From what I've seen, both have really, really good high ISO capabilities. The Nikon also has a better dynamic range. The only difference I could tell were the color renditions, with the Canon rendering a bit warmer color tones. The Canon wins in the 'burst' mode however, since the Nikon struggles a bit more with the higher MP's. I think both are insanely good cameras with Nikon edging out because of the MP's. It's more than you need, but from a technical standpoint, who wouldn't want a near medium format camera quality for a fraction of the cost.

^^^sick shot!

I don't normally like the vignette effect, but it works for that shot.

On a side note, does anyone here use a stand-alone light meter and shoot manually... or do you guys just let the on-board camera metering do it's thing?

thanks man

Me.

I would much rather have another stop of light.

I'm not a pro, so do you mind explaining what you mean? Higher 'usable' ISO on the D800 is pretty on Par compared to the 5D from what I've seen. They both get really noisy around ISO 12,800, but still usable. The ISO on the 5D could techically go up to 102,800, but it ain't pretty...besides, wouldn't a faster lens yield better results?

From what I've seen, the 5DMIII is more usable at 25600 than the D800. I would use that a lot more than being able to take a picture and print it out the size of car.

And even past 25600, the option is always there even though its not to pretty. A grainy shot is better than a blurry shot.

I guess it really depends on what you're shooting. To me, any noise is distracting, which is why I usually shoot with ISO 100, 95% of the time. If you're a wedding photographer though, I can see why the extremely high ISO would be better than not getting the shot. The D800 is suppose to have a really good dynamic range though, which might help in post without loosing detail which I really like. Truth be told, 12MP is enough, but having 36MP means more to play with. For someone doing wedding photo's this could work as a benefit, potentially saving a pic that needs cropping. It's not like you have to shoot at that setting either.

DxOMark gave the D800 a score of 95 vs 81 for the 5D Mark III, besting it in every category including low-light ISO if that means anything. At the end of the day though, I still think they are pretty much neck and neck.

I'm an avid canon user buy hence why I'm switching to Nikon d800 for my upgrade. The 5d mark 2 IMO is better than 3.

epic shot anthony :tup:

Just curious your reasons on why you prefer the 5D II over the III?

I'm a fashion and beauty photographer. We like our images crisp and clear, if ever applicable raising the dimensions to billboard sizes. The Nikon d800 offers unparalleled bit depth quality I believe it's 25 on ox mark, which is unbelievable for a camera that expensive. 32 bit depth is what the big boys hassleblad shoot in. The canon was a disappointment to me, that should of been the 5d mark 2 years ago. Unfortunately I would own a 5d mark 2 vs mark 3 as I wouldn't fathom spending that money on minuscule updates.



ThePhotographer

Yes the D800 is an amazing camera, for sure! After using my nikon D300 51 point AF, im afraid the 5d2 will not have a sufficient AF for me. I really like shooting wildlife, birds in flight etc. This usually demands a great AF!

While i agree that the 5D2 would be more than enough for me in every other aspect, the AF horror stories are pushing me away.

Looks like ill hold out for the D800, hopefully they get another batch released soon!

The af is okay is decent and I'm assuming you'd be shooting stopped down in day so you could probably do that. Get away with the 5d mark2


ThePhotographer

guys go look here i uploaded some photos tips would be nice http://www.the370z.com/nissan-370z-p...ml#post1726462