5DMark3 - IR Comparometer vs. A900

[deathvalleydave]

Hi David,

Recently, I had a post called "A900 to Canon 7D" or something like that, and at the time I asked for objective input on why I would or wouldn't want to make the switch. Well I knew that the Canon 7D was no match for my A900 for Image Quality, but now that the 5DMark3 has arrived, and I'm not a fan of SLT technology in Full Frame cameras or the EVF, could I once more get your objective input on the following:

1. When I compare the 5DMark3 to the A900 at base ISO on the Imaging Resource Comparometer - the 5DMark3 is much sharper, and it makes my A900 look like someone put vaseline over the lens before shooting the shot. And I'm amazed at how clean the 5DMark3 looks at ISO 3200.

2. Is the 5DMark3 with the 24-105L any sort of match to the A900 with CZ 24-70? and..

3. Should we expect the 5DMark3 to have significantly lower dynamic range than the A900, or about the same.

Thanks in advance for any input!
Dave

[deathvalleydave]

Okay, would like to open this post to all members now. Basically, if no one responds, I'll have to assume my points have been conceeded.

Otherwise, let me know your thoughts about pure image quality between the 5DMark3 and the A900 based on the IR Comparometer that I mentioned.

This is not meant to be for anything other than an A900 owner planning to sell all of his gear this weekend, in order to get the 5DMark3. I've reasoned it out that I don't want 36 mp and all of the flawless technique it will take to get that tack sharp, instead I'm going for an all around FF camera, i.e. better high iso noise than the D800. Plus it also has the Auto HDR feature.

Is it possible that Sony's new SLT FF cameras will have better per pixel sharpness than the 5DMark3? Instead of putting an SLT mirror in front of the sensor, Canon is working with gapless microlenses on the sensor itself to improve IQ!

Please, someone tell me I'm making a huge mistake by switching from A900 to 5DMark3 hiccup!

[bakubo]

Please, someone tell me I'm making a huge mistake by switching from A900 to 5DMark3 hiccup!

Hmm, I can't really say if you are or are not making a huge mistake. I suspect the word huge is where I would quibble a bit though. I think worst case is you think later you made a small mistake. If you can sell your A900 and lenses for a reasonable price and can buy the 5DIII and lenses for a reasonable price then you will end up having to put some new cash up, I suppose, but you would have a brand new camera with the current Canon tech and also with more assurance that this style of camera (if you prefer an OVF, no mirror between lens/sensor at exposure time, etc.) will be continued for some time in the future and get regular updates every few years. The 5DIII looks to be a nice update, not groundbreaking changes, but still a nice update to the 5DII which was also a very well liked camera. Unlike some film cameras, selling digital cameras is usually better done sooner rather than later. The tech gets older so fewer people are going to want it. If you want to sell the A900 then now is probably better than a year or two from now. Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide.

[pakodominguez]

2. Is the 5DMark3 with the 24-105L any sort of match to the A900 with CZ 24-70? and..

Not the Canon 24-105 or the Canon 24-70 are as good as the Sony 24-70 f2.8. The Canons are good everything lenses, but not excellent.

If you are looking to switch from Sony and you want the best lenses, high IQ and good noise performance, better to get a Nikon D800 and Nikon lenses like the 12-24 f2.8; the 24-70 f2.8 and the 80-200 f2.8

[Old Hydro]

[quote="deathvalleydave"]Okay, would like to open this post to all members now. Basically, if no one responds, I'll have to assume my points have been conceeded.

I wouldn't assume any such thing. I have an A850 and to be honest with you, it does what I need -- so I'm not looking for the latest someone else makes. Next time, Sony will be ahead, than _______, than __________.

I've also been around long enough to know its not the equipment that makes the picture. Its the person using it and capturing the emotion of the scene.

[deathvalleydave]

Thank you for your posts.

My biggest concern now is that years down the road, if/when my A900 breaks - I don't want to be stuck with having to get a SLT or NEX FF camera.

Another concern is that if the Canon 24-105L is not as good as the CZ 24-70 - then will that extra sharpness that I see in the 5DMark3 over at the IR Comparometer turn into a wash compared to my A900 with a CZ 24-70? Canon has a brand new 24-70 that might equal the CZ 24-70, but then Canon doesn't have stabilization.

[David Kilpatrick]

I've got the 5D MkIII here right now, but the lenses with it are the 24mm f/1.4 and the 70-200mm f/4 IS. OK, I did want something more. The Nikon D4 arrives tomorrow with 24mm f/1.4, 100mm DC f2, and 27-300mm VR.

Will try to report on what they do relative to A900 etc. I am sure the Canon will be good but their full frame sensors are never very flat - Sony's have a much more plane-perfect surface. That's why they get soft areas in odd places.

I'm selling the A77 body and NEX-5n kit, and will be selling some odd lenses as well (tilt/30mm and things) as there's very little money around and I have spend literally thousands just keeping up to speed with this stuff. But actually the A55/A900/A580 can do everything I want and the NEX-7 can do a tour of duty.

David

[Philip]

I collected my D800 yesterday - I am not disappointed. Initial impressions are that it is a substantial improvement upon the A900 I sold last month; lightning fast af lock; well sealed and balanced body; particularly good results at higher ISO settings - don't go by the dpreview studio shoots - download the raw files and process them yourself- using lightroom 4 even up to the standard top limit of 6400 they are exceptional, I do not regret going Nikon rather then Canon, because at the end of the day I can always downsize to 22mp if I want to- and of course, I saved considerably on the differnce in body price

Philip

[bfitzgerald]

I'd like a D700s with a 16mp FF sensor
D800 looks nice massive overkill for what I do though.

One thing is certain though, both Canon and Nikon will sell a lot more FF DSLR's than Sony will! That's product continuation for you..very simple and effective
Surprised David is selling his A77 didn't expect that one

[Greg Beetham]

By all accounts the 5DMkII was an incredible success for Canon in the end, it was a bit shaky at the start but once the odd little bug was sorted it never looked back, so there is every chance the 5DMkIII will be a good camera as well. But I would think seriously at what Pako suggested myself if one is worried about the future of OVF’s and screw drive lenses with Sony and is looking for an alternative high quality system.
We know about the future of OVF’s, uncertainty is not really an issue with that one, you just have too choose between an EVF or an EVF from Sony now, but Sony have seen fit to introduce a new concern now about whether screw drive lenses will be obsolete at some future point with their obsession with video centric cameras and SAM lenses. There could be a question mark over in body stabilization as well, hard to say on that one.
If I owned the D800 I would only use FF full resolution occasionally for scenic stuff and use mostly the lesser res. smaller memory footprint modes for general use and APS-C mode for birding, others might use full res for different things but the main point is it’s there if you need it. Not too many complain about the quality of Nikon lenses that I’m aware of there are probably a few dud ones but one can most likely avoid those with a bit of diligent research.
Greg
Ps As moimoi said on the dpr Sony SLR Talk forum, if you want too see some well done stuff from the D800 have a look here http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/03/23/fi ... nikon-d800 pretty impressive for a just received camera by the photographer shooting at night for some quick test shots at reduced resolution.

[deathvalleydave]

Okay, I have a bit of strange logic going on here - if I got the D800 over the 5DMk3, my standard zoom would be the Nikon 24-120 F4, because I don't want to "share" lenses with my close Nikon friends who have the Nikon 24-70, etc. So, my "strangeness" lies in wanting to be different from them and not do something to "share" lenses, i.e. the reason I've been an A900 guy all along - "different" - kind of ground breaking at the time, but now just not interested in Sony's direction for the future - now I'm more old fashioned... for OVF and pure IQ over gadgetry to try and compete in an over crowded market...

With that said, is the Nikon 24-120 F4 "good" enough to resolve the D800? And at all its focal lengths?

[deathvalleydave]

Okay, now I see that the D800 has been given the highest ever sensor rating at DXOMark, and with 14.4 ev dynamic range to boot!

I also see it received a very high low light score for a 36mp sensor!

I'm now curious to see how much better the 5D3 sensor will be rated than the 5D2, and how close it will land next to the D800. Any predictions???

[bfitzgerald]

I might actually side with Canon on this one because yes the 5d MkII was a great seller for them for serious shooters it was an ideal camera. Some might complain about the AF not being as advanced but you got a good FF body for a relatively reasonable outlay and I've seen a lot of them around.

So I won't really bash them for not boosting the resolution much at all we'll see how it stacks up IQ wise shortly. Yes the D800 does look very good and I'm sure it will be a def hit for Nikon they'll easily exceed their sales targets. But for me even if I saved like crazy the D800 is not for me. I could use it for scenic work no problems there..but 36mp is inappropriate for some jobs, really can't imagine having to wade through hundreds of raw files from a wedding shot on that camera. I updated my pc last year to a quad core and 16Gb of ram, I could throw an 8 core AMD FX in there no problems and blaze though the files current pc would do ok too.. But you just don't need anywhere near that resolution for that work, not even near it. Yes storage is cheap but you'll need an awful lot of it with that puppy.

Now if you could shoot half res and in raw that would be fine for the D800. Long term I'd be looking out for a FF with a significantly lower pixel count.

[Greg Beetham]

Yes you do have a point Barry I was thinking from my angle, I should probably take into consideration the RAW shooting aspect, the files would be huge from the D800, I only ever bother with JPEG’s myself so I’d have the full range of file size choices from the camera too choose from, the only thing to worry about is how well it takes a photo at the reduced sizes and that’s something that hardly ever gets tested from what I’ve seen.
So yes I can see the point if one is a RAW shooter the 5DMkIII would probably be a better camera for general use as the Nikon is not very forgiving with even small focus errors apparently. But for those who shoot MF and put up with the size and weight the sluggish responses and lack of features (not too mention the phenomenal cost) chasing that superfine MF texture the D800 at the price with available features and response times would/should give many of those pause for thought one would think.
It seems not many people are pausing for thought though as there is a big and growing demand for the camera from what I can gather.
Greg

[pakodominguez]

I should probably take into consideration the RAW shooting aspect, the files would be huge from the D800
...

Greg,
This is the same old argument every time a new higher megapixel camera shows up in the market. But, if you want it better, you need to better all your workflow chain.