor 1.4/85G. I think the 2.8/70-200s latest versions from both vendors are pretty equal, so nothing to do wrong here.

Tough decision. Maybe you should give it a try, but on the other hand if you have already lot of Nikkor glass you maybe should stay in this camp.

Good luck and I will be interested what you finally decide ;)
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Thanks Peter. I wonder if the D800 is different from previous Nikons like the D700 color wise.
Maybe it is not different, but you can fine tune WB very nicely in the menu. This way I found a pretty good setting which lets me forget to tweak colors in post processing. But maybe it is not enough for you.

The 5D3 as most Canons deliver slightly warmer - brownish colors IMHO than Nikon. Which I like!

Why not do a test between both cameras with 1 or 2 preferred lenses? And do not forget to tune the D800E WP the way you prefer.
 

Ocean

Senior Subscriber Member
I felt that Nikon did something in their color profile for Nikon D800/E. It's much better than the D700. But the look is still very different than Leica's.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Maybe it is not different, but you can fine tune WB very nicely in the menu. This way I found a pretty good setting which lets me forget to tweak colors in post processing. But maybe it is not enough for you.

The 5D3 as most Canons deliver slightly warmer - brownish colors IMHO than Nikon. Which I like!

Why not do a test between both cameras with 1 or 2 preferred lenses? And do not forget to tune the D800E WP the way you prefer.
Test would be nice but I dont have either camera (D800 or 5DIII) available.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
I made the switch, but to Nikon from Canon. Having shot Canon since 1999, it was tough but after looking at the files, I made the switch.

To me it's all about the DR of the sensor, and the D800 for me was way way beyond the 5DMKIII. I found the MKIII very similar if not the same to my 5D MKII, namely no way to pull up shadows without getting the classic blue/red noise and banding. I realize it possible to work around this, but I would rather just take one exposure and work from there, not have to bracket every shot.

The resolution was not the issue for me. I can get by with the 20mp of Canon all day long for what I shoot.

I agree the color/profiling issues around the D800/e can be a hurdle. I actually purchased the d800, and had no problems with it, however since I moved to the 800e, I am wishing I had just stayed pat. Resolution differences are really not that big if any between the two, at least from what I tested out.

If you are a higher iso shooter, the MKIII may be a good solution, but when I shot the two, I found both sets of files were very close noise wise until you got above 6400, and that is iso range I never try to use anyway. No doubt that the frame rate of the 5D MKIII will be faster.

I go back to Fred Miranda's early review. He showed in that just how much shadow recovery is possible with a D800 and now a D600. 3 stops minimum. Plus the high light recovery is excellent also.

As for glass, I totally agree it can be a tough call. I had to get rid of some of my best Canon glass for this switch but overall I am still glad I made the move. Especially based on the products that Canon has brought to the market since March of this year. I am sure that Canon has a new chip/camera coming for 2013. However just bringing 40, 46mp whatever to the market is not the deal for me, it's DR of the chip. Nikon has got a pretty good lead here for now.

The chipset of the D800 is a revolutionary design and it worth considering.

I highly recommend you test both. If you are in the U.S. lensrentals.com has both bodies for rent. It would be worth your time to rent both and test them out.

Paul
 

Stan ROX

Member
I switched from Canon (5D Mk II, 1D Mk IV, 1Ds Mk III) to Hasselblad (H4D-40) and Nikon (D600). Could not be happier. All what was already said is true. Check out this thread: D600 & sensor dust where I posted some samples straight out of the cam.

In former days, I had the 50mm 1.2. The AF is NOT very fast working. It's a lot of glass, therefore you'll still have some lags.

S.
stanROX.com
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I made the switch, but to Nikon from Canon. Having shot Canon since 1999, it was tough but after looking at the files, I made the switch.

To me it's all about the DR of the sensor, and the D800 for me was way way beyond the 5DMKIII. I found the MKIII very similar if not the same to my 5D MKII, namely no way to pull up shadows without getting the classic blue/red noise and banding. I realize it possible to work around this, but I would rather just take one exposure and work from there, not have to bracket every shot.

The resolution was not the issue for me. I can get by with the 20mp of Canon all day long for what I shoot.

I agree the color/profiling issues around the D800/e can be a hurdle. I actually purchased the d800, and had no problems with it, however since I moved to the 800e, I am wishing I had just stayed pat. Resolution differences are really not that big if any between the two, at least from what I tested out.

If you are a higher iso shooter, the MKIII may be a good solution, but when I shot the two, I found both sets of files were very close noise wise until you got above 6400, and that is iso range I never try to use anyway. No doubt that the frame rate of the 5D MKIII will be faster.

I go back to Fred Miranda's early review. He showed in that just how much shadow recovery is possible with a D800 and now a D600. 3 stops minimum. Plus the high light recovery is excellent also.

As for glass, I totally agree it can be a tough call. I had to get rid of some of my best Canon glass for this switch but overall I am still glad I made the move. Especially based on the products that Canon has brought to the market since March of this year. I am sure that Canon has a new chip/camera coming for 2013. However just bringing 40, 46mp whatever to the market is not the deal for me, it's DR of the chip. Nikon has got a pretty good lead here for now.

The chipset of the D800 is a revolutionary design and it worth considering.

I highly recommend you test both. If you are in the U.S. lensrentals.com has both bodies for rent. It would be worth your time to rent both and test them out.

Paul
Thank you Paul!
There is so much written about DR difference so now I am a bit afraid that this could be a real concern. I would definatly check this upfront when getting a 5diii. I have owned Nikon for many years now but I never got 100% happy with skin color. This is my main concern with Nikon.
I am not in the US so hard renting both cameras.
I would really interested to shoot it side by side for some time. (But on the other side I am really tired of camera and lens "testing")

If you say bringing up the Canon shadows can be problematic-I wonder how often one has to do it, how "good" is the standard tone curve of the 5diii (is it more contrasty or more with a smooth roll off?). Also how good is the exp-metering?
Thanks for the comments!
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Thank you Paul!
There is so much written about DR difference so now I am a bit afraid that this could be a real concern. I would definatly check this upfront when getting a 5diii. I have owned Nikon for many years now but I never got 100% happy with skin color. This is my main concern with Nikon.
I am not in the US so hard renting both cameras.
I would really interested to shoot it side by side for some time. (But on the other side I am really tired of camera and lens "testing")

If you say bringing up the Canon shadows can be problematic-I wonder how often one has to do it, how "good" is the standard tone curve of the 5diii (is it more contrasty or more with a smooth roll off?). Also how good is the exp-metering?
Thanks for the comments!
Only can comment on the 5D2 and I was very happy with the exposure metering and standard tone curve of this camera. I almost never had any issue with shadow details or recovering shadows either in Aperture, LR or C1Pro.

I would assume that the 5D3 is even better.

Actually all this discussion around DR is very theoretical and both Nikon and Canon are doing pretty well today in this area.

What I find more important is the OOC colors and I was not really happy with my older Nikon's, but since the D800 allows to fine-adjust WB in a wide range, I do not see this problem again.

But for the availability of some of the Canon L lenses I would definitely switch again, if I had the desire to use these lenses ....
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Tom,

I moved from the 5D to a string of Nikons and recently moved back...to the 1Dx...

I am very pleased with this camera...color is very close to my sensibilities. I would hope that the 5D3 will be close to this.

If I may a couple of recent shots:

Canon 1 DX and ZF.2 50 Macro


Autumn Lake Morning Light 2






Autumn Lake Mallard Morning Light 1




Bob
 

Mark K

New member
I have had D800 since early its year, and because of the lightweight of Canon lightweight long telephoto lenses, I recently bought 5DIII and 40/2.8 stm. Well, honestly speaking I really think 5DIII is very old, in terms of digital camera esp as a sole raw shooter, I need to squeeze a lot from RAW.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
...because of the lightweight of Canon lightweight long telephoto lenses...
This was one of the main factors in my return...the 400 F 5.6 is a wonderful lens for Texas shooting which involves a lot of mid distance wildlife and livestock. Better to shoot over a fence than be shot for climbing over one.:ROTFL:

I also loved the color and dynamic range in the 1DX.

My MF cameras had no long equivalent for telephotos and a lot of my interest is in that mid distant shooting...however I do not have the time nor inclination to carry a 12 pound lens into remote areas.

I must admit I like the small Nikon camera bodies better than Canon but feel the 1D series are on par with their Nikon competition.

Here are a couple closer examples of the color from the 1DX:


Canon 1DX and ZF 50 Macro


After the Rain










Rose Over Stone Path




Bob
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thanks a lot for all the useful comments and experiences.
Yesterday I spent quite some time an a store to look and feel at the 5diii and some lenses.
Today I decided to give the 5diii a try. I understood that the d800 sensor has more resolution and more DR. I would think however that the dr of the 5diii is not bad either.
M first impression I like the 5diii a lot and believe with its fast AF, nice viewfinder, and 22mp it fits my needs (I want to use it for action shots of my kids and in low light).
I have also heard many good things about the new 24-70.
So I got the 24-70II and a 50/1.2 (I also brought a 50/1.4 and want to compare them and buy one of the 2).
I will keep my Nikon lenses for some weeks until I am sure the 5diii really fits my bill. But I like the feel of the body a lot.
 

pophoto

New member
Was in your shoes some years ago. I had the D700 and the trinity zoom lenses and then some more. I bought my wife the 5D mark2, 50mm 1.2 and then some, and the rest was history! Despite the D700 having a better AF system, the canon offers lenses with rendering and look that I preferred. Also being Chinese, I preferred the skin tones Canon gave me. Yes I have LR and C1.

Today I'm with the 5d mark III, AND I love the silent mode on it, and also a 1DX and shoot primes only. I don't think anyone can be too upset with Canons today, unless there's something unique. Either way you need to familiarize to yourself with any system to get the most out of it, good or bad!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I'm in a similar dilemma myself these day. Since m4/3 is taking care of most of my day-to-day photography, the Nikon gear (D300 and D2Xs) sees little use except for action photography. The solution is obviously to upgrade to FX/35mm to have a system that has more distance to the m4/3 sensor, but Nikon or Canon? The two models that suit me best are the D600 and the 6D. My requirement will be prime lenses mostly (24/35/85/135 or 35/85/135) plus a "normal" zoom. Here's my pro/contra list so far (some of these points are of limited value to others than me, but still...):

Pro D600
- Better ergonomics and a layout that I'm used to
- Better AF
- Built in flash
- I have several good Nikon lenses with low resale value
- I have an F6 that I'm probably not selling anyway

Pro 6D
- Acess to f/1.2 lenses in two focal lengths
- Will mount all my OM Zuiko lenses without mount conversion (I also use them on OM cameras)
- Will hopefully mount the Zeiss CY 85mm f/1.4
- Exchangeable focusing screen. Screen for manual focusing of wide aperture lenses available from Canon
- Built in WiFi
- Built in GPS with tagging and log functions

I also have a feeling that the new 24-70mm f/4.0 will be an unusually good lens, and it's much more compact than the f/2.8 alternatives, particularly the long (and in my view somewhat unbalanced) Nikon version.

To me, the 6D seems to be a simple, "old fashioned" SLR camera that combines the values of yesteryear with some really usefull hi-tech functionality, like WiFi and GPS. There are also indications that it will raise the bar further with regards to high ISO. Here's a comparison with the 5DIII at ISO 102,400:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/VVoQ6.jpg

I don't know when ISO 102,400 will become useful for me, particularly if using f/1.2 lenses, but irregularities on the inside of the lens cap will be disclosed without mercy :loco: :ROTFL:

Interesting comment from Po-Ming regarding Chinese skin tones. I have the same problem with the D300 (and with a borrowed D700) with most Asian subjects, while the D2Xs (and earlier the D80) is just fine.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I'm in a similar dilemma myself these day. Since m4/3 is taking care of most of my day-to-day photography, the Nikon gear (D300 and D2Xs) sees little use except for action photography. The solution is obviously to upgrade to FX/35mm to have a system that has more distance to the m4/3 sensor, but Nikon or Canon? The two models that suit me best are the D600 and the 6D. My requirement will be prime lenses mostly (24/35/85/135 or 35/85/135) plus a "normal" zoom. Here's my pro/contra list so far (some of these points are of limited value to others than me, but still...):

Pro D600
- Better ergonomics and a layout that I'm used to
- Better AF
- Built in flash
- I have several good Nikon lenses with low resale value
- I have an F6 that I'm probably not selling anyway

Pro 6D
- Acess to f/1.2 lenses in two focal lengths
- Will mount all my OM Zuiko lenses without mount conversion (I also use them on OM cameras)
- Will hopefully mount the Zeiss CY 85mm f/1.4
- Exchangeable focusing screen. Screen for manual focusing of wide aperture lenses available from Canon
- Built in WiFi
- Built in GPS with tagging and log functions

I also have a feeling that the new 24-70mm f/4.0 will be an unusually good lens, and it's much more compact than the f/2.8 alternatives, particularly the long (and in my view somewhat unbalanced) Nikon version.

To me, the 6D seems to be a simple, "old fashioned" SLR camera that combines the values of yesteryear with some really usefull hi-tech functionality, like WiFi and GPS. There are also indications that it will raise the bar further with regards to high ISO. Here's a comparison with the 5DIII at ISO 102,400:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/VVoQ6.jpg

I don't know when ISO 102,400 will become useful for me, particularly if using f/1.2 lenses, but irregularities on the inside of the lens cap will be disclosed without mercy :loco: :ROTFL:

Interesting comment from Po-Ming regarding Chinese skin tones. I have the same problem with the D300 (and with a borrowed D700) with most Asian subjects, while the D2Xs (and earlier the D80) is just fine.
I opted for the 5diii over the 6d because one of the main reasons for me to own a dslr is AF, specially continue AF. Also I have owned various DSLRs before where I had problems with focus accuracy. Thats one of the reasons why I wanted as good as possible AF in such a camera.
Now many say the Canon sensor to be outdated, and I can not ccomment based on experience before having used my 5diii for a while. However allmost allways the main argument is DR and shadow noise. Now is shaddow noise just worse than the Nikon but still quite good or is it a real world problem?
And then there are so many other things - color and overall look of the files being one of them (Skin color one of main reasons for me to give Canon a try.

The next thing is user interface - and here I find both quite good, but at the moment I prefer the user interface of the 5diii over that of my D700.
The Canon sits even better in my hands, I like that it is not too overloaded with buttons, and it has the better viewfinder (brighter and more neautral color) than the D700. Of course the differences are minor.

Lenses I would assume Canon has many the better 24-70 (now with the new version), they have the 50 and 85 1.2 options, they have the better T/S lenses.
Nikon has the better wide angle zoom than Canon, and the 85/1.4 which is optically good AND fast AF. So it depends what you do. And if you like 135 Canon has that 135/2.0. (Nikon has the 135DC which is great for portrait though).
 

Professional

Active member
Well, i never been with Nikon since my first ever digital camera which was Nikon Coolpix 8800, then Canon DSLRs and never looked back.

I am happy with Canon since 2006 until now and i never felt i want to move to Nikon side, and really i didn't see issues with Canon as many stating that Nikon is better in this and that, well, my photography with Canon made many people in my area to stay with Canon or move from Nikon to Canon, and i know i can do wonders with Nikon too, but i am not rich like some people here who can buy Canon and Nikon and MF and can move between one brand to another, it is wasting my money.

I just get 1DX and even i didn't use it much yet, only once in sports last week, but i can tell it is a phenomenal camera, but i still use my 1DsIII and it is an amazing camera yet too.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Well, i never been with Nikon since my first ever digital camera which was Nikon Coolpix 8800, then Canon DSLRs and never looked back.

I am happy with Canon since 2006 until now and i never felt i want to move to Nikon side, and really i didn't see issues with Canon as many stating that Nikon is better in this and that, well, my photography with Canon made many people in my area to stay with Canon or move from Nikon to Canon, and i know i can do wonders with Nikon too, but i am not rich like some people here who can buy Canon and Nikon and MF and can move between one brand to another, it is wasting my money.

I just get 1DX and even i didn't use it much yet, only once in sports last week, but i can tell it is a phenomenal camera, but i still use my 1DsIII and it is an amazing camera yet too.
Hi Tareq,
you re maybe not rich but using a 1dsIII and a 1dx doesnt sound you are poor either? By the way I went to your 500px site - I like images.
 
Top