gavinlg
Veteran
Gee what a nice guy you are!
All I have to say is, I've used both systems, and specifically both cameras. I've also used nikon AF primes and canon L primes, both under professional paid situations. I know which is better for what I do.
Last edited:
peripatetic
Well-known
Obviously the D3 is a better camera and will give you images under conditions the 5D will not. The 5D though really does produce images with a very special look and within its operating parameters I can't see that the IQ can be significantly bettered.
What I want in a camera is the best possible IQ for the lowest price. The 5D has held that sweet spot since its inception and still holds it.
Instead of the internet clamour for weather sealing, high fps, blah blah blah. I'd love them to put the 5D sensor in a plastic body, strip off half the features and cut the price in half. I'm actually afraid that Canon are going to produce a WORSE camera in the 5D MkII.
I mean really - how many people actually need weather sealing? I certainly don't. Don't need dust removal. Don't need IS. Don't need a big LCD screen. Don't need a direct print button. Don't need more than 3fps. Don't need ISO 25600. Don't need 50 custom functions. Don't need 50 high-precision AF points. Don't need to be able to focus on people running directly at the camera at high speed. Don't need a built-in vertical grip. Don't need wifi file transfer. You get the picture.
If you care about any of that stuff the D3 is the camera for you. If you don't then get the 5D and spend the difference on lenses.
What I want in a camera is the best possible IQ for the lowest price. The 5D has held that sweet spot since its inception and still holds it.
Instead of the internet clamour for weather sealing, high fps, blah blah blah. I'd love them to put the 5D sensor in a plastic body, strip off half the features and cut the price in half. I'm actually afraid that Canon are going to produce a WORSE camera in the 5D MkII.
I mean really - how many people actually need weather sealing? I certainly don't. Don't need dust removal. Don't need IS. Don't need a big LCD screen. Don't need a direct print button. Don't need more than 3fps. Don't need ISO 25600. Don't need 50 custom functions. Don't need 50 high-precision AF points. Don't need to be able to focus on people running directly at the camera at high speed. Don't need a built-in vertical grip. Don't need wifi file transfer. You get the picture.
If you care about any of that stuff the D3 is the camera for you. If you don't then get the 5D and spend the difference on lenses.
--
Well-known
Thanks for all your input so far. Just to clarify one thing:
Canon 5D from the English version of the 5D user manual page 170:
Sensor size: 35.8 x 23.9mm
Nikon D3 from the English version of the 3D user manual page 427:
Sensor size: 36 x 23.9mm
So in fact the Nikon has the larger sensor - not that it would sway me
Canon 5D from the English version of the 5D user manual page 170:
Sensor size: 35.8 x 23.9mm
Nikon D3 from the English version of the 3D user manual page 427:
Sensor size: 36 x 23.9mm
So in fact the Nikon has the larger sensor - not that it would sway me
MCTuomey
Veteran
excellent B&W digi conversions are difficult, i believe, especially if the standard is MF or, god forbid, LF. digi can't get there, imho. digi conversions vs 35mm B&W film, okay, they're closer with the nod still to film. but not the larger formats.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Shouldnt the current Nikon Pro model be set up against the current Canon pro model? The 1ds mkIII. The 5D is 3 y.o so I hope for Nikons sake that the D3 is better
Sure, except that the 5D is often held up as the least expensive route to full frame. as noted above, its files are wonderful. you can have a used 5D, 35L, and 85L for less than the price of just the D3 ... and output very close to the D3 or Canon's 1Ds II, in most users' opinions. the 5D is a spectacular value, and you can buy it well-depreciated
MCTuomey
Veteran
well said - great advice
when canon produces that camera i will buy two. the digi equivalent of an M4 ...
infrequent
Well-known
Thanks for all your input so far. Just to clarify one thing:
Canon 5D from the English version of the 5D user manual page 170:
Sensor size: 35.8 x 23.9mm
Nikon D3 from the English version of the 3D user manual page 427:
Sensor size: 36 x 23.9mm
So in fact the Nikon has the larger sensor - not that it would sway me
hah! never trust a company that makes copy machines. ; )
hans voralberg
Veteran
My 2 cents ? Go spend your money on a post-processing course, for example from Capture One. It helps. I used the 5D, and I've seen pics from it that look crap, or not that much better than, at the time when I use it, the D200. It's horse for course, general comparison wont go anywhere. As a matter of fact, im using the Fuji S5, it's quite possibly the worst Dslr out there, but still it's good enough for me.
Last edited:
willie_901
Veteran
I feel compelled to mention that the 5D is not well-sealed from dust and moisture compared to th D3. Of course you can buy two D5s for the price of the D3. Keep one in the box and use the other. When you get tired of looking at the dirt in the viewfinder sell it on eBay and start using the new body.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Come on, sensors can be cleaned. It's no big deal unless you're extremely nervous about any DIY work. Hell, if I can manage it, anyone can ...
I've had two 5D's and they're no more prone to dust than my 1-series bodies. It's changing lenses that for the most part introduces dust, not the lack or presence of weather-sealing.
I've had two 5D's and they're no more prone to dust than my 1-series bodies. It's changing lenses that for the most part introduces dust, not the lack or presence of weather-sealing.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Your flickr photos are very good, and your NYC photos are very perceptive.
But you're 20 years old. You don't realize that some $10 thrift store lenses can shoot rings around L Canon glass. You can even do better with a 1910 coated Kodak lens glued to an adapter on a Canon 5D.
All this stuff you get injected into your head about "L". L lenses are good. They are not that good. You're buying a little weather sealing and a lot of baloney.
If you read forums like POTN you'd think every housewife who wanted baby pix needs L primes, or that you get better color saturation or other such nonsense.
It's exactly that. Nonsense.
But you're 20 years old. You don't realize that some $10 thrift store lenses can shoot rings around L Canon glass. You can even do better with a 1910 coated Kodak lens glued to an adapter on a Canon 5D.
All this stuff you get injected into your head about "L". L lenses are good. They are not that good. You're buying a little weather sealing and a lot of baloney.
If you read forums like POTN you'd think every housewife who wanted baby pix needs L primes, or that you get better color saturation or other such nonsense.
It's exactly that. Nonsense.
gavinlg
Veteran
I'm aware that POTN is an absolutely rubbish forum, and that the general perspective on there is that you need an "L" lens to take pictures of your neighbors cat - I don't buy into that kind of crap. However I have used quite a few L lenses, and while some are only average in optical quality (especially on the wide end - 14 f2.8L, 16-35 f2.8L etc), and sometimes there is a variance in copy quality, lenses such as the 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, 85 1.2L and 135 f2L are magnificent in all respects.
I recently tested a OM zuiko 28 f3.5 against a good 17-40f4L I had on the 5d. I had expected the 28 f3.5 to be sharper throughout the frame, and, it was. It held better to the edges, and had a better color signature, and was less contrasty (a good thing on digital cameras). The zuiko was probably 1/8th of the size. Sure, all this was great, but when it actually came to using it under a bit of pressure, the zuiko flared so badly that sometimes even at f11 I was getting veiling flare - washed out colors and internal reflections/color blobs. On the flipside the canon 17-40 was nearly impossible to make flare, I could have the full sun in one upper corner of the frame, even at f4 and there would be barely any loss of contrast or internal reflections present.
What I'm getting to is sure an olympus trip 35 lens could be slightly sharper than a 17-40f4L lens at 35mm (according to ken rockwell - the lord of stupid opinionated dribble), but when it comes to the crunch and you have to use it under pressure in a difficult situation, it's not gong to be able to handle flare, it's not going to be able to handle rain, it's not going to be able to handle extreme contrast in scenes where CA will eat up the edges of the frame. I've used my previous L marked lenses in those situations and have been able to trust that they are going to work.
At the moment I can't say the same about my nikon and nikkor 18-200, which sometimes just randomly refuses to even try to focus altogether during shoots.
Last edited:
navilluspm
Well-known
I have neither camera (nor can I afford them). But I have been "investing" towards a Canon 5D. Here is why I would pick the Canon over the Nikon: Contax, Rollei and Leica glass will work with it with the right adapter. Canon wides are not that great, but Contax wides are not bad at all. Given, you can get Zeiss glass for a D3 now, but the Contax and Rollei lenses are much cheaper. Anyway, that is my opinion.
willie_901
Veteran
Please note that I specifically said the viewfinder. Do a Google search for "canon 5d" "dust viewfinder".
Cleaning the sensor is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
Also, no one appreciates water sealing until it's too late.
Of course if you never use the 5D where it's exposed to dust or moisture, its lack of sealing is not an issue.
aizan
Veteran
i'd bust a gut if the 5d replacement didn't have seals. after all, the nikon d300, olympus e-3, and pentax k20d have seals already.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Have you owned a 5D and actually used it for a period of time? I see you're a nikon user at present. I would sadly expect certain nikon users to feel "compelled" to point out such trivial points relative to the performance of the 5D. Dust bunnies? Okay. I apologize for missing the point of your post. I was trying to give it the benefit of the doubt - most users would find sensor dust a bit more significant. And more typical of full frame sensors in my experience. The 5D sensor attracts about as much dust as my 1Ds - makes sense as they're both full frame.
Btw, the opinions generated by google searches are probably worth what you paid for them ... personally i prefer the opinions of people i know to be competent and experienced.
It bears repeating that changing lenses is typically responsible for far more dust entering a camera body than lack of seals. And fwiw, i shot most of a youth soccer match last spring with a 5D and a 300/2.8 in moderately heavy rain without a hitch, surprising myself in the process. Not bad for the "permeable" 5D. Don't know if such performance is typical, probably not, but you don't have to baby the camera.
Let's keep the partisanship to a minimum, consistent w/ the OP's request.
Cheers
Btw, the opinions generated by google searches are probably worth what you paid for them ... personally i prefer the opinions of people i know to be competent and experienced.
It bears repeating that changing lenses is typically responsible for far more dust entering a camera body than lack of seals. And fwiw, i shot most of a youth soccer match last spring with a 5D and a 300/2.8 in moderately heavy rain without a hitch, surprising myself in the process. Not bad for the "permeable" 5D. Don't know if such performance is typical, probably not, but you don't have to baby the camera.
Let's keep the partisanship to a minimum, consistent w/ the OP's request.
Cheers
gavinlg
Veteran
Agreed. At present my d300 has dust in the VF. My 5d did too, but I was able to just unclip the focussing screen and use a blower to blow it out. The d300 focussing screen is much harder to get out.
5Ds aren't built as well as say the D3, BUT they sure as hell are reliable cameras.
majid
Fazal Majid
I have both the 5D and the D3 (and a R-D1, and a M8, and way too many film cameras). The D3 has 1 1/2 to 2 stops advantage in high-ISO noise performance. It focuses much faster (not that I really care, since I use a manual focus Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4 Planar with it), has a better viewfinder (I can manual focus with it as well as with my father's old F3) and it has a faster sustained frame rate. It is also much heavier. If Canon made an improved 5D with the same high-ISO performance, I would have gone with that. Ergonomics are a question of personal choice, I find both cameras to handle just fine.
I don't know what "film-like" means. Sure, the grain texture of specific B&W films like APX 100 or Tri-X (the old kind) printed on gelatin silver paper using an optical enlarger is inimitable, but as far as having a gradual shoulder in the highlights go, the superior dynamic range of the DSLRs allow you to do the same in post-processing. The only film that can match them is Velvia 50, Neopan 100 or Kodachrome 64.
The D300, I'm sorry to say, doesn't hold a candle to either in the image quality department. It may handle faster than the 5D, but the viewfinder is just as nasty as any other 1.6x crop DSLR. There's a reason why people always compare the D300 to the much cheaper 40D, and seldom to the 5D...
As to which one to get, if you want to extract the maximum performance in low light as I do (the M8 is a major disappointment in this regard, even with a Noctilux), and if you can afford it, get the D3. Nikon priced it very competitively because they had to make a big splash to get the PJ market back, and it is tremendous value. It blows the 1DmkIII completely out of the water, for instance, for a small premium, Nikon could easily have charged an extra $1000 for it and people would still line up to get the D3. Otherwise, the 5D is the best value for a serious amateur (or cash-strapped pro, or one who needs to go light).
Of course, availability of the camera is also an issue. Given Nikon's track record, I think it will take at least another year before the D3 is readily available. The 5D is available today. My friend at Calumet tells me it's by far their best-selling camera, there's a reason for that.
I don't know what "film-like" means. Sure, the grain texture of specific B&W films like APX 100 or Tri-X (the old kind) printed on gelatin silver paper using an optical enlarger is inimitable, but as far as having a gradual shoulder in the highlights go, the superior dynamic range of the DSLRs allow you to do the same in post-processing. The only film that can match them is Velvia 50, Neopan 100 or Kodachrome 64.
The D300, I'm sorry to say, doesn't hold a candle to either in the image quality department. It may handle faster than the 5D, but the viewfinder is just as nasty as any other 1.6x crop DSLR. There's a reason why people always compare the D300 to the much cheaper 40D, and seldom to the 5D...
As to which one to get, if you want to extract the maximum performance in low light as I do (the M8 is a major disappointment in this regard, even with a Noctilux), and if you can afford it, get the D3. Nikon priced it very competitively because they had to make a big splash to get the PJ market back, and it is tremendous value. It blows the 1DmkIII completely out of the water, for instance, for a small premium, Nikon could easily have charged an extra $1000 for it and people would still line up to get the D3. Otherwise, the 5D is the best value for a serious amateur (or cash-strapped pro, or one who needs to go light).
Of course, availability of the camera is also an issue. Given Nikon's track record, I think it will take at least another year before the D3 is readily available. The 5D is available today. My friend at Calumet tells me it's by far their best-selling camera, there's a reason for that.
MCTuomey
Veteran
thanks for the excellent post, majid. very informative!
--
Well-known
Italian comparison
Italian comparison
http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/TEST_Canon_Nikon_full_frame/00_pag.htm
Italian comparison
http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/TEST_Canon_Nikon_full_frame/00_pag.htm