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.

The calm before the storm.
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!!!

Sweet, but I gotta say...time to break out the click white balance tool!

Well, as usual, it has been a brutal last few days on location.
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

Finally back home
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

Thanks for the report. I know how hard it is to post things like this when you're on assignment. Interesting thoughts on the Canon vs Nikons. Like you I've shot and owned both. I am primarily Nikon now and I tend to prefer that look. I might have to try out a 5DMk3 soon.

Likewise, thanks for taking the time to post this - it's god to hear from side by side experience in a real environment rather than a set up test.

Thank you very much for your report.

Originally Posted by nw scout D800 Hi ISO settings are just OK, and falls way short of the Canon.

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.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft Thank you very much for your report. 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.

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...

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft ... 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.

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.

^ agreed all around.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 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.

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.

Originally Posted by nw scout Finally back home 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

interesting observations

Dave, That is one cool Helo!

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft ^ agreed all around. 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.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft ^ agreed all around. 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.

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.

Did I say 1600 looks like 100 film? Heck, for practical purposes (printing say, 11x14" and under), 6400 looks like 100!!!



And you couldn't even take that shot indoors on ASA 100 film!

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft Did I say 1600 looks like 100 film? Heck, for practical purposes (printing say, 11x14" and under), 6400 looks like 100!!! And you couldn't even take that shot indoors on ASA 100 film!

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft Did I say 1600 looks like 100 film? Heck, for practical purposes (printing say, 11x14" and under), 6400 looks like 100!!! And you couldn't even take that shot indoors on ASA 100 film!

wow!
ISO 6400 on the 5DmkIII does look like the "old" ISO 100

Heading out again with the same group of cameras on Monday for another 8 days of location

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!

Thank you for your report and observations!

2 days left on this shoot and it has been good to have the D4!
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!!!