Originally Posted by nw scout 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!

Can you tell us what was said by the editor in LA?

Phil

Sorry this took a while. Crazy days on location and lots of travel, but back home now

First off, Video

The editor had some surprising info. While most say its best to shoot the video on all the DSLR's as flat as possible to help give it some latitude in post, he said not to.
His reason was simple. If you know the look your going for, best to shoot it that way and not alter it in post. All 3 of these (and the Mark2) are all of about the same quality in his eyes and have such little latitude, the most important thing by far was to expose it perfect. Exposure was his main concern with the files, then contrast and color.

As far as the print shoot here is some more info about the cameras.

Love the D4.
Only issue I had was that the headlights seemed to effect to auto focus a bit more than I remember on the D3. The Canons have always seemed to handle this issue a little better that the nikons, and even more so now. Also, on the rare occasion I shot on auto (product moving quickly in and out of trees and constant rapid changes in cloud cover) the headlight flare also had a much bigger effect in exposure than the Canons. It would stop way down with the flare where as the Canon seemed to read it a bit better and not under expose as bad.

D800
Still love the build quality and the images are great. My experience with it shooting action was very poor. Slow frames per second and the auto focus worked really bad with fast moving subjects.

Mark 3
I still really hate the way they changed a few things with the layout of the buttons. I have gotten used to it, but they simply were way better off the way they were!!!
Still not a great sports camera, but IMO way better than the D800. Faster frame rate and a much better working auto focus.
It's still my pic for the best all around camera if you can only have one body and shoot a wide variety of subjects.

So, after 20 days on location with these 3 my opinions are about the say as the first few days.
They all are great.
You just need to realize which is best for you and what you shoot.

NW Scout,

Thanks for your comments. I am curious about what AF settings you used on the D800. I have been using mine as primarily a sports camera since the first day they were released in the wild and have been VERY pleased shooting a variety of sports with them. I've even shot Olympic level sprinters from next to the track and have had no problems with the AF system at all.

I read that the AF on the D800 and the D4 was the same system? Am I mistaken?

Originally Posted by ziggy53 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.

Hello Ziggy. Although I'm not here anywhere near as often as I should be, I'm serious in my shooting, have a very narrow fixation on the particular genre I shoot, and strive to be the best I can be (just like the Marines, lol). All of which leads me to your particular comments on RAW converter software, and the fact that your great many posts here at DG have inevitably led me to higher levels of understanding and self-expectation, so take that as a sincere compliment.

After four years or so of happily my primary genre, modeled-street portraiture within the blur/movement of candid living urban surrounds (at least that's what I try, occasionally even get it right, lol), I'm ready to step up to full-frame sensor size and the latest generation of tech wizardry. My focus as of now is on Canon's 5DIII coupled with its 24-70 f/2.8 L (or LL, don't even know the difference yet, but I will). I shoot all in RAW, and till now have relied on ACR for RAW conversion. Although I diligently chase the ever-evolving curve of the tech universe, I'm an older guy, my drive to know technically all the details has somewhat diminished, and I'm realizing at times it's just more practical to turn to results for tech answers rather than in-depth scientific understanding of how the results got there. In this spirit, I found your comments on RAW conversion right on point, and wonder if you'd comment generally on the topic of gear manufacturer conversion software vs. Adobe's ACR. I've employ Photoshop from the beginning, so just naturally gravitated to ACR as I developed a comfortable workflow. After all, when a pretty reliable Mt. Olympus is right in front of you, why look further? I know there's a certain laziness in this, but we're talking here of a single neat integrated package of Bridge/ACR/Photoshop, all of stellar reputation in an industry way beyond my in-depth tech savvy and probably even need-to-know, and results in my estimation have been more than acceptable. So I pose the questions: (i) do Canon/Nikon/etc truly know more than they pass on to Adobe in terms of their particular digital wizardry and how best to convert it, and (ii) do the Canon/Nikon/etc RAW converter engines tie-in seamlessly with Bridge/Photoshop? And since I perform most post processing in ACR, generally entering Photoshop only to smooth over skin blemishes/age-lines, perform occasional chin/neck/gut reshaping, and size and convert to JPEG, I'll throw you one more: (iii) do Canon/Nikon/etc RAW converters include the kinds of post processing tools so conveniently and productively included in ACR, or will they doom me to performing these basic tasks in Photoshop, thereby dooming me to a whole new workflow in what to me would be a far more complicated world?

I hope asking all this isn't taking advantage of your time and good intent here at DG, and thank you in advance for the assist. Wisdom of contributors here has gotten me much further than I'd ever hoped to progress in the art, I certainly don't ever mean to take advantage.

Originally Posted by RovingEyePhoto ... (i) do Canon/Nikon/etc truly know more than they pass on to Adobe in terms of their particular digital wizardry and how best to convert it ...

My comment, which you quoted above, was meant for absolute image quality, not for workflow efficiency.

For a "fine art" application, where the rendering from RAW to 16 bit RGB color tones without too much manipulation is desired, Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP), corrected version, is doing a great job for many users. As a workflow, you would export to a 16 bit TIFF for processing beyond the capabilities of DPP.

For a high-volume project, where you need a high level of automation without individual image manipulation, Lightroom is exceptional and, if required, you can still export images to an external image editor for more manipulation, correction or alteration. (I don't use Lightroom, but I do have a similar workflow which provides a high level of automation.)

As you become familiar with each software's capabilities and limitations you will find where they meet your needs.

Originally Posted by RovingEyePhoto ... (ii) do the Canon/Nikon/etc RAW converter engines tie-in seamlessly with Bridge/Photoshop? And since I perform most post processing in ACR, generally entering Photoshop only to smooth over skin blemishes/age-lines, perform occasional chin/neck/gut reshaping, and size and convert to JPEG ...

I am most familiar with the Canon DPP application. It does not "tie in" to external applications at all. You can use the program in batch mode and process to 16 bit TIFFs. From there you would use Bridge/Photoshop, for instance, or any other image editor, along with it's automation. Basically a 2-step workflow (or as many steps as you desire).

Originally Posted by RovingEyePhoto ... (iii) do Canon/Nikon/etc RAW converters include the kinds of post processing tools so conveniently and productively included in ACR, or will they doom me to performing these basic tasks in Photoshop, thereby dooming me to a whole new workflow in what to me would be a far more complicated world? ...

Such drama.

DPP is mostly a RAW image processing engine. It is not designed to be an image editor.

I regard DPP as an "option" to my entire repertoire of image processing capabilities. I chose the best workflow and method for the task at hand. DPP is included with the camera, so why not use it when it meets your needs?

Originally Posted by ziggy53 Such drama.

Very good! That second "doomed" was a typo, no question, certainly did add to the drama.

Many thanks for taking the time. Adopting what you've offered, it seems logical that I do RAW conversion in DPP after graduating to FF Canon (presumably Canon), with a workflow producing saved DPP-converted TIFFs, which I then open in ACR for the simpler (to me) editing talent there, which I then save and re-open in PS for its more nuanced editing talent and ultimate sizing/conversion to JPEG. I've always considered Adobe such pros in the area, Photoshop's king to these unpracticed eyes, never even considered a manufacturer's software might be even better for initial RAW conversion. a lesson learned.

As long as I have you, I've experienced an ACR quirk over the years I'd love to resolve. Using CS3 (in process of changing to cS5), sometimes ACR-converted RAWs, saved as TIFFs after editing in ACR, would re-open only in PS, not again in ACR for further ACR editing. I can't find a pattern to it, some of the saved TIFFs just would refuse to re-open in ACR, would only re-open in PS. Thoughts?

Interesting how the come-on of upgraded gear entices. I did an indoor natural light modeled shoot yesterday with my E-3 and Zuiko equiiv 28-70 f/2. As I fought the dim light of the place with this great but in today's world relatively limited arsenal of effective ISO and DOF magic, all at times I could think of were the significantly increased low-light capabilities of FF f/2.8 and even possibly secondary f/1.4 or 1.8 prime. Certainly would dress things up! Talk about drama!

Originally Posted by RovingEyePhoto Very good! That second "doomed" was a typo, no question, certainly did add to the drama. ...

Just remember, I said you have options.

Originally Posted by RovingEyePhoto ... Many thanks for taking the time. Adopting what you've offered, it seems logical that I do RAW conversion in DPP after graduating to FF Canon (presumably Canon), with a workflow producing saved DPP-converted TIFFs, which I then open in ACR for the simpler (to me) editing talent there, which I then save and re-open in PS for its more nuanced editing talent and ultimate sizing/conversion to JPEG. I've always considered Adobe such pros in the area, Photoshop's king to these unpracticed eyes, never even considered a manufacturer's software might be even better for initial RAW conversion. a lesson learned. ...

Learn what DPP can do for you and use it when it makes sense. For instance, the DLO feature of DPP does not exist in Photoshop, and you may find it useful to improve image quality with some lenses.

Similarly, the anti-moire feature of DPP has no simple counterpart in Photoshop. (If you do use the anti-moire feature, I suggest processing the image again with the anti-moire turned off, and then layer the 2 images in Photoshop and just use the anti-moire parts of the image as needed. It will unnecessarily blur the other parts of the image that don't need the treatment.)

Originally Posted by RovingEyePhoto ... As long as I have you, I've experienced an ACR quirk over the years I'd love to resolve. Using CS3 (in process of changing to cS5), sometimes ACR-converted RAWs, saved as TIFFs after editing in ACR, would re-open only in PS, not again in ACR for further ACR editing. I can't find a pattern to it, some of the saved TIFFs just would refuse to re-open in ACR, would only re-open in PS. Thoughts? ...

Nothing I can think of just now. I suggest asking this question in the "Finishing School" forum, where we discuss software issues and software techniques.

Originally Posted by RovingEyePhoto ... Interesting how the come-on of upgraded gear entices. I did an indoor natural light modeled shoot yesterday with my E-3 and Zuiko equiiv 28-70 f/2. As I fought the dim light of the place with this great but in today's world relatively limited arsenal of effective ISO and DOF magic, all at times I could think of were the significantly increased low-light capabilities of FF f/2.8 and even possibly secondary f/1.4 or 1.8 prime. Certainly would dress things up! Talk about drama!

Both the Canon 5D MKIII and the Nikon D800 have some amazing features for the enthusiast, pro-sumer and professional shooters. Drama for each of them is richly deserved. Attach a fast, large-aperture prime (like a Canon "L" or a Nikkor "Gold-Ring") and they are capable of pure magic. (Flair for the dramatic.)

My favorite lens for portraiture, when it makes sense, is the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. The background truly just melts away into a creamy-smooth bokeh at larger apertures, while the sharpness and contrast are just amazing at any aperture. (There I go again with the superlatives, but this lens is deserving, no lie.)

Originally Posted by ziggy53 Just remember, I said you have options. Learn what DPP can do for you and use it when it makes sense. Attach a fast, large-aperture prime (like a Canon "L" or a Nikkor "Gold-Ring") and they are capable of pure magic. (Flair for the dramatic.) My favorite lens for portraiture, when it makes sense, is the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. The background truly just melts away into a creamy-smooth bokeh at larger apertures,

Fine input all, especially the otherwise throwaway "Flair for the dramatic". To me, that's the end-all of the mainly street portraiture I chase, never will totally master it, but with each shoot I edge just a little bit closer, it's cumulative, and it shows.

Many thanks as always for your time. DG is a gold mine for talking the innards of photography. Your presence lies somewhere between adviser and prophet, artistically either holds true.

Originally Posted by Montec I read that the AF on the D800 and the D4 was the same system? Am I mistaken?

Im not really sure. They are night and day different in performance is all I can tell you.

They just released the TV spot we shot, thought you guys might like to see it.
The footage is from a mix of the RED, 5D3, go pros, D4 and a Sony HD mounted to the RC helli.

http://youtu.be/PwLMD79kom8

Great video. Your client should be very pleased.

I have read a few different articles regarding the AF question I mentioned and the two cameras have exactly the same Phase detection AF system.
The night and day performance you speak of must be the frame rate, buffer performance etc. that makes the difference. Or, if you were talking about video AF then the D4 wins that hands down.

The reason I mentioned it was you said that you loved the D4 AF and was not impressed with the D800 AF which was confusing.

Originally Posted by Montec The night and day performance you speak of must be the frame rate, buffer performance etc. that makes the difference. The reason I mentioned it was you said that you loved the D4 AF and was not impressed with the D800 AF which was confusing.

Nope. Yes the other factors were nice, but just the pure performance of the focus was way better.
Im not a tec guy so don't ask me to explain the whys as I simply do not know.

But I can tell you this.
On the same setup, same product moving at the same speed, same cloths, same light ect the keeper % were way better on the D4

First few passes were shot on the D800
I got about 5 or 6 sharps in about 50 frames

Next few passes were shot with the D4
I got about 80 sharps in around 100 frames.

I got the same general results 3 different times in 3 different setups.

Granted, I did not spend a ton of time trying to fine tune the settings, but I did try a few different setups but the results never really changed.

Originally Posted by Montec The night and day performance you speak of must be the frame rate, buffer performance etc. that makes the difference. The reason I mentioned it was you said that you loved the D4 AF and was not impressed with the D800 AF which was confusing.

Originally Posted by nw scout Nope. Yes the other factors were nice, but just the pure performance of the focus was way better. Im not a tec guy so don't ask me to explain the whys as I simply do not know. ...

The likely reason is that, while the Nikon D4 and D800 so seem to share "nearly" equal specifications, as relates to the autofocus (AF) section of the camera, there are differences.

In this case the primary difference is likely the higher resolution of the D800. In an action setting with continuous AF and high frame rate, the Expeed 3 image processor (common to both cameras), has to both manage the AF section and process the image data (in addition to all other processor related duties.) It is likely that the higher resolution of the D800 saturates the processor faster, affecting other parts of the camera, including AF.

The second difference, which I am unable to explain, is that the metering seems slightly different between the 2 bodies. While they both share the same specifications of a 91,000-pixel RGB sensor, the sensors seem to vary in sensitivity:

Metering Range:

D4: -1 ± 20 EV (Matrix or center-weighted metering), 2 to 20 EV (spot metering)
D800: 0 to 20 EV (3D color matrix or center-weighted metering), 0 to 20 EV (spot metering)

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...Tabs-TechSpecs
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...Tabs-TechSpecs

Since the metering sensor is also used to assist in steering the AF during 3D tracking, it stands to reason that there will be differences in tracking speed and tracking accuracy.

Originally Posted by nw scout First few passes were shot on the D800 I got about 5 or 6 sharps in about 50 frames Next few passes were shot with the D4 I got about 80 sharps in around 100 frames.

I have to wonder if at 36mp, are D800 users simply seeing a soft image at 100% view because the AF locked on somewhere within the tolerance range, but not totally perfectly, and the resolution of the D800 now reveals this? In other words, is the D800 showing us tiny variations in AF accuracy that are within spec but are not visible on the D4? But surely the D7000 would have this same issue. I think my old 7D did. Viewing at 100% was often somewhat disappointing.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft I have to wonder if at 36mp, are D800 users simply seeing a soft image at 100% view because the AF locked on somewhere within the tolerance range, but not totally perfectly, and the resolution of the D800 now reveals this? In other words, is the D800 showing us tiny variations in AF accuracy that are within spec but are not visible on the D4? But surely the D7000 would have this same issue. I think my old 7D did. Viewing at 100% was often somewhat disappointing.

Yes, I think that's a valid point. The higher resolution (and tighter pixel density) sensors allow a greater scrutiny of the image through higher effective magnifications of the image plane.

I doubt that it explains all of the issues that user "nw scout" is seeing, but the effect is still a consideration.

I suppose shooting some tests on the D800 in smaller resolutions would reveal if this speculation has any validity.
I think I will do that this fine weekend we have coming up.

Also, I have to agree. Viewing the 36MP files at 100% is oftentimes disappointing.

It has been provent hat the D3 has slightly better AF performance then the D700 as well and supposedly they have the same AF sytem and in this case the same sensor and all that. I do think Nikon "makes sure" that their flagship FF will always perform better then their lower cost siblings.

Originally Posted by Qarik It has been provent hat the D3 has slightly better AF performance then the D700 as well and supposedly they have the same AF sytem and in this case the same sensor and all that. I do think Nikon "makes sure" that their flagship FF will always perform better then their lower cost siblings.

I wonder if the D3/D700 AF relationship is like the 1DX/5D3 in that they have the same sensor but different processing horsepower.