Nikon D800 vs. Canon EOS 5D Mark III specs comparison

Here is a quick specs comparison between the Nikon D800 and the new Canon EOS 5D Mark III:

Model Nikon D800 Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Effective Pixels 36.3 million  22.3 megapixels
Sensor Size 35.9mm x 24mm 36 mm x 24mm
File Format Still Images JPEG: JPEG-Baseline Compliant with fine (approx 1:4), Normal (approx 1:8) or Basic (approx 1:16) Compression
NEF (RAW): lossless compressed 12 or 14 bit, lossless compressed, compressed or uncompressed
JPEG: JPEG-Baseline-Compliant; can be selected from Size Priority and Optimal Quality
 JPEG, RAW (14-bit Canon Original)
Picture Control Landscape
User-customizable Settings
User Defined 1-3
Storage Media CompactFlash© (CF) (Type I, compliant with UDMA)
CF Cards (Type I)
Compatible with UDMA CF cards
SD, SDHC, and SDXC Memory Cards
Card Slot 1 CompactFlash (CF) card and 1 Secure Digital (SD) card  1 CompactFlash (CF) card and 1 Secure Digital (SD) card
Viewfinder Frame Coverage FX (36x24): 100% Horizontal and 100% Vertical Approx.
1.2x (30x20): 97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.
DX (24x16): 97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.
5:4 (30x24): 97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.
 Approx. 100% vertically and horizontally
(At approx. 21mm eyepoint)
Viewfinder Magnification 0.70x Approx. 0.71x Approx.
Lens Compatibility at a Glance*** AF-S or AF lenses fully compatible
Metering with AI lenses
Canon EF Lenses (excluding EF-S Lenses)
Fastest Shutter Speed 1/8000 sec. 1/8000 sec.
Slowest Shutter Speed 30 sec. 30 sec.
Top Continuous Shooting Speed at full resolution 4 frames per second High-speed: Maximum approx. 6 shots/sec.
Low-speed: Maximum approx. 3 shots/sec.
Silent continuous shooting: Maximum approx. 3 shots/sec.
Exposure Compensation ±5 EV in increments of 1/3, 1/2 or 1 EV  ±5 stops in 1/3 or 1/2-stop increments
ISO Sensitivity ISO 100 - 6400
Lo-1 (ISO 50)
Hi-1 (ISO 12,800)
Hi-2 (ISO 25,600)
SO 100-25600 (in 1/3-stop or whole-stop increments)
ISO speed expansion possible to ISO 50, 51200, and 102400
Dynamic AF Mode Number of AF points: 9, 21, 51 and 51 (3D-tracking)  61-point (up to 41 cross-type points)
One to five cross-type AF points at f/2.810 to 20 cross-type AF points at f/4
and 15 to 21 cross-type AF points at f/5.6
Focus Modes Auto AF-S/AF-C selection (AF-A)
Continuous-servo (AF-C)
Face-Priority AF available in Live View only and D-Movie only
Full-time Servo (AF-A) available in Live View only
Manual (M) with electronic rangefinder
Normal area
Single-servo AF (AF-S)
Wide area
One-Shot AF
Predictive AI Servo AF
AI Focus AF
Manual focus
Maximum Autofocus Areas/Points 51 61
Built-in Flash Yes No
Flash Compensation -3 to +1 EV in increments of 1/3, 1/2 or 1 EV ±3 stops in 1/3- or 1/2-stop increments
White Balance Auto (2 types)
Choose color temperature (2500K–10000K)
Direct Sunlight
Fluorescent (7 types)
Preset manual (up to 4 values can be stored)
Auto (AWB)
Tungsten light
White fluorescent light
Custom (Custom WB)
Color temperature
Live View Shooting Photography Live View Mode
Movie Live View Mode
 Photography Live View Mode
Movie Live View Mode
Movie HD 1,920x1,080 / 30 fps
HD 1,920x1,080 / 24 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 30 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 24 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 60 fps
1920x1080: 30/25/24fps
1280x720: 60/50fps
640x480: 30/25fps
Monitor Size 3.2 in. diagonal 3.2 in. diagonal
Monitor Resolution 921,000 Dots Approx. 1.04 million dots
Monitor Type TFT TFT
Playback Functions Auto Image Rotation
Full-Frame and Thumbnail (4, 9, or 72 images or calendar)
Histogram Display
Image Comment
Movie Playback
Movie Slideshow
Playback with Zoom
Single image,
Single image + Image-recording quality/shooting information
histogram, 4- or 9-image index
magnified view (approx. 1.5x-10x)
rotated image (auto/manual)
image jump (by 10/100 images, index screen
by shooting date, by folder)
two-image comparative display
slide show
star rating
Battery Life (shots per charge) 900 Battery Life (shots per charge) (CIPA) Approx. 950 (Viewfinder Shooting, At 73°F/ 23°C)
Approx. 850 (Viewfinder Shooting, At 32°F/ 0°C)
Approx. Dimensions 5.7 x 4.8 x 3.2 in. (144.78mm x 121.92mm x 81.28mm)  6.0 x 4.6 x 3.0 in. (152.0 x 116.4 x 76.4 mm)
Approx. Weight 31.7 oz. (900g) body only 30.3 oz. (860g) body only
 Price $2,999.95 $3,499.00
This entry was posted in Nikon D800. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Apart from the competition between Nikon & Canon, I don’t want to feed the war but I’m really surprised from the 5d Mark III samples.
    It’s definitely not a good light situation to judge iso capabilities but they choosed those pictures and I supose they know what they are doing. Those are really bad qualities photos.

    I’m a Nikon shooter and I ordered my D800. But if I was a Canon user, waiting so long for the update of my 5d Mark II, saving money for an upgrade and now I see this samples!!! I would be thinking a lot now. The other option is the 1D X, really a good camera, but also really expensive. I think I would be in trouble now if I was a Canon shooter.

  • PixPix

    For me this comparison is a none sense since these two cameras are NOT trading in the same area. To be honest (i am nikon), this 5DmkIII seems to be what i expected as a D7000 replacement. I hope Nikon will react 🙂

    • PixPix

      Typo: read D700 not D7000

    • bert

      Never take wedding photographers too serious! They are the whores in “the seven levels of Photographers” (Fun thing, author Ken Rockwells himself is the other bad guy in his own list: the equipment masturbator).

      • Christo

        What a f### rude prick you are. Who are you calling whores? May be the one who gave birth to a rude prick like you………Jump off the net wanker.
        Dick brain…..

  • Gav

    Theres a good review of the 5Diii out by Jeff Ascough, the British Wedding Photographer.

    • One More Thought

      Jeff is a fantastic photographer, but with all due respect, Jeff never met a Canon camera he didn’t rave over…Jeff seems to give every Canon camera glowing reviews…which is somewhat justified because they are indeed great pieces of equipment…

      However, Vincent Laforet, the one who did the Reverie video with the 5dii, kind of passed on the 5diii…he wasn’t that enthusiastic about it…of course, he has moved on to primarily video work and he admitted that the Canon video-centric cameras are what he prefers now…

      • The only reason he passed on it was due to the fact that he can afford the 16k C300. If it weren’t for that cam he would be slobbering over this, undoubtedly, since he is a video guy.

    • French Fries

      That’s the same guy who ditched the 5D mark II after two month to say that manual focus was a lot easier then using autofocus.

      He is a great photographer, but he is also a Canon ambassador… this makes it that he never will tell you the truth of what he really thinks.

    • Gav

      You guys are right. But he is also known as a straight talking man. Also he has his reputation on the line.

      I think the bottom line is he has to glamour it up a bit but it still must be pretty decent.

      A while ago I got a reply from Cliff Mautner about the read/write and display times for the D800. He said it was very quick and never caused a problem. Was a bit concerned about that as the D3x is very slow.

      • RR

        Read , write speed on the D3x slow? BS, I guess these people talk about cameras without even touching them pfff

        • Gav


          in RAW it IS slow. Of course I have tried and used it otherwise why would I say that. For the preview to come up takes too long. It may be ok for some work, but compare it to the D3s and most other cameras and it was much too slow taking almost a second for a preview to appear.

  • Shure NIKON D800 & D800E ,KIK THE …. OF CANON 5DIII… & I WILL SALE IT (D800E).

  • 5dd800whocares

    it would appear nikon used some 5dii footage from tso photography for their d800 promo work in shanghai ooops!!

    • 5dd800whocares

      sorry bangkok

    • m

      no, the matter has been already discussed

    • You’re Wrong

      … and its not that of 5D mark III either.

  • still keeping my D700 !


    • Dixie

      Thank you for letting us know… :-/

      • Miles

        You should remind him how Nikon lost a huge portion of it’s customers back in the late 80’s-early 90’s because their AF lens lineup was so gimped until just this last decade. Plus their lack of any AF teleconverter for their older AF-D lenses. I shoot Nikon and you don’t even want to know the things I’d do for a Nikkor AF-D teleconverter.

  • Some guy

    Why was pixel pitch not included?

    Admin, can you update the spec list with pixel pitch next to the sensor info please?

    • Hom Thogan

      Photosite size:

      D800 pixel pitch is 4.88µm
      5D Mark III pixel pitch is 6.25µm (5D Mark II was 6.4µm)

      Diffraction in the D800 will be an issue with its photosite size and I think that’s why Nikon made the D800E: because they will try to compensate the loss in sharpness due diffraction by getting rid of the AA filter (of course the punishment will be moire).

    • I could not find the pixel pitch on Canon’s website. Has anyone seen the value online?

  • Thessaly

    We will have to wait until we can compare them hands on, 1232423047M iso doesn’t mean anything to me, it’s the image quality.

    Shouldn’t Nikon really actualize their “entry-level” FX? Just a minor D700s. 😀
    It seems to me that there’s a huge gap between D7000 and D800, and it’s just what I need!

    • Worminator

      I’m sure Nikon will fill the gap with something, but a 24MP DX D400 seems more likely. To me. Total speculation though.

  • Some guy

    Pixel pitch comparisons….. you do the math and draw your own conclusions.

    Canon 7d 4.3
    Nikon D7000 4.78
    Nikon D800 4.88

    Nikon D4 7.3
    Nikon D700 8.45
    Nikon D3x 5.94
    Canon 5dMk3 6.4
    Canon 1ds mk3 6.4
    Canon 1dx 6.9

    • Hom Thogan

      Let me put it this way, the D800 has a pixel pitch size similar to the one of the D7000 and with a D7000 at f/11 in an 8×10″ print diffraction is perceibable (even after USM in PP) it is even more if you compare the same photo made with a D300 or D700.

      And I’m sorry to say it but after comparing prints of the D800 with the D700 in studio shots (both cameras shooting the same scene, same lens, focused with live view in the same point, same exposure) the difference in sharpness is noticeable.

      I would like to try the D800E to see if removing the AA filter to gain a bit of resolving power is enough to make some difference (and if moire won’t be a huge problem with fabrics or high frequency patterns)

      • legion515

        link to photos/comparison? if not, (out of curiosity) how did you get to see that comparison?

        • RR

          There are almost no images produced by the D800 out there yet, cause the camera is not out there, and if there were Nikon Rumors would be the first to post them, so this guy is bull..

          I bet he even has full res images from the 5DIII too..

      • Gandalf

        Very interesting – thanks.

      • Shggahs

        Thats nice and all, but reduce the d800 down to 12Mp and see what happens.

        • d

          Why not reduce it to 4.5MP? How about 2MP?

          Ridiculous. If your tool isn’t good enough with its native capabilities then you are throwing your money away! If the only way you can justify the D800 is by scaling the images to produce images comparable to the previous generation, why the hell did you just spend 3 grand?

      • Carsten

        Hogwash, try it yourself:

        All you need is a tripod and a zoom lens – the instructions for the experiment are in the description of the image.

        Yes, there is diffraction, but it won’t destroy any information that is not resolvable in first place

    • Gerry

      Nah you do the math. I’m gonna go outside and do some photography.

      I must be weird 😉

    • timon

      d300 5.42µm 12.48MP/TR(Tonal Range: ISO200/8.32bits, ISO 400/7.81bits
      d7000 4.73µm 16MP/Tonal Range: ISO 100/9.01bits, ISO 400/8.06bits

      you look, the d7000 pixel pitch was less than d300, but the imaging improved!

      you have to notice the DSLR sensor advancement, moreover it has a large pixel pitch 4.7μm, and not a low-cost DC sensor only pixel pitch 1.7 μm.

  • David

    I’ll be upgrading from a Sony a850. A fantastic camera, but outdated in AF and high ISO.

    The way I see it is that a d800 costs £2399 and a 5d3 costs £2999

    And the 24-70 mk2 costs £2399(!!!)

    So for the price of a 5d3 and a zoom, I can get a d800 with the 35 and 85 primes.

    Easy decision IMO.

  • Bjorn

    I have my D800 on preorder arriving March 21 but find it funny how all us Nikon folk are defending the D800 agains the MK3 whereas if the cameras were swapped across brands and we got the MK3 wrapped in a Nikon cloak, we’d have the whole Nikon camp cheering all its glory since it looks more like the camera we wanted as a D700 successor.

    Personally im stoked for the D800 since Ive recently gotten into large scale printing and have become obsessed with resolution and sharpness. I do mainly weddings and portraits so decided on the D800 over D800e so i dont have to worry about moire.

    My question is this:
    If I shoot with the Medium or Small image file sizes, will the processor capture with the full sensor size and downsample it for me thus effectively reducing high-ISO noise by down-sampling in camera? Thus if this is true then I could ramp up my ISO in low light, set to Medium or Small and have pretty darn good low light shooting quality, no?

    Perhaps Nikon is much smarter than we give credit on this MP war since rather than spending efforts developing technology simply for the sake of only getting bigger prints, they are using the MP’s to skirt the challenges of getting cleaner “single” pixels when I need to shoot in the dark at a wedding (20MP – Medium) AND get my high resolution during studio and landscape shooting (36MP – Large).

    Am I missing something here? Else I think Nikon may be brilliant in their 36MP decision. Thoughts?

    • David

      Couldn’t you just do this in PP yourself?

      Shoot raw, then downsize yourself. Then you have more control over the amount of noise reduction, sharpening etc.

      I don’t do other things in camera like saturation etc, so I don’t see why I would want it to do my resizing either!

      • Bjorn

        I agree I typically dont like to do any processing in the camera, but this may be a different case for me. For example if I shoot hundreds of images at a wedding reception and dont want the burden of 36mp files, and happy with 20mp with increased ISO abilities then I can fit more onto my 32gb cards. I guess secondly my point was (which i didn’t convey well enough) was more a thought experiment….

        If what Nikonians wanted was a ~22mp FF camera with high ISO, then wouldn’t the incamera downsizing to 20mp at higher ISO’s be this exact camera they were looking for? and the fact we can boost mp’s up to 36 is just icing on the cake? Like 2 cameras in 1?

        • David

          Honestly, I don’t think it will be that bad

          As I mentioned earlier, I use a Sony a850 at the moment. A raw file from that is 38Mb, and the a850 was released in 2008. In the manual, they mention using 1, 2 or 4Gb CF cards!

          If we are spending $3000 on a camera, I don’t think 75Mb files are such a big deal. An $800 computer can easily handle those. SD/CF cards are getting bigger and cheaper, and hard drives are crazy cheap too. I bought a 2tb drive for £80 recently.

          And bear in mind that this is Nikon’s camera for another 3-4 years. Computers, storage and everything else will progress, so even if it seems hefty now, it won’t in a years time, let alone 4 years. You’ll probably be able to process them on your iphone 6!

          I do agree that being able to shoot some sort of raw in a smaller file size would be cool for things where you know you don’t need the full size. But for that I’ll probably just use jpeg. The Nikon jpeg engine is way ahead of Sony (who are notoriously terrible at jpeg) so I’m sure it’ll be good enough for me.

          I agree with you about the “2 in 1” approach. If the high ISO can match a d700 I’m happy to resize to 12mp to get that, knowing that under ISO6400 I have a BEAST of a camera with huge resolution, dynamic range and colour tonality. DxOMark predicted that the d800 should set the highest score that they’ve exen seen!

          Just my 0.02c anyway!

        • I am not sure that down sizing a 36mpix image would “be the same thing” as a native 20 – 24 mpix camera.

          I can see how down sizing can clean up some wild pixels and increase perceived sharpness, but it seems to me that there are other aspects that down sizing that would not make an image equivalent to a camera with that lower resolution native.

          Assuming that the two cameras would be using similar generation technology with mainly different pixel pitch sensors, I would draw the following conclusions…

          One thing would be color accuracy. As the pixel pitch gets smaller color drift/accuracy would get worse with higher iso. Color accuracy would not come back with down sizing the image. Once might assume it could conceivably get worse since the camera or post software has to average colors for the new pixels but this is probably not a practical issue.

          Dynamic range of the camera would in theory by higher with a larger pixel pitch. Down sizing the larger mpix image from the smaller pixel pitch camera would not yield the same dynamic range of the camera with a larger native pitch

          • jodjac

            @Leroy- What makes you think color accuracy is a function of pixel pitch? Maybe having more pixels per meter allows a more accurate rendering of colors by recording more of the minute variations?
            Honestly, I have no idea how a pixel accurately records colors. But I could see where having more pixels per unit of measure could be an advantage.
            And just how do larger pixels gather more light? I think people may be confusing pixels with irises or aperture. Pixels are not exactly the same thing. As I understand it, noise is a function of read errors and heat. So it’s not that you need bigger pixels to get higher ISO, it’s that you need more efficient ones. It may be that it’s easier to design efficient pixels when they are larger- but it doesn’t have to be that way, efficiency is not neccesarily a function of size.
            It could be a misunderstanding that high ISO’s are a linear function of pixel pitch. Aren’t the D7000 (and the D700’s) pixels much smaller than the pixels on a Hasselblad’s (older, 16 meg) V compatible line of backs? And aren’t they much, much better at recording clean high ISO’s?

            • @jodjac, here is how I see the logic in answering your questions. Keep in mind I am not arguing with you, just adding to my post for you.

              Pixel pitch directly controls how much light reaches the photo receptor for an exposure right? so a larger pitch will allow more light to reach the photo receptor which to me is a key concept of why FX cameras have always yielded better image quality with less noise and better ISO than DX cameras in the same generation of technology. The larger pitch gives the receptor more rays of light (more information) to draw a more correct conclusion/measurement of what the accurate luminance, hue, and saturation should be in the final effective pixel in the image (yes I know RGB are collected on separate physical pixels in a Bayer grid but that’s diving deeper than we need to for the principle of things). So to me when the pixel pitch gets smaller, the same generation of camera technology would have a harder time determining what the correct Hue, Saturation, and Luminance values would be. So that’s similar to saying it is making more of an educated guess as pitch gets smaller. So it would seem to me that (comparing a hypothetical 10mpix camera sensor to a 40mpix hypothetical camera sensor of the same surface area) all of the light rays gathered by a single photo receptor would be able to make a much more accurate determination of what a image pixel should be as apposed to averaging 4 ‘educated guess’ pixels. So to sum up this part, would averaging four pixels of all questionable relative accuracy yield a result equal to the accuracy of all that light (4x) being collected by a single photo receptor? My guess is no. If it were true, then I would think there would be nothing stopping the sensor designers from making sensors with pixels counts much higher because you could always just average down the pixels information from multiple pixels.

              You make a good point that the pixel (actually photo receptor) technology is also important. There are two primary factors to getting an accurate read; 1) pixel pitch which controls how much light reaches the photo receptor(pixel as you call it) and then there is 2) the accuracy of the receptor itself. As sensors evolve the receptor technology gets better which means the receptor can make a accurate ‘read’ with less light than would take an older receptor more light to get the same accuracy. Obviously there is a balance between pixel pitch and photo receptor technology in that as pixel counts get higher in sensors we assume that the photo receptor technology gets better at the same rate which may or may not be the case. I suspect that the thirst for more pixels by users pushes the manufacturers to increase pixel count (an thus lower pixel pitch) at rates that may exceed photo receptor technology’s ability to keep up.

              Image noise comes in 2 forms; luminance noise and color noise. Luminance noise is the grainy look that becomes easier to see as ISO is raised but is technically still there at almost imperceptible levels at low native ISO. Color noise shows as a grainy appearance as well and shows more in higher ISO like luminance noise. Open a high ISO image in Photoshop and change to LAB color mode. The L channel grainy appearance shows you the noise present based on luminosity. The A and B channels are color information only, so if you look at the B channel which (half) contains the color information from the Blue RGB channel you will see the most color noise because the blue channel is the most difficult wave length of light for a sensor to record.

              How do larger pixels (pixel pitch) gather more light? Think of the pixel pitch as being the size of bucket you are holding outside when its raining. The rain drops falling represent the individual light rays. Having larger pixel pitch is like having a larger bucket, you can catch many more rain drops in the same amount of time with a 5 gallon bucket than you can with a 1 gallon bucket. So to take this example to a more extreme, if you were wanting to measure the amount of rain fall by measuring water after a rain, which would be more accurate, a 5 gallon bucket or a test tube? I would think that rainfall measurement of one 5 gallon bucket would be more accurate than what four test tubes averaged would measure. The test tubes cumulatively did not catch as many rain drops. the smaller the containers used to measure rainfall the less likely they are to agree when averaged down.

            • SNRatio

              Adding to Leroy’s excellent discussion, I would just point to the electron count basis for this. At base ISO, let’s say 100, it may well be true that smaller pixels give better perceived color precision in current DSLRs, because then, the number of electrons gathered in a pixel at full exposure is, typically, 20 000 – 120 000. So, also in the shadows, there will be plenty of information for the color determination. But at ISO 6400=100*2⁶, a corresponding exposure is only about 1/64, and then you typically have only, say 100 electrons in each pixel. Because of quantum effects, there is an inherent shot noise giving a basic signal/noise ratio (ignoring read/signal processing noise) the square root of the electron count. So this ratio will be only 10 in this case, severly limiting the number of color nuances the camera is able to discern. For luminance, the R, G and B pixel information may be pooled, so for dynamic range, one will do better than one single pixel allows for, but this is not possible for chroma.

              Adding to the chroma noise problem is the tendency to use weaker CFA filters to “improve low light performance” of the camera. This increases luminance sensitivity and preserves dynamic range better, but at the cost of worse color precision at high ISO.

        • Bjorn

          Thanks for all your insight guys!

          • jodjac

            Yes, thank you.

        • ShaoLynx

          No, the full size area cannot be used in crop mode, otherwise you wouldn’t get the crop factor.
          For the latter to happen you need to use a smaller angle of view on the sensor side (that is after passing the optical center).
          If it were that one would use all the pixels in medium and dx mode, e.g., than that would simply result in in-camera down sampling, the dx mode would not be dx, and there would be no point in greying out certain parts of the view finder.

          • The real TIM

            Thank god for your reply to Bjorn. I thought this was common sense. If you call it a DX mode (crop mode), the sensor should be cropped too, wow… dx lenses project a smaller image circle, hence…

            Now, if there is a resolution option outside of the crop 1.2x, 1.5x, there there is something to discuss.

            • Bjorn

              All good points, but indeed I meant downsampling w a fx lens, not the smaller dx projection area

    • Royster

      You can shoot FX, and the following crops 5.5, 1.2 and DX all in RAW.
      You then have the option of choosing 14/12 bit plus lossles compressed and compressed so plenty of options

  • The elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about is the impressively-sounding high ISO specs.

    I’m concerned. Any input?

    • Ralph

      Yeah, its a real concern. I really wish Nikon would put in ISO ranges of 25, 12 and 6 that would really help me by saving me screwing on a damn ND filter and reducing my lens resolution.

    • Nikonnut

      From all the sample images ive seen, my guess is that the 5Dm3 will have at the very most 1 stop better iso than the D800 downsampled to 22MP. With decent post processing D800 shots will be very usable up to 6400 if need be.

      The question I’d like to know is will you ever use anything higher than iso 6400? Does anybody?

    • I’ve talked about it. I’ve noted how much like monkey dung the 5DmkIII samples look when it comes to sharpness. Open them up at 100%. In fact, compare the two Aurora Borealis shots (the first shot at ISO 800, the second at 6,400) and you’ll see a tremendous degradation in detail on the latter. It’s not like the noise levels are astonishingly low in the ISO 6,400 shot, either.

      So yes, it’s the specs sound impressive. It’s Canon. The results, they may well be a different story. In fact, I’d count on it if I were you.

      Looks like Nikon just pulled out the MP card (again), and (again) trumped Canon in the process.

      • RealityCheck

        Again, assessment of performance based on information you do not have.
        While you were looking at those 100% did you check the exif data… Those were taken back in October of 2011, which would have been a very pre-production body. Not to mention poorly shot in regard to aperture and exposure – not sure why they chose such an old picture other than to get something online. Certainly does not put things in the best light.

        As for mp, this is really getting old.. For most of photography more mp don’t mean jack, so getting all excited about it, speaking of some imaginary domination because of it, as if it is required of a manufacturer to compete, is just ignorant. Nothing more than your opinion, and should be stated as such – if you check this forum btw you will see that you are in the minority in respect to mp.

        To assert, or worse blindly accept, even for a minute, that Canon would put a body out with inferior performance any more than Nikon would makes one look the quintessential fanboy that no one wants to hear from.

        • – The EXIF data on the Nikon shots also show an October 2011 production date. They’re both pre-production.

          – Nikon’s D800 shots (for the most part) look spectacular, Canon’s look sketchy

          – If you’ve been here longer than 5 minutes, you’d know I’m one of the biggest advocates of holistic image quality, and an enemy to the “moar megapixels!” sentiment when it detracts from that crucial IQ factor

          – Nikon has, for the last 4 years, produced the best, highest resolution DSLR cameras in the world. They’ve had the edge, and by all (admittedly premature) accounts they still have it.

          – The 5D line (I & II) falls short in quite a few ways, which I’m happy to list out if you really want me to. It’s been covered in great detail though. Don’t know why you’d try to argue otherwise.

          We can both agree, Nikon and Canon both make great cameras. That said, Canon is a huge marketing machine, and an even larger company that just happens to make DSLR cameras as one of their product categories. Their biggest concern is their brand image, whereas Nikon is more committed to the final image.

  • Bernhard

    I’m shooting sports on a professional level for over one year now. And only for that reason have I changed from Pentax at all.
    I went for Canon, not Nikon. Not because of the price or the lense quality. Still I think Nikons are better in handling and throw in some nice features you can’t get in a Canon.
    My decision was based on the – then – better AF and a very personal comparison of self-made images, virtual and in professional large scale prints.

    So what’s my point here? I don’t mind comparing specs and a little bashing on the other brand is always fun. But from what I understand both companys are extremely close in the (semi)pro model range. So who ever believes that he could make his choice for one or the other simply by comparing numbers (why this pixel pitch?) should go out and test gear in real life. It’s not only the hardware that counts but also the firmware and your individual post production. And I want to believe foremost it’s photographer.

    To me it was always more important to impress with my output than to try to impres with specs and figures.
    And then this game starts all over again in a few years anyway …

    • Luke

      D800 is not a sports camera and no body ever said it was… if you bought it for that you would have been an idiot

      • peterw

        did you miss Berhards’s point Luke?

    • FINALLY !

      I always insist on the “image feel”, and that surely has little to do with a feature chart. I’m getting a D800 for the large print jobs and video all in one, but I sure as hell will keep shooting a mamiya 67 or 645 when it comes to picture feel. Just try gear in your normal shooting condition then see if it suits you. there is surely no point in trying to evangelize the all Internet.

      • Gavlister

        Hi Ronan, I am sooo with you on this one!

        I also shoot an RZ67 for personal work and fun. I just love the look of it and not just because it is film.

        Unfortunately it seems that many people here don’t see this. I tried to discuss this in the forum section. See the post ‘How about it’ It ended up being a’ ‘please explain this “look” in maths and physics, it doesn’t compute’ 😉

        The majority of people here are armchair photographers and gear heads. There is nothing wrong with that, it is a new side to photography. Some people love it, I still think it is more fun actually taking the pictures though 🙂

        • Rob

          The feel is there and the only explanation is MF is shot on long lenses which compress the image.

          Wide angle is a 50mm lens, standard on the RZ 110mm. Even my linhof 617 is a 90 mm flat field lenswide angle.

    • Olgierd

      I’m Canon user since first sub $1000 Rebel 300D was released. Since then I gradually upgraded (now have 5D2 & 7D). I also had D70 and D200 in the past. I bought them just to have little practice with Nikons (I loved extra switches on D200 like AF and Meter selector and “three kings” which always seemed to me more convenient then on Canons). Truth is that with Nikon any setting can be adjusted w/o need of taking eye from the viewfinder. Anyway back then Nikons CCD were still far from Canons CMOS sensors. After adding few EF lenses to my collection I couldn’t really switch over (simply it would have to cost to much) when D700 showed up.
      If I would start from the beginning I would likely go for Nikon. D700 was something I always wanted to have. There were things 5D2 have missed compared to D700. Finally 5D3 seems to address that. I was looking for better AF, more than 3 frames when AE bracketing and finally this things are there. Last thing that still is missing is spot meter for any AF point (all Canons except 1D series can do spot meter using center AF pint only). Couldn’t find any info if 5D3 can do that.
      Anyway, D800 with its price looks like heck of a beast. Personally I don’t need so many mega pixels but I can imagine studio and landscape shots at low ISO being spectacular (especially huge prints).

  • Anonee

    Nikon must introduce a sweet-spot 21-24mp D900 next year based on D800 body with a new sensor. This will be a camera that serves for all purposes, with better fps & high-iso performance than D800 (a little worse than D4), simply the successor of D700.

  • Here’s the perfect marriage for a pro.
    I have the D3s as my Journalism/Action/Wildlife/Wedding camera.
    I am getting the D800 to use on a tripod for landscapes, or in the studio, or when I see big foot.
    You can’t go wrong, use the fast for the fast and use the slow for everything else.

    • Ditto.

    • Rob

      Are you suggesting Bigfoot isn’t wildlife?

      • I am assuming he’s an alien and therefore need max detail…

  • I prefere nikon D800E than canon 1DX

    • EE


      I prefer an D800/E over anything but a Leica. AA filters can go fuck themselves, I want pure and perfect image output.

      • ff

        Lol well said

      • R!

        i4M WITH YOUR GUYS F…K AA FILTERS!!!!!!!!!!

      • Gavlister

        I’ve shot cameras without AA filters for years and have NEVER had one photo that it has caused a problem with.

        BUT…this is a new camera, I’m in no rush. I think I will sit back for 6 months and see how it all pans out. Maybe the design of the camera might be more susceptible to it. There is nothing like 6 months of trials in OTHER peoples hands to check if it is that good 🙂

    • RealityCheck

      How the hell can you have a preference for a camera quantified on performance when neither you or anyone else knows what that level of performance will be??

      • +1

        All of this opinion (including mine) about cameras that have not hit the street is just noise. Good reality check.

  • Fisherman

    The new Canon Mark III has a quite nice design. If the autofocus works on this model maybe I´ll buy one.
    The MarkII didnt work, and it was the worlds ugliest camera.

    • bert

      The MK III still shares the ugliest Eye-Piece ever of the MK II.

  • I think the differences in the 5DIII and the D800/e highlight the possibility that a lot of D700 shooters will not move to the D800, but are probably waiting for a D4 like camera in the small body.

  • iamnomad

    If anyone is interested, B&H has a pretty thorough spec list on the D800:

    Also, one of the commentors (@ Feb 12 – 1:21pm) asks about the ability of interval shooting, (which greatly interests me, the interval shooting on the D700 is quite brilliant) but alas has not been totally detailed by Nikon.

    The B&H staff have some very good answers to a wide variety of questions.

  • Roland

    On the Canon 5D MKII (& III?) you can magnify the image seen on the LCD while in live mode for video. It is very useful when trying to fine focus manually.

    In looking at the Nikon D700 and D800 information, it appears that you can only use the Nikon magnification feature during playback, not while you are getting ready to shoot in live mode. Can anyone verify this?

    • May Jaisel

      ummm hello moron ! the D700 does not have video mode

      • RealityCheck

        Thank you for the clarification. Now without being a moron yourself, how about answering as it would apply to D800..

    • ClimoPhoto

      I remember specifically seeing that in the D800 live view you could do some extreme magnification to get the right focus. I think it was in the manual they put out. They showed it in the picture of that library in the manual I think. I don’t know about video.

    • The D700 can zoom in during live view while taking a picture. I use this for still macro work like ring shots.

    • Royster

      You can zoom in when you are in live view mode.As well as insuring that focus is spot on you can select the exact focus point you want in the image

  • Dime

    A simple test:

    Take your best photo, think about the camera used.
    Read the Nikon D800 and Canon 5DMarkIII specifications.
    Now, repeat with me:
    My best photo is ugly, I know after reading the specifications of my old nikon.

    That’s what I understand the majority.
    Sorry about my english.

  • Focus

    Comparisons between Nikon and Canon bodies are interesting to me for about 10 seconds. When I first decided to buy a DSLR in 2006 I was quite truly unbiased to which of the two brands; Nikon or Canon. At the camera store I held both products and almost instantly, and with conviction, decided that Nikon was to be my choice. It had almost nothing to do with specs as I just had faith that the two competitive brands would have similar features. I was still very much learning DSLRs so had very little, if any, unique feature requirements. I bought the best I could (just) afford and was a bit overwhelmed by the feature set as it was. I wanted to grow into my camera. I bought a D80, loved it, sold it a few years later and upgraded to a D300. Today I also own a D700 and have a pre-order for a D4. My long winded story is to say that I bought into Nikon for its intrinsic value and awesome ergonomics. Button placement and ease of use as well as the menu system just works for me. The feel of the plastic and rubber; the heft, the grip, the angle of the shutter release button, the physical design and curves of the body, the colour of the plastic and rubber on the body (the shad of black), etc just feels and looks better to me. I am a photographer after all which means I’m very visually inclined. I need to connect with my tool so I can focus on creating images and working with my clients. I use the best gear from Nikon I can afford so I don’t need to worry about gear quality…again so I can focus on creating. There’s little anyone can tell me about Canon DSLRs to make me want one. They don’t look or feel good to me. That’s it. I trust Nikon technically and their products work for me. I really didn’t intend to sound like a spokesperson for Nikon, but just wanted to share why I went with that brand and not the other and why it would be so hard to get me to switch. So few of us can decipher pixel level differences or be able to unequivocably say that a certain camera specification or lack thereof caused our images to result in some way. Learn to use your equipment for what it was designed to do under the limitations that physically exists. They are not magical in themselves; but when you learn how to use the tool you can create magic with it.

    • Bernhard

      Very well said!
      It’s probably almost the same story with me – only that I went for the other brand. 😉

      • Anonymous

        Bernhard… Why are you trolling the Nikon Rumors board then when you are using Canon equipment? LOL.

        • JN

          To anonymous – why do you care on what others use? Who cares what Bernhard uses. I use nikon, canon, and sony based on project, For my hi-end clients they want median format quality. Why are so meny people on this bored not more helpful to one another, instead act like jackasses?

    • cryptotechkyle

      I agree, very well put. I share some similarities with your story. I am sure the D4 will be the perfect tool for you. But don’t forget that glass! Having a great camera body that will do everything you ever need a camera to do is swell and all, but it’s the glass you put in front of that body that makes the end product all the better. Remember that Nikon was founded as an optics company first before it expanded into the industry of commercial imagery which includes camera bodies and the like. Their passion has always been in producing the best optics, and the NIKKOR brand of lenses is proof of that.



    • Gavlister

      I became a dedicated Nikon shooter in 1986. I was a surf photographer back then and was using lenses with interchangeable mounts so wasn’t affiliated with any brand.

      I was in Singapore after 2 months surfing remote areas in Sumatra and was going to buy a new camera as they were so much cheaper than back in Oz. I’d pretty much decided on a Canon F1 as they were so tough (was shooting a Nikon FE2 at the time) Anyway after spending a day trying to search for the best bargain I had a returning bout of explosive diarrhoea. By the time I was able to get back to searching, I couldn’t find the original store and was running of time. The nearest store had a Nikon FA and I ended up buying that. Since then I stuck with one brand and am happy with the choice.

      But I guess my reasons for choosing Nikon are pretty shitty 😉

    • Levi H

      Dude! This is exactly me! I walked in thinking I wanted a Canon 30D or 40D or whatever was out at the time… ended up picking up the Nikon D90 and it just FELT RIGHT. Every button was where I wanted it, and the camera just worked like I wanted it to. Upgraded from there to D300s > then to a D700 > and will probably be placing a D4 pre-order soon, and possibly D800 later!

      They are both good companies, and competition is great!

  • Banksie

    I like that the Canon body is smaller. I would have liked to see more shrinkage with the D800.

    As far as real world everyday realistic non-pixel peeping print making great work done and enjoyment goes, both cameras will be excellent. What won’t be excellent will be the crappy subject matter that most users will be producing from either one of these cameras. There are way too many photographs floating around in cyberspace. And they’re all starting to repeat themselves now. There’s nothing new to look at anymore. That’s the deleterious side of digital. Slam, bam, thank you m’am.

    • Egan

      Toss it in a cold pool and the D800 will experience plenty of shrinkage… 😉

  • Weenis whacker


  • Nikonnut

    Why would any canon user, pay twice the price for a 1dx?

    • Nikonnut

      Besides the FPS of course.

      • Carsten

        And the better metering. The 1dx is the action camera, it must work fully automatic to get the shot

  • SiliconVoid

    Waiting – but leaning…

    I use both a 5DmkII (macro) and D700 (everything else) and since those acquisitions I have looked for a combination of both in addition to having video. I bought the 5DmkII used with a burnt codec chip so can’t really shoot video with it, but I am familiar with Canon in the video field as are many other professionals in the industry. I have for a couple of years gone back and forth many times over ditching both and getting a new 5DmkII but always ended up holding out for the D700’s upgraded /x/s due to its color accuracy, tonal range, and light sensitivity. To me the D700 just produces images with a more lifelike feel, more so than the higher mp sensors. I know that the D3x is popular, along with those who revere the Sony 900/850, but in scenes with broad tonal ranges they just look artificial to me, digitized if you will, as if it wasn’t a capture of something real but a computers pixelated impression of what the world looks like. (forgive me for being an old film guy)

    This brings me to the current consideration, 5DmkIII and D800. While I would anticipate the D800 to retain the feel of the D700 images, or D3s for that matter, I fear it will be closer to a followup of the D3x especially as Nikon themselves went down in mp in the D4 to achieve their next ‘legendary’ performance body. I will most likely hold out until I can view a gallery of real world images, perhaps rent both, but I prefer the approach Canon has taken in a successor. If they have indeed increased the overall sensitivity of the new sensor, which should result in greater color accuracy and tonal range, I will be getting a mkIII.

    For me it is about the actual performance across the entire spectrum of photography, not one/two specialized fields. I have good glass for either, and through the sell of the other equipment there is no additional cost for me in choosing either.

  • Piyushkumar Bhatt

    I am a ameteur bird photographer started 1 year back with Nikon coolpix P500.
    I want to go in for some serious bird photography ofcourse with proper lens.
    Reading the specs of D800 and 5DMKiii I am not sure which one to go for. Can some veteran/professional advise me on this please….

    • Anonymous

      My suggestion is to go with the Nikon D800. You can shoot all 36MP and then crop. I just think Nikon glass is better than Canon’s, but Canon is cheaper vis-a-vis.

    • happysnapper63

      Your in for a shock when you price up 800mm to put in front of an FX sensor, either that or the shock will be the tiny black specs you capture, that once looked like birds. 4fps is a bit tardy for wildlife action too.

      1600 quid on a 200mm and a lot of field craft and waiting is the other option. I have certainly got frame filling great tits with a 200mm, mind you I had a 1.5 crop factor.

      Nothing wrong with going SLR for wildlife, but it does come as somewhat a shock to folks used to the longer zoom bridge cameras from Nikon, Canon etc.

  • Piyushkumar Bhatt

    I am a ameteur bird photographer started 1 year back with Nikon coolpix P500.
    I want to go in for some serious bird photography ofcourse with proper lens.
    Reading the specs of D800 and 5DMKiii I am not sure which one to go for. Can some veteran/professional advise me on this please….

    • You need the MKIII for birds b/c it is faster…This is coming from someone who shoots Nikon, but a decade ago I bought a Canon kit for wildlife. Albeit, a Canon EOS 3 that had eye control, that if Canon hadn’t discontinued I would still be using Canon.

    • Toecutter


  • NikonWhy?

    I’m just curious, I normally shoot Canon but I am very impressed by the D800, when Nikon has a better autofocus, more pixels and still less noise than Canon, why does Canon always outsell Nikon. On Amazon, 15 of the top 20 cameras are Canons, Canon combos etc. Nikon should market their products differently because the 5D Mark III that doesn’t really seem to live up to Nikon’s D800 is at #1.

    • Nikon shooter

      I am actually a Canon employer that shoots Nikon. Canon is a much more aggressive marketer of their products. The way people think about L series lenses (even when some of them are poor performing for the price) and the red ring that goes with them can get some people salivating at the mouth. I was taking a complaint once when a customer had purchased a 100-400mm thinking it would be the be all end all lens, yet he was disappointed with performance and the uncanny ability this lens has to suck dust inside. Slap a red ring on it and people will buy – Canon has laid a foundation here, how? I do not know. Nikon has never really distinguished their lenses that way until recently, to me this says Nikon thought of their customers as smarter and didn’t need any gimmicky feature to distinguish what is a quality piece of glass.

      I often see people running around with some of the most expensive Canon gear around there neck and they don’t even know what they are doing (I have seen their photos). I have yet to see this happening with Nikon.
      Canon just seems to be a fashion statement for the uninitiated photographer (not intending to offend, Canon make great cameras). I think that Mirrorless cameras may change this somewhat. I may be off the mark totally, just my thoughts.

      • Sahil

        Actually you are off the mark totally.

        “Canon just seems to be a fashion statement for the uninitiated photographer (not intending to offend, Canon make great cameras)”

        That’s two contradicting remarks in a single sentence.
        So…well..the real issue that you work for canon, but you dont know anything about their cameras or lenses. And you shoot with nikon, but you clearly dont know anything about their cameras and lenses.

        • Nikon Shooter


          Just because something is a fashion statement does not make it poor quality. When people start buying a product just because the next person has one does not make the product any better or any worse – therefore no contradiction.

          Sahil apart from misreading what I wrote, you should spend some time in Hong Kong and you will see plenty of people wearing their cameras like a piece of jewelry.

          As to your comment about my knowledge of lenses, think what you will.

          • CHD

            ‘Just because something is a fashion statement does not make it poor quality.’

            Just ask Leica.

  • Pete

    Why are high ISO specs regarded as being so important?

    • SNRatio

      They are surely not considered that important by all. But with high ISO, basically, when you need it, you need it badly. And with smaller pixel pitch, you have to reduce shutter time to avoid motion blur, so higher MP will tend to generate a pressure for better high ISO in quite a few settings.

      I have noticed it myself, comparing the D5100 and the D700 – often have to reduce exposure time on the D5100 because of sharpness problems, the D700 is much more forgiving in that respect. Therefore, in some situations, when ISO 1600 might hold for the D700, I might tend to use ISO 2500 with the D5100.

      For lots of shooters, the downsampled high ISO properties of the D800 will be very important for its usability as an all-round camera.

    • Sean

      Here is what I have found with regards to the importance of high ISO performance: While I may not ever shoot at ISO 25K, when the performance at the highest ISO’s increases, that increase trickles down very nicely to the more moderate ISO’s.

      For example, I used to shoot with a D70, then a D300, now a D700. Using something like ISO 1600 on the D70 was really pushing it, with lots of noise, reduced sharpness, and terrible color saturation. The D300 was better with noise at 1600, pretty good really, but I was still unhappy with color and sharpness to a certain extent. With the D700, I can shoot 1600 all day and it looks like ISO 320 on my D70.

      I don’t care if the next generation can shoot ISO 100K but when I see that spec, I know that ISO 3200 and 6400 are probably going to be looking pretty damn great and 1600 will likely be flawless. This is important to me!

      • CHD

        Well said Sean…we think alike.

  • simpleguy

    Thats The right time to call it like it is , CANON showing up in the last minute with NOTHING an invented camera with nothing in it , CANON = FAIL

    this round , who will want quality in stills AND VIDEO – would have to drop ship and go with nikon which i imagine would be hard for people owning allot of canon glass

    • SiliconVoid

      …and you are basing the quality video performance of the D800 off of what exactly??? …and the image performance off of what exactly??? Please do not offer your opinion as a fanboy by blindly stating, point blank, without any evidence, that the D800 is going to reinvented this tier, claiming all others a failure.

      Regardless of how much I like my D700, Canon defined this tier – set the standard and benchmark if you will, by which all followers will be compared. It would be the same if Nikon was first, but they weren’t. If the D800 fairs well in that comparison, or possible betters it then great! That will give yet another option for me and many others.

      This being Nikon’s first foray in FF video, I do not expect the D800 to change the industry, more likely just that Nikon now also has a FF video DSLR. Unfortunately being a first time effort it stands just as great a chance to end up an open wound for Nikon.

      • The D800 does not mark Nikon’s first foray into FF video. And before you go off on some long rant about how the D3s was only 720p, first consider what the “pros” said about the results from that spectacular camera.

        Nikon has a great chance of undoing much of what Canon has built up over the last decade, and precisely because of the consistency Nikon has shown over the last number of years. They are usually both first to market, and also slow and steady. What does that usually win, again?

        • SiliconVoid

          At the level of video production the D800 will inevitably be used in, it is and will be a first for Nikon sorry.

          It is true however that Nikon will bring about a new generation of videographer, with new perspective and creative focus, as there are certainly many who would simply not use Canon.
          Predicting some kind of unraveling in the financial and productive status-quo of the industry, knowing that the expense of the body is the absolute smallest factor of the equipment costs… is at best – blind optimism.

          Don’t get me wrong Ron, I am debating with you any capabilities or limitations. I hope the D800 ventures well in the video field, as I stated, but I am also being realistic. Nikon has not brought anything new to the field, they are technically playing catch up to what has already been provided by the 5DmkII and likely to continue with the mkIII. The D800 has simply provided another option, certainly a better option for those who only use the Nikon brand.

          (btw – I have considered what the “pros” say, I work with them daily on/off the set… they do not see it the same way you do, but maybe movie production has a different set of requirements than making a commercial..)

          • – Clean uncompressed HDMI out
            – Movie crop modes (FX/DX, both are full 1080p)
            – Roughly twice the recording time per clip
            – $500 less expensive than 5DmkIII

            These may seem like simple features and non-noteworthy advantages over the recent Canon offerings, but they’re all things that are highly useful to working pros (hollywood and non-hollywood types alike). The clean HDMI out alone will bring a huge amount of cost and time savings to anyone who doesn’t want to wait for their footage as it’s converted to an uncompressed format such as ProRES.

            And once the 1:1 tests start showing up, I’ll be surprised if the differences aren’t even more evident.

            • SiliconVoid

              Wow, is it really that hard to dig around on the manufacturers website that you just grab speculative tidbits of information from fan sites?

              Maximum video recording time for both 5DmkIII and D800 are:
              29 minutes 59 seconds
              Highest quality recording time:
              Nikon – 20min
              Canon – 22min
              Maximum data rate:
              Nikon – 24mps
              Canon – 90mps

              Manual control abilities:
              Nikon – Manual control of video recording not available when recording to internal storage (unless they change that prior to shipping)
              Canon – Full control as was originally provided by Magic Lantern on 5DmkII, now support by Canon through firmware on 5dmkIII.

              HDMI out:
              Nikon – available 4.2.2
              Canon – available through Magic Lantern for 5DmkII limited size output due to video stream intended for internal lcd and aspect ratio. 5DmkIII has higher rez lcd and sensor matching asect ratio and off frame shooting data, should not pose any problems – Unknown at this time, supposedly already being worked on.

              The D800 crop modes are interesting, and yes just like the D700 before it expands not only the lenses available but provides the same cropped frame digital zooming ability on the output side. However when recording video, the lcd panel displays cropped mode just as still images do through the viewfinder, full view with outlined/shaded crop which could mean that cropped mode video will still have the full sensor data through HDMI. Uknown at this time.

              You are correct, the price of the D800 is ~$500 less ‘currently’, unfortunate the body isn’t the sole cost to begin using or switching to Nikon over Canon.

              Ron I am happy that without any real world testing you have already decided the D800 is the perfect tool for you, really I am, my quibble is simply suggesting it will be “the” tool for everyone, unravel the fabric laid by the 5DmkII, and take over the industry.. 🙂

            • Yes, indeed it is difficult to ascertain the nuances that differentiate the two products, as you so aptly point out. (Read: you’re wrong.)

              Directly from Canon’s site:

              1) Continuous Shooting Time Based on 8GB Card:

              [1920 x 1080]
              30 fps ALL-I: 11 min. (685 MB/min.) / IPB: 32 min (235 MB/min.)
              25 fps ALL-I: 11 min. (685 MB/min.) / IPB: 32 min. (235 MB/min.)
              24 fps ALL-I: 11 min. (685 MB/min.) / IPB: 32 min. (235 MB/min.)

              [1280 x 720]
              60 fps ALL-I: 12 min. (610 MB/min.) / IPB: 37 min. (205 MB/min.)
              50 fps ALL-I: 12 min. (610 MB/min.) / IPB: 37 min. (205 MB/min.)

              2) Top data rates of 220mbps are possible on the D800 when recording to a device like the Atomos Ninja (ProRes HQ). Theoretically, data rates of 1,326mbps are possible when the video is saved in an uncompressed format.

              Additionally, Nikon’s D7000 file sizes are about half of those from the Canons, and the files look equally as good. I’ll take more clips per card (2x) every time.

              Oh yeah, and good luck with that clean HDMI out without a hack on the Canon DSLRs. Canon has the C300 to protect. Even if Canon were to allow this eventually, what does that say that Nikon innovates, and Canon copies just to save face?

              3) Wrong. Crop modes in D800 video will translate to full 1080p streams that are CLEAN, and UNCOMPRESSED.

              Anything else, Void?

            • SiliconVoid

              I apologize Ron, it seems as if I have hurt your feelings in asking you to quantify your impressions and expectations of a yet to be seen, touched, used device. While my original hope was to gain the impressions/perspective of someone in another field of videography, your replies have started taking a tone of superiority in passing judgement of wrongs and rights concerning what the D800 is really able/unable to do when no one knows yet.

              It is true I do not have a website with my Frito-Lay commercial, however I do have experience in the video industry and apparently a greater knowledge of the capabilities of the mkII based on your “comparative” input. So perhaps I should qualify what I meant by (limitations.) I have worked with the 5DmkII on set quite often, and on several contracts I have worked with bodies that do not even have a mirror mechanism in them, and loaded with tweaked firmware. So in that context I am not concerned with what the camera cannot do “out of the box” because tweaking the device, mechanically or through firmware, to exploit its full potential is not an obstacle.

              Comparing the maximum data rates of the D800 over HDMI to the internal storage data rates of the Canon is a rather lopsided spec comparison to assert superiority. If you were to just compare the data handling subsystems the maximum ~90mps data rate of the mkIII is higher than the D800 when using the internal storage. That is as provided by the manufacturers, not to mention something exploitable. Uncompressed data rates over HDMI would be a completely separate set of specifications, and would be the same if indeed an uncompressed feed.

              The only things I see different in the D800 that I cannot find or have heard being possible in the mkII/III is the DX cropped modes (using FX lenses) and of course 36mp sensor resolution.

              In regard to the DX modes I am reasonably sure I read that those modes are only available to internal storage, but that information could be wrong or lacking in clarification of any limitations. Essentially the HDMI out on the D800 does not work any different than the mkII other than it being provided for a dedicated purpose by Nikon, and as such having the overlay data stripped from the feed. It is still essentially the feed that was intended for the lcd, which could face the same overlay limitations in DX modes as seen with the mkII shooting data. I have not read anything from Nikon concerning the DX modes and HDMI feed specifically, therefore I do not know if the DX crop window is considered the same as the overlay shooting data and subsequently removed from the feed. If it is, great, then a benefit not offered through anyone else atm. Though I am not immediate convinced of the benefits in stopping filming to change crop modes versus just zooming in/out with the lens.

              That leaves the sensor. Are part of your anticipations and expectations based on what you feel will be some inherently higher resolution source? The information I have read from the designers mentions any mode smaller than the full sensor output (such as the DX modes) using data from the full sensor, but does not specifically mention whether that is just exposure/metering data or individual pixel data. This hints at the process known as binning, pixel binning in this context – and not something invented by Nikon, and if this were being used with anything lower than full sensor output I would expect Nikon to reference binning specifically so as to show any technical benefits and/or superiority.

            • SiliconVoid

              Thank you Ron, I appreciate your time and I am sorry to have taken up so much of it.. Perhaps I type too much, or maybe I speak too directly, as you have interpreted things I pose as a question as if I were making a statement. I was very clear about the information I had, or had interpreted, concerning the DX modes. It was the result of the rather thin explanation provided by the Nikon engineers in an interview, and I stated it could be inaccurate. What I get back from you is that I am throwing around false specifications? Specifications that even you do not know for sure, and link something from a D4 video hands-on. I thought we were discussing the D800, which the video makes no reference to at all.

              WTF is a Canon apologists.. I can tell by your picture that I am about 20 years older than you and have been into photography since I was 11, shooting Nikon and Canon both. Please do not show your fanboyism by trying to label me when I ask you to quantify your acclamations.

              Again, I am sorry to have taken your time. It has become apparent that you will be unable to provide the technical unbiased perspective I was hoping for given your video experience. You continually offer no more information of benefits the D800 provides that are absolutely not physically possible/available on the mk/III than what I can read for myself on Nikon’s specification sheet.

              In that HDMI out will absolutely be available on the MkIII, regardless of who provides it, I do not count as something offered by one and not the other. I have repeatedly questioned what other features you felt were compelling enough to “change the industry” beyond internal recording limits and HDMI, however all that happens is looping back around to the same. If the only benefit the D800 can clutch to is the external recording, then as soon as it is available through ML I guess Nikon will be out of the game again..

              You continue to compare features provided through Nikon as if they are some how different than features available through firmware tweaks for the 5D – as if it makes any difference who provides the functionality. By that logic, if the camera cannot do something out of the box under control of the manufacturers hardware/software then it doesn’t exist… I guess having to use a recording device not made by Nikon and not controlled through the camera would mean that the D800 cannot record externally? (sarcasm, not a false specification thrown out)

              Thank you again.
              I wish you well in your creative endeavors, and hope the D800 provides you the means to fully express your visions. 🙂

              btw – Nikon states the internal data rate of the D800 up to 24mbps, Canon states the mkIII up to 92mbps, BOTH cameras record 1080p up to 29min/59sec. In DSLR devices today that isn’t a new feature, its a legally restricted time limit for on-device recording.

            • “WTF is a Canon apologists..”

              Apparently it is you, SiliconVoid. Why would you go on long rants assuming the D800 is any different from the D4 while in crop mode if you didn’t fit that description?

              Why are you here? Honestly, I mean it. Are Canon’s offerings not enough to satisfy you? Obviously Nikon’s aren’t. All you do is rail on Nikon here and on the DP Review forums (and who knows where else). We aren’t impressed by your 5DmkIII here, even if you are a Canon troll. Get it?

          • @Void

            No hurt feelings, but don’t expect any minced words, either. I don’t mind having a mature debate with a stranger. However, I won’t sit idly by while false specs are thrown around (ie recording times and crop modes), and I’m not keen to have anonymous Canon apologists get snarky with me on a Nikon-labeled site.

            That said, there are many MANY shooters that are more skilled, more talented, more knowledgeable, and better equipped than am I. It seems that debaters like to wield a weapon of labeling me as having a superiority complex simply because I call it like it is, and that makes winning a debate difficult for those I’m debating; hence the personal attacks.

            As for the notion that external recording devices aren’t a fair comparison, but hacking a camera is, I again disagree. External recording devices are readily available, whereas hacking the camera is only assumed, not guaranteed. Magic Lantern will take time, and its not guaranteed to ever happen.

            RE: crop modes: The crop modes output the same clean feed identical to FX mode. The crop indicators only appear in the optical viewfinder, never on the LCD (and obviously never in the final file output).

   (see around the 3:50 mark)

            Another advantage to the HDMI out is that there is no recording time limit. And as far as anybody knows, there is a difference in the HDMI output for both cameras, as the 5DmkIII is only assumed to output 4:2:0 like the Mark II (nothing has been said by Canon at this point).

            The crop mode is not something that is supposed to replace changing focal length while filming. It is a quick and simple way to increase DOF and focal length without requiring any change in camera position from subject, or degradation in resolution (all modes output full 1080p at “normal” frame rates). Put another way, the crop modes are a way to get a 600mm lens out of a standard 70-200. That’s a huge $6,000 savings.

            As to your last question, the crop modes do not employ pixel binning. They capture an image using less total area of the sensor. The first 1.5x crop mode is the equivalent to an APS-C sensor, and the new 2.7x crop mode captures an area equivalent to the Nikon 1 sensor area.

            Just as I’ve discussed with RealityCheck (above), the two cameras are being compared on their own merits, apples to apples. The Nikon samples are more impressive than those from Canon (shot in the same month). They show near equal high-ISO performance, and significantly more detail across all ISOs.

            The Nikon video features are a filmmaker’s dream, and clean HDMI out is just one example of how Nikon listened to the market and Canon did not. I’ll not be surprised if we see this and the D4 having very real effects in the market over the next 4 years.

      • simpleguy

        To SiliconVoid: i am not a fanboy , it is clear to see that canon did a last minute desperation move 21mp to 22mp , Continuous drive from 3.9 to 6 and 100% coverage viewfinder for that they worked 3 years , give me a break , ive used nikon and canon before
        in this stage we dont even need a real world comparison , there is no comparison between improved h.264 and an uncompressed 4:2:2 output
        no matter how much anti aliasing and improved moire canon has come up with and how much bitrate you can reach , compression will be the same , so unless nikon is lying which is not likely , a clean uncompressed signal is much preferred
        its just a fact , they are protecting their c300 sales and dont put serious features in the new 5d
        and on the subjects of fanboys , even phillip bloom who is a big canon supporter – declares – disappointing !

        • SiliconVoid

          No doubt, I am disappointed as well that Canon sees some rational for a price hike without any more significant upgrades over the 5DmkII – and is the reason that I have no immediate plans to get a mkIII nor get rid of my D700 just to get video. Unlike many out there though, I do not blindly evaluate something meeting my needs or anyone else without proof and data that can be manipulated.

          That still doesn’t make it some failed last minute r&d attempt, the reality is that Canon did not have to do anything, they already provided a tool in a form that no one else in the industry provided. So while that certainly opens up the door for Nikon, or anyone else, to out spec the 5DmkII/III, the reality is that the majority of their effort is still playing catch up, and unproven at that.
          If Nikon’s lack of professional video equipment allows them to go all out on something like the D800 (so no reason to handicap the D800 video like they do on the stills side with everything under the Dx series) and use that to out spec and out perform the 5D, that will be great! When/if that occurs perhaps it will be a shot in the arm for Canon to change their perspective. My point is its something that will have to happen, and has yet to happen – it is not guaranteed nor is it some automatic failure on any other manufacturers efforts. I’m just keeping things into perspective, I could go either way, but would not even begin to make a decision (or public acclamation) at this juncture with no proof other than marketing and fan sites that want to keep their inside channel with the manufacturers.

          • simpleguy

            you are correct in your point of view and i respect your opnion , i just stated my opnion about canon , i feel they did the same thing with the 60d after nikon anounced the d7000 ( releasing cameras very quickly without any real need for the model again IMO )
            and i think nikon deserves the praise for their effort and listening carefully to their customers , after all that whining and complaints users here had before those models (d800 , d4) were released

            but i agree that real world evaluation , testing the camera in your hands and more samples and comparisons is indeed needed to determine the real quality of these products
            as for now on paper , nikon seemed to listen and work hard to make two huge leaps in technology and they deserve every compliment (at least if not proven , for the listening and answering the demands of both photographers and videographers )

            • CHD

              ‘and i think nikon deserves the praise for their effort and listening carefully to their customers’

              Are you kidding me? Most 5D2 owners like myself have all said it would have been the perfect camera if Canon hadn’t purposely crippled the AF and other features. Now Canon has the 5D3 with the AF from the top of the line 1Dx, and a host of other improvements…and voila…for me the perfect camera.

            • Hey Ron, I love Nikon and love my D7000, but you aren’t really saying you’d take your D7000 video clips over the 5D because you can store more of them on your card are you? You said they are equally as good, but to me they don’t even come close. 5D buries the D7000 every day in video.

            • @Graphicnatured: I was specifically referring to the file compression. I wasn’t speaking of the differences in aesthetic qualities aside from compression, and comparing the two is a bit unbalanced as they are not the same crop factor. That said, I’d easily take the D7k over the 7D or the T2i/T3i any day, and I’m impressed by the D7k video quality enough that I’ve chosen it over the 5DmkII. Make of it what you will.

              The higher ISO stuff on the Mark II is nasty and exhibits pretty unattractive digital video noise vs. Nikon’s more film-like “grain”. I’m looking at some 5DmkII footage right now from a music video we shot, and it’s nothing to write home about. Rolling shutter is pretty nasty too when the camera is handheld.

            • Fair enough. I agree regarding 7d, T2i, etc..

    • CHD

      Simpleguy, your name is fitting. Thanks for the most moronic, fanboi post of the day.

  • Matt

    Still happy with my d2x 😀

  • Frits

    One thing I don’t get is why people go “all-caps” about irrelevant things.

    My big problem is with people who think that they are fighting against canon or nikon. seriously, grow up, I’ve used both the D700 and the 5D mkII, I don’t get why most people brag about the camera’s they have never even had in their hands?
    I even think most of the people that are arguing about “whats the best camera” will ever use one of the 2.
    It’s not because you have a nikon or a canon that that makes you better then the rest, cameras aren’t their to brag about, they are there to be used. if it doesn’t meet the requirements for YOUR specific reasons then it doesn’t mean it’s a bad camera.
    Everyone want’s to have a flagship camera or a leica or a hasselblad or something else, but do you really need it? I bet most of the people arguing here and going all-caps here only use their camera pure for hobby and for family pictures.

    When I used the D700, I was really pleased with the sharpness and ISO performance I could get out of the camera, but theirs something that I don’t like about the colors the nikons produce, they seem to be a bit to saturated to me (hence the “to me”), the 5D mkII is really great as well, the large resolution is always great for me and I didn’t have any problems with the lowlight as well, but a well known problem is ofcorse the AF.

    When they released the 5D mkII everyone was like “omg that resolution” and a lot of people were saying “nobody will ever need that much”, now nikon does the same and now you guys are all like “look at the MP, this camera is far superior”.

    People, I bet both cameras are great, even better, they are awesome, but who cares, I can shoot with both brands, it doesn’t mean when you say something bad or have criticism about a thingy that it makes you a “fanboy”.
    You can’t know a camera if you haven’t used it. I think the resolution of the D800 is something that I won’t be needing. (hence the “I”).

    I really have a problem with people who look at these things so narrow-minded, come on, they are just cameras, they are both high-end, they both do the job, and they do it great, nikon has focused on their resolution (that was lacking a bit behind to be honest), and canon has focused on the autofocus (that was a big problem) and their metering.
    and don’t complain about the price tag, if you can’t buy it, this is probably not for you.

    • broxibear

      Hi Frits,
      You’re right in what you say, it’s just that many people are overwhelmed by the marketing talk. The camera manufacturers spend millions on advertising and marketing to convince you that you must buy the latest and fastest, because if you don’t you won’t be able to take good photographs, and somehow you’ll be left behind.
      The manufacturers have to sell cameras, but it’s up to individuals to think for themselves and decide which cameras are right for them…some people just can’t do it.

  • BasJ

    In 2010, after shooting for a weekend with a D3, I decided I would never buy a new camera until I could afford such a high-end model. Now the moment is there, I’m about to buy my first FF camera and have no investments yet in lenses of one brand or the other. Think I’ll start with a 24-70 f/2.8.

    My number one priority is excellent image quality in low light. I would also like to be able to shoot 1080p, which disqualifies the D700 or D3S. I realize this purchase is a big investment in the body and lenses, so I’d like to make a proper choice.

    Like many people I’m not a big fan of the high-megapixel choice of the D800. I would always prefer image quality in low light above higher resolution. Then I thought the 5D III actually has pretty amazing high-ISO performance until I noticed the loss in sharpness in the images on dpreview. I dislike making compromises, but that kind of leaves me with only the expensive D4 option. I don’t care for quick bursts either.

    What should I do?

    Also can the new 24-70 f/2.8LII be really worth the extra amount of money when used on a 5D III?


    • burgerman

      Endlessely repeated.

      Noise is primarily a function of sensor AREA and output image size not pixels. A D800 WITH 36MP or a 12MP camera will have the same noise when the image is viewed or printed at the same size… Viewing a D800 image at 100 percent will show more noise, because you are looking at a 70 plus inch wide picture!!!
      No need for speed? MORE PIXELS IS BETTER!!!

      How many more times… The only DISADVANTAGE of more pixels is speed because there is x times more data to process. But you can shoot at 9 or 20mp if you want with proportionally less noise, and file size as well…

      Of course a RAW is big, but then if you want raw data thats because you WANT the best image quality, so it SHOULD contain as much information as possible…

      • RealityCheck

        Do you really think that all the D4 offers is more speed? No better image quality, no better range, nothing better than just higher fps because it has fewer mp…..?

        There is more there than mp vs fps, I suggest you learn about the technology, and from some place other than

    • broxibear

      Hi BasJ,
      Sounds like you’ve got a choice of 4 amazing cameras, the D800, D4, Mark III and 1Dx. (you don’t say which type of photography you’re involved with)
      My advice would be wait until they’re available at your nearest retailer, do not pre-order based on internet reviews…and then go and have a play with them, see how they feel in your hand. After that you’ll have a better idea of which one to buy.
      The new Canon 24-70 f/2.8LII does seem expensive compared to the previous model, not sure why there’s such a big difference…wait and see what the reviews/test show ?
      At the end only you know if it’s worth paying the extra money for certain equipment… if you buy the older 24-70 f/2.8 you’d have money left over to get a couple of more lenses ?

      • Focus

        BasJ, i’d support broxibear suggestion, but will expand on it.
        It sounds to me you are a hobbyist who happens to be comfortable financially. Which is awesome! If you can afford it, buying any one of these 4 camera options will serve you very well. Which you choose should come down to what type of photography you do…ie/ family photos, events, landscape, portraits, or just whatever subject happens to catch your fancy that day. If you will be carrying around a camera wherever you go you should carefully consider the practicality of a Pro body with built-in grip versus a smaller body. It will make a difference. You need a pretty large camera bag to hold a pro body with an attached 24-70 2.8 lens, not to mention risking fatigue around your neck and shoulders. Since you are currently brand neutral you should really wait to go into a camera store and hold and use these four camera bodies before you decide which is best for you. When you go, have a scenario in mind that will force you to create settings on the camera before taking the shot. This will give you the opportunity to quickly get familiar with the camera controls to reveal which is more natural for you. ie/ a scenario might be, I will take a product shot and will need to set my camera as follows: 1/125th shutter, f5.6, ISO 1000, large jpeg Fine, WB set to fluorescent with 2 steps of added amber, spot metering, single point single servo auto focus on manual exposure with a vivid picture control setting, choose a black object and tell your meter to under-expose by one stop with a -1 EV. See how intuitive it is to get those settings on your camera. Pick up the next camera and repeat. This exercise should help you choose brand. Then decide model based on type of photography you do.

  • I have a question that I would like others much smarter than me to answer concerning the anti-aliasing filter.

    Its my understanding that medium format camera typically do not use anti-aliasing filters.

    Now given that they likely use similar CCD/CMOS technology as used to make FX/DX camera sensors, is it the much higher pixel count that erodes the need for the anti-aliasing filter? In other words, as the pixel count of a sensor increases does moiré patterns become less likely?

    If yes, what seems to be the threshold where moiré is no longer a practical concern? I do not know much about medium format digital cameras but my understanding is they typically start at about 40 mpix so is that the pixel density that seems to make moiré a non issue?

    • Isnogud

      That medium format bodies have no AA-filter can only mean one thing: The AA-filter is in the lenses, meaning: medium format lenses normally resolve less than those highly developed FX lenses!
      The only other explanation would be that medium-format photogs do a heck of retouching work on their images.
      Because one thing is for sure: A lens that has more resolving power than the sensor will ALWAYS produce moire!

  • Anonymous Maximus

    What an absurd move of Canon from 21mp to 22mp. I could rather be in the upper twenties to make sense in terms of competiton both inside & with Nikon. Previous rumors already indicated a 28mp model but then proved wrong unfortunately (for Canonians).

    I can’t see much of a reason for mk II owners for upgrading to mk III. It is a slight evolution rather than offering something exciting. High iso performance is a tad better, and it has a 100% vf instead of 98% . That’s all I could see.

    Above all, its price of $3500 will be a certain show stopper!

    • Isnogud

      Yeah, Canon conveniently priced themselves out of the game.
      And don’t believe one second that their noise performance will be better than from the D800 – not even on the pixel-level!

      • zoran

        I completely agree. Base on the samples I have seen so far, those high ISO numbers are only numbers and do not translate into high quality images (for me). Also from the samples I have seen so far, I do not think that D700 has any better noise performance that D800. Rather than just look at pixel pitch based on simple algebra, look at the back illuminated sensor technology that is in D800. Those who think that pixel pitch tells it all, should read about the new Sony XMORE sensors. Unless one wants to take pictures at midnight or take 10 frames per second, in shear image quality, I believe, D800 is the way to go. I just hope my preorder is one of the first to fill. Yes, yes, how can I tell since the camera is not out yet! Well, the samples are out and they truly look impressive.

  • Thomas

    You forgot the most important category.

    Building materials:

    D800: Magnesium and tough plastic composites with weather sealing
    5D mk. III: Cheapest plastic constructible with oil and weather sealing

    I jest.

    Anyway, Canon is looking mighty meek right now.

  • bert

    Can anybody add to this list:
    Resolutions of croppings/aspect ratio’s/quality settings (what is the pixel size in say medium size at the D800 (heard 20mpixel).
    How does the viewfinder look like in cropped mode? Thin black lines, real black masks?
    What are the cropping options in movie mode?
    What are the X-syncs?
    Ocular closing door?
    Autofocus options while shooting video?

  • and if my d700 camera broke today? for me that I am wedding photographer, besides the d700, canon first possibility could be to make a purchase, even with all that is difficult to change brand.

  • skubi

    5d3 apparently is 2 stops better iso noise than 5d2, this rougly translates into 5d3 being two stops better then d800. This to me is a huge advantage, and like most comments said, if they fixed all teh 5d2 issues this is an awesome camera, somthing i hoped the d800 would be.

    • zoran

      The iso numbers that it can take photographs are 2 stops higher.
      This does not mean that the images are any usable or that at the same iso setting the images are of higher quality.

      • dave

        i think what he means, is canon is reporting 5d3 iso 800 = 5d2 iso 3200

  • phil

    i´ve got one question. can i shoot with a FX nikon afs-nikkor 24-120 1:4 in DX mode ? for example if i need more zoom?



    • jorg

      sure. it will behave like an 36-180 mm lens in DX-mode.

  • Kev

    I won’t debate the potential (or lack of) of either of these cameras, but I’m certain both of them are going to share considerable success. I have no brand loyalty, I only care about results. If you are in need of a camera in this class, then make a choice and take Nike’s suggestion and “Just do it”. I’ll bet you’ll be very happy with your choice.

  • Mark

    The best camera is the one you have with you when the moment strikes. Just flip a coin and buy either one.

  • I don’t think comparing these two cameras makes too much sense. Obviously, they are both freaking awesome. Way better than anything ten years ago, when great photos were still being made. But I do have a few questions regarding what both of these companies were thinking in regards to specs. First, Canon – why why why a native ISO of 25k? I can’t imagine anything over 12k being remotely useable, even after post processing. Plus who really needs that high of an ISO? Nikon – why only 4fps? This is the major flaw of this camera no one is talking about. I have a few cameras now, one being the slightly under 4fps canon 5d mark ii and i hate how slow it is, even if im not shooting sports. I love shooting fast i guess its just my style. Im shocked that nikon didnt atleast match canon in fps. Take a photographer like me for example, I shoot a lot of weddings during wedding season and also a lot of high school senior portraits but in the winter I also pick up a lot of sports gigs. The 5d will be an option for both, whereas the d800 is clearly not. These cameras directly compete with each other so why did Nikon fall short in this category. Nikon lost a lot of business by doing so, because otherwise I would choose the d800 hands down, mostly because of the general ergonomics of Nikon cameras being far superior to canons.

    • Thomas

      Why only 4fps?

      Easy – even the fastest processor and memory card are choking on these, what was it, 85MB raw files. If you want speed you better go for the D4. Or wait for the true small body successor to the D700 whatever its name will be if it comes at all.

      Unfortunately here’s no such thing as “the universal camera”. Has been like this in the past with both major brands as well. Think about the D3s and the D3x or the various flavours of Canon’s EOS 1D. Specialists for high resolution on the one side or speed (and good low light performance) on the other.

      Just pick the proper tool to do your job right – that’s your decision. This could pretty well mean buying two high-spec bodies from the same manufacturer. Much like the old days when having to carry multiple bodies loaded with different types of film to be prepared for anything to come.

      Regards Thomas

  • D800 ufficial price from local Import in Italy:

    D800 Euro 2.536,00 vat included (with bonus CF 8 GB and spare battery)

  • Mak

    Come on Nikon bullies what are you trying to say than D800 is better than 5D Mark III?
    Keep dreaming under the pillow… in which sector? DSLR video? No! ISO speed? No! Shutter Speed? No! Build Quality? No! AF Points? No! Battery Life? No! Available Comatible Lenses? No! In which fucking sector? lollllllllll!
    Build quality of Canon.Which company can compare Canon international? Noone so far…
    Which company discovered all these technologies in Photography that all the others are using today as Ultrasonic Motor, IS and so many others…? Guess what its Canon again!
    Which company gave a new dream to professional DSLR video by introducing Mark II at 2008? hmmm guess what?? Its Canon again! If I keep writing I will never end…! So… 36MP is a huge number but I dont intend to put my photo to a building as poster so who gives a fuck about so many mps?Ye ye I know the answer its you Nikon bullies and thats the only you can say about D800 against 5D Mark III…. maybe when you grow up a little you will understand who makes Cameras and who makes like Cameras. Its like you tell me that AMD can kick Intel’s ass…. but only in your dreams!!! lollllollllllolllllllllolllllllll


      1. better image quality
      2. lower noise at high ISO
      3. Better color depth
      4. Built-in flash
      5. Has in-camera HDR

      But for videos I know 5D M III is better

  • I love and enjoy reading your comments to this post. I guess comparing the two of them is just comparing a stone and a metal. They are on a different level although both of them are DLSR but I believe each of them has a special feature that only the user and owner will know. The specifications will not show the full potential of these camera but just a tip of the iceberg.

    Anyways, I would like to invite everyone to visit my site Gear Bundles if you have time and hoping that you will add your posts there. Thanks!

  • Back to top