From an objective point of view, I've done a lot of research on both the D800 and 5D Mk3 as I want to take the step into the full-frame arena, but neither camera is quite ticking the boxes for me and I will explain why I feel this way in this thread.
Starting with the 5D Mk3, one should state that this is the camera the 5D Mk2
should have been. As it is, the 5D Mk3 is brilliant - it has the autofocus system from the 1D series with the body of a 7D with a very similar sensor from the 5D Mk2. It's a jack of all trades - wedding photographers and wildlife photographers will appreciate the improvement in higher ISO performance and autofocus in a standard sized DSLR package. It takes the best of the 5D Mk2, the best of the 7D and throws in some delights from the 1DX. So from that perspective, it's a bit of a bargain. However, I do appreciate a lot of the Canon community's frustration regarding the lack of movement forward on the base ISO dynamic range. Here in the UK, the 5D Mk3 costs ~£3000, that's a
lot of money that only buys you better autofocus and a perhaps a touch better image quality at the higher ISOs. The other obvious factor is that the Nikon D800 costs around £500
less, so for those looking to step into the full-frame arena it's a bit of a no brainer that the D800 is the most attractive camera body with the 36 MP and ~14 stops of DR at base ISO.
Or is it?
Moving onto the D800 - lets be honest, it looks damn marvellous. Sure, it loses out on higher ISO DR slightly and other things like frames per second, but if you're not into sports or wildlife then who cares. We've seen the shadow pushing examples ad nauseum (personally, I don't need to push shadows) to know what this sensor is capable of doing. However, here's my sticking point with the Nikon body; I'm going to have to use Nikon lenses. If I decide to take advantage of the better low ISO DR and cheaper body price, that means investing in a lot of full-frame glass such as:
- Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 (generic walkaround)
- Nikon 16-35 f/4 (standard landscape wide angle zoom)
- Nikon 24mm PC-E (tilt / shift prime lens for lanscapes)
I looked at some samples from the above lenses compared to their Canon counterparts and to my eyes the Canon glass is just better.
Nikon 24-70mm vs Canon 24-70mm at f/8, 35mm - Chromatic aberrations are woeful on the Nikon, not to mention the corners are not up to scratch. Shooting wide open on the Nikon also yields less than impressive quality.
Nikon 16-35mm f/4 vs Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 at 16mm, f/8 - again, crap corners on the Nikon with the Canon perfoming admirably.
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 vs Canon 16-35mm at 16/17mm, f/2.8 - a very important 'milky way' focal length and aperture to get best results. You can see with your own eyes. The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is a much better lens than the other Nikon offerings, but given it's massive front element then a lot of my filters will not work, so that lens is out of the question for me.
Nikon 24mm PC-E vs Canon 24mm TS-E II, f/8 - aberrations in the corner seem to be Nikon's weak point. Perspective control lenses are important to me to be able to shift down but still keep perspective under control.
Nikon 24mm PC-E vs Canon 24mm TS-E II, f/8 with full shift - the Nikon falls apart again with the aberrations, particularly in the corner.
I appreciate that aberrations are mostly correctable in post processing, but you can see my concern that when sinking a load of cash into new lenses for a new body, you want to make sure that you're investing in some good glass. The Nikon equivalent lenses just aren't as good as the Canon L glass to my eyes, so it has me thinking "sure, 14 stops of DR and 36mp, but what's the point if the lenses are mush?". I think there's far too much emphasis on what DxO mark says, it's used as an e***** urination contest to say "my camera beats your camera", the majority of people are overlooking the obvious factors of the whole camera system including the lens line-up.
So that's my take - I want the D800 for it's sensor, but I want Canon glass
.