The Nikon D800 vs. Canon 5D mkIII Shootout

maarek said:
I don't get it. People have been bitching about the moire for years. Nikon has it and Canon has eliminated it. Still people pick the Nikon because it's about 5% sharper? And that's aliased sharpness? I just edited a commercial shot with the mark II and it had silly moire everywhere. It is horrible, people don't like it for a reason.
Click to expand...

+1 I did not know how bad the Nikon D800 was in this regard until I saw this test. Look at the girls shirt from 2:25-2:31. The segment is talking about detail, but the moire is not mentioned. Hmmm. Anyway, in my opinion, the lack of moire in the 5D Mark III was more pleasing than the extra detail in the D800 and I asume that was before any post sharpening.
 
maarek said:
I don't get it. People have been bitching about the moire for years. Nikon has it and Canon has eliminated it. Still people pick the Nikon because it's about 5% sharper? And that's aliased sharpness? I just edited a commercial shot with the mark II and it had silly moire everywhere. It is horrible, people don't like it for a reason.
Click to expand...

For the record, I agree. In general, they both didn't look all that impressive to me.. but, after seeing the moire dancing around on the Nikon, I dunno... I guess it's one step backward in that regard and one step forward with regards to Rolling Shutter?
 
Interesting indeed. Just shocking how the Canon ISO test really hurts the D800 at one point, then again, that's what the D4 is for.
As a legacy pixel peeper / actual award winning shooter, I was most impressed with the still shot vs the grabs from the moving footage. However, you ought to consider that in terms of perception,to arrive at the 'perceived' motion resolution you really don't compare a grab with a still, you multiply the grab by your frame rate to arrive at the 'perceived' resolution. Only an old fart like me would point that out and Millennial disdain old farts :) So if you shot at 30fps the quality of the grab is really 1/30th of what it would be in motion .
Even as a long time Nikon ,user- this test goes to Canon, though we'd have to see about HDMI>external recorder... the jury is still out.
Loved the strippers :)
 
Kholi said:
For the record, I agree. In general, they both didn't look all that impressive to me.. but, after seeing the moire dancing around on the Nikon, I dunno... I guess it's one step backward in that regard and one step forward with regards to Rolling Shutter?
Click to expand...

Yeah sounds about right. I read the sensor read speed on the 1DX is twice as fast as the MKIII. I'm really interested to see what the ISO performance and resolution is like on the 1DX but price wise it's getting close to the FS700 and the C-DSLR most likely. The D4 looks very soft unfortunately which is strange considering it's 16 megapixels vs 36. It looks great in 2.7x crop mode but who wants to shoot everything at 2.7x? I'm totally blown away by the high ISO performance of the MKIII. My own testing suggests it's about a 2.5 stop improvement. Deep DOF full frame is now possible.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
to arrive at the 'perceived' motion resolution you really don't compare a grab with a still, you multiply the grab by your frame rate to arrive at the 'perceived' resolution.
Click to expand...

You lost me there. You mean like people 'see video as if it has more resolution'.... i.e. DVDs still look cool cause they're coming at us so many frames per second? That wouldn't change the facts about how sharp any individual frame has the potential to be. And then sure, for a given resolution, putting it into motion will appear to have more detail. But.... I might be misunderstanding you there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top