The non fanboy view of Canon 5D vs Nikon 3D please

?

--

Well-known
Local time
6:07 PM
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
492
Although a Nikon shooter in SLRs/DSLRs I have always been intrigued by the film like output from the 5D. From what I have seen online so far the 3D output at lowish ISO does not match the 5D. There just seems to be a certain something to the 5D pictures which is a strange mixture of clarity, fine rendition of texture and, well, I cannot quite sum it up – it just looks like a real picture and very close to a transparency. Everything screams to me stay with Nikon and wait for a lower priced full frame but then again the 5D is here.

So the question after this boring intro is – has anybody used both the 5D and 3D and can comment on how the output compares in “film look”?

I have not been able to find anything unbiased elsewhere but since everybody here surely believes rangefinders are real cameras and DSLRs just toys ;-) perhaps someone can enlighten me without to much fanboy fanfare.

All input much appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Karspoul
 
Well, the Nikon is the D3, and it is full frame. I can't see a way to answer your question without renting each and trying them side-by-side. Even then the rendition will vary according to the lenses used.
 
ummm..

ummm..

M. Valdemar said:
The real question is full frame vs crop frame.
Click to expand...

The D3 *is* a camera with full frame. And some of the low ISO photos I have seen are incredible. The camera is worth having only for the low light work and why its popular among wedding photogs.
 
Sorry, you are right, I misread him, thinking he was asking about the D300.

The D3 is more expensive but far eclipses the 5D in sensor quality.

I have used both. The D3 is currently the state of the art in full frame DSLRs, in my opinion.

(However, the D3 is a hair smaller than actual full-frame.)
 
With all due respect, i don't believe you can accurately assess a camera based on what you "have seen online." Are you talking about photographers' web galleries, or flickr? Are you downloading full-res sample images? Either way, i don't think the truth lies in those types of samples.

What kind of work do you want to do?

I have a 5D. I'm happy with the image quality, although i don't use it as much as i should. I just don't like the 'feel' of the camera very much. But, i'm convinced that just about anything i want it to do, within reason, can be accomplished. I'm also convinced that just about any of the other 'serious' or 'pro-sumer' dSLRs are capable of doing what i would want. I've seen some stunning images online, made with lesser cameras than the 5D.

The problem with digital cameras is that everyone gets caught up in the specs. And, of course, the Next camera will have better specs than whatever's currently available. But, if you look at what has been shot over the past five years, the quality is already there. So, what you might get with newer generations is really just the icing.

Choose a camera based on the lenses you need, and the way you feel when you use it. The lens range is particularly important. I might be shooting Nikons now, except they don't have a 35/1.4, their 50/1.4 doesn't have particularly nice bokeh, and i prefer Canon's 85/1.2L to the Nikon 85/1.4. As i only really want 3 lenses, i'm 'stuck' with Canon because the Canon lens range meets my needs better. I was also interested in Canon's ability to use other manufacturer's lenses via adapter, but i've since dismissed that 'potential.'

You really can analyze sample images from various cameras forever. But, it really comes down to the post processing. What you get straight out of the camera is pretty much moot. Of course, you want the best possible foundation, but any of these cameras will give you image quality that is better than your ability to extract it. After that, your PS work is what really determines the results.

If you really need a direct comparison between two leading cameras, i might suggest visiting this forum:
http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/

I believe you may need to pay for a membership to read full posts and to make posts yourself. But, there are a good number of very knowledgeable pros there. I would also advise that you not simply ask for assessments, but that you assess who is providing the 'information.' Getting advice from talentless photographers is a waste of time and potentially money, as well.
 
You won't find many people (if any) who have both cameras - the investment in lenses is too high to own both cameras or to make the switch. I own the 5D and love it. Before I bought a DSLR I was a dedicated Nikon user and even to this day I use Nikon SLRs for film. I love the ergonomics and the controls of the Nikon system. The only reason I switched was Nikon's announcement that they would not offer a full frame DSLR. I always told myself that I would ONLY buy a DSLR once a FF body at reasonable costs was available. ABout two years ago I bought the Canon 5D and could not have been happier with that decision.

Having said that - if I had to make the same decision today I might very well stick with Nikon - if you have good lenses for your existing SLR, then by all means stay with Nikon. I cannot imagine that the D3 would produce images at low ISOs that are inferior to those of the 5D.
 
I think "unbiased" is a bit much to ask on this topic, especially with such high ticket hardware. Anybody willing to pony up all that dough tends inevitably to develop bias in what gear they throw in their lot with.

Also, exactly what constitutes "film look" is rather open to debate. What I think is film-like is likely not really what you do. Get a third person and there's probably more subtle variation.
 
I've seen stuff from the 5D from a few people I know who own it. The D3 is newer, so may be "better" since technology moves on. I'd be more interested in a comparison between the D3 and the successor to the 5D.

For now I'll stick to film and my Samsung DSLR.
 
From a technology standpoint the D3 is top tier. So all the bells and whistles are there. It's also a big camera. So it looks all professional. And the High ISO performance is certainly something you can't ignore if that's your thing.

The 5D has full frame too. Is more compact, and it allows for great photos as well. It's also more than half as much the cost of the D3.

If it were me, I'd go for the 5D.
 
"Film" look is subjective. I don't find the 5D filmic at all. The opposite, actually. To me its files are very digi - very clean, almost sanitary. The Canon digital bodies that I've owned that produce film-like files are the 1D and the 1Ds: painterly, rich, pleasing to my eye.

Nothing but my opinion, of course, and probably a minority one.
 
I swapped from a 5d to a d300 earlier this year. After a few months of use, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the canon digital SLR cameras output MUCH better files. Sharper on the pixel level, more workable, better dynamic range, noise, Just about everything you could think of. The 5d kills the d300 in all these areas. The D3 may be slightly better than the 5d in noise, BUT the canon files are EXTREMELY workable, and come out of the camera very flat - which I've finally realised is a good thing.

I'm going to sell the d300, buy a 40d and spend the rest on L prime lenses - which destroy the current nikon primes.

You could by probably nearly 3 5ds for the price of one D3, it's smaller, easier to use, and is capable of producing stunning prints and pictures. Get the 5d, and spend the rest on sweet sweet L primes.
 
I own a 5D and have used a D3. Both cameras kick a$$. Learn to use your raw conversion software and Photoshop to achieve the "look" you want. No doubt the online photos you refer to owe their "film like" look to skillful post processing.
 
L Primes are basically marketing hype. What nonsense. This is the juvenile stuff you read on POTN.


fdigital said:
I swapped from a 5d to a d300 earlier this year. After a few months of use, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the canon digital SLR cameras output MUCH better files. Sharper on the pixel level, more workable, better dynamic range, noise, Just about everything you could think of. The 5d kills the d300 in all these areas. The D3 may be slightly better than the 5d in noise, BUT the canon files are EXTREMELY workable, and come out of the camera very flat - which I've finally realised is a good thing.

I'm going to sell the d300, buy a 40d and spend the rest on L prime lenses - which destroy the current nikon primes.

You could by probably nearly 3 5ds for the price of one D3, it's smaller, easier to use, and is capable of producing stunning prints and pictures. Get the 5d, and spend the rest on sweet sweet L primes.
Click to expand...
 
wait until the 5d replacement is announced, and hope it has environmental seals and a 100% viewfinder.
 
Filmlike?

Filmlike?

As for a digital camera being filmlike hmmm I so wanted to believe it too. Maybe for colour but when you start talking black and white there is just no comparison for me. I am just editing a wedding where I shot a d300 and contax 645 with tri-x side by side. Comparing the digital black and white conversions against good old tri-x, the digi shots fall down big time, the look void, empty and lack tonality.
 
aizan said:
wait until the 5d replacement is announced, and hope it has environmental seals and a 100% viewfinder.
Click to expand...

I doubt Canon is in a hurry to bring this out, since D300 with crop sensor just came. there's no direct competition yet even for current 5D. but who knows...

Nikon D3 was also mentioned, but Canon have their 1xyzD series to compete with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom