![[Gear] Nikon D800 and Canon 5D MKIII ISO Samples](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/large-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/canon-5d-mark-III-iso-performance-D8001_jpg.webp)
The Nikon D800 has been much criticized for its enormous megapixel count. And some have worried that packing 36 megapixels into a full frame sensor might lead to decreased low-light performance. These samples, however, push those worries aside. It's no D4, but for 36 megapixels, I think Nikon should win an award for this. Canon took a different route with the 22-megapixel 5D Mark III, but that paid off, too. See for yourself in the full post!
These Nikon samples are thanks to this source. The Canon samples are thanks to this source. Click on any image for the full-size file.
Update:
Nikon equivalents for the Canon shots below are too large to load here, so please visit the site here for images taken with the D800 in the same conditions, where you can find examples with noise reduction as well!
![[News] The Canon 5D Mark III Announced!](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/canon-5d-mark-iii-back.jpg)
![[Gear] The Nikon D800/D800E is Finally Out! UPDATE](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/D800_24_70_front.jpg)
canon 5 D III winner !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
maybe,... But just slightly ,... (Non the less I do have to see a proper compare first before i do my final judgement!!!! )
But look at the 25600 images,.. both camera's produce images at that ISO that are still ok to use (newspaper etc.) http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
that said,... Look at the resolution,... So Nikon produced a camera with more dan 150% the resolution of Canon's camera and still it can reasonably keep up with Canon's ISO performance !!
Now that's what i call hightech !
And believe it or not ,... i use Canon ( 2 5DII's ) For now that is,... I will be switching over,..
No, nikon actually don't keep up with the canon. Take the 25600 images and scale the nikon image down to Canons resolution and you will find the Nikon a lot noisier. I admit I am a Canon shooter but I also admit I would prefer the d800e for studio work where I can use ISO100 all the time. But the case is I am not shooting most of my images in a studio.
Í am a canon shooter as well Christer,... But mainly in the studio.
let's say the 25600 (wich i think both camera's do pretty well!) When do you use that?
I've been shooting soccer in the evening in a stadium a few times with a budy of mine and used his 7D,.. but never came higher than 6400 ISO,... And if you look at the 6400 ISO pics of both these camera's (in the link,... not those completly different images above) you will see that the Canon as well as the Nikon shoot perfectly fine images.
Apple for Apples please. Same shot, same conditions, same setting, same everything... A true side by side...
Take your current crappy P&S...set it to ISO1600. Go outside in bright sunlight and shoot anything (shutter speed will be very high, but doesn't matter). Go inside and shoot anything. Compare the two...you'll see a lot more noise inside.
High ISO is fine as long as there is plenty of light. To find out how well it performs, underexpose or shoot in crappy light. That's where big photosites help.
That said, the D800's performance looks pretty much like the D700's (within half a stop) so Sony did a reallllly good job w/ the sensor considering how many pixels they crammed into it. Downsampling will make the images look better too.
The 5DmkIII in theory should do better because of the bigger photosites, but Canon is not using Sony's technology so it's still up in the air...
Nikon shooters have very much flooded the comments, the debate of studio vs natural lit really doesn't hold sway, the 3200iso shows the obvious. Nikon users are getting greedy to expect the same low light capabilities from a sensor that is to please the masses of mega pixel hungry gimmick photographers. alas don't take this as hate if you shoot nikon, i merely find 36 mega pixel gratuitous to most who posted on this entry. I found this very valuable Adam and i enjoyed the adults that commented acting as children, i wish this profession/hobby could be reserved for a more mature crowd, i find that too many are too competitive and narrow minded to enjoy the differences in styles, equipment and skills. We all are passionate about the same thing guys, no need to be a dick.
peace.
I don't think the debate is about studio or natural light Frankie,... the debat is about pefectly lit against a low-light situation,.. no matter where that should be. That's a big difference.
When the 5DII came out no canon shooter was complaining over the 22mp res,.. while it was in that time the highest mp count in a semi-pro SLR on the market
Maybe in a decade or so we are shooting 100mp phtoto's on to a 1TB memorycard @30 FPS,.... who knows.
Like i said in my previous post, I think that boosting the res and still perform as good as, or almost as good as a 150% less res camera wich was updated to perfom better on high ISO is a heck of a job and a nice step forward by Nikon. (No i'm not a Nikon shooter,.. yet)
Uh, actually, half-wit, the problem is that the Nikon shot is dark and the Canon shot is brightly exposed. If you weren't dumber than a sack of hammers, you'd understand what that means. But since you obviously are, let me spell that out for you: noise shows up IN THE SHADOWS.
Everyone who says this is not a fare comparison should go check out Juan Carlos Ayala's link http://www.imaging-resource.co... this is a direct comparison.
it would be nice if tested on the same object...
Bored with cold analysis and putting away the electron microscope, I reflect a bit...
1. Steve McCurry shot most of his classics with iso 800 or less... with nary a plant or color wheel in sight.
2. Go back and read all the D3 reviews and remember how "even that tier" of high-iso-breakthrough drew gasps for redefining the impossible with photography.
3. And now there's a fuss over 25,600 and 6,400?
I think Canon 5d mark iii is less noiser than d800...but at 800-1600 i think there's no problem using the one or the other....so....i really want to see the difference in dynamic range....more dynamic range = less noise when i retouch the photo and the sensor manufactered by sony usually do better than canon....
Too much pixel peeping, focus on your creativity and the rest will come.
I agree here...the real test of both these new cameras is out in the real world shooting things that matters to the average pro..people, places and things under varied situations. Not particularly thrilled with bottles and bookshelves, cat's or dogs shot on tripods with exactly the same lighting..
D800E has more detail....so....less noise when i SLIGHTLY drop the detail and amount slider in lightroom......
moiré excluded obviously...eheh....
both cameras are incredible in low light. wow
flashligt vs daylight. this fair?
check on update.
Canon is so awesome, clearly the winner... !!!
I'm just copying this from another website where they compared images at ISO 12800 side by side, where a user found some oddities in the EXIF data:
"Check out the exif data so you can see that the canon has more than 2/3 stop higher exposure because the shutter speed is 1/1600, while Nikon located at 1 / 2500th Thus, the canon has had to have faster shutter speed in the same aperture and ISO setting to get the same picture, in other words, either iso's wrong or so, all the lights weaker (which would be pretty weird imo?). Then it's JPG images you compare also, which makes it even a little more wrong.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9Y8uPScsX1A/T2INYg-IMsI/AAAAAAAAFm4/C...
Here, I have exactly the same crop as comparison, but with raw files developed in PS5 with some ACR beta. Both have the same Develop settings, with type 20% color noise reduction and zero luminance. Consider the different exposures, it is therefore iso12800 on the D800 and corresponding roughly iso7-8000 on the 5D."
http://feber.se/foto/art/238585/isojmfrelse_5d_vs_d800/#disqus_thread (Swedish)
1600th is faster than 2500th? pls explain.
Translator problems, it should be "...Thus, the canon has had to have longer shutter speed in the same aperture..."
In the EXIF data: Canon images are procesed with PS, the Nikon pictures seem to be a JPEG from the camera.
Thanks for the images and the link to the alternate site where I can view the D800 pictures of the same kind. I think I have to agree that ISO wise, at low ISO - 800 and under for me (since I am currently using a d90 which barely makes it at 1600 in a dark situation), there isn't much of a difference. The difference comes in at the higher end where the D800 is already getting pushed quite a bit. The Canon definitely outdoes the Nikon at high ISO (25600 is where i stopped looking). That said with NR set to high on Nikon, it comes close... maybe 1/2 stop or so but Nikon does retain more details. Perhaps it has to do with the higher resolution. I decided to get the d800 either way due to my investment in 4 of the lenses. I also deem it better than d90 in many aspects (the d700 already was better but the d800 compared to the d700 had cleaner images search for the comparison and you will find it). I do shoot concerts amateurly, mostly for fun. Being able to work in the 6400 range or even just the 3200 range is a major plus for me. I think in the end of the comparison, if you are an enthusiast or maybe even a pro, it depends on what equipment you already have and if you are willing to switch it all out for another system or just make do with what you have. I did shoot my concert with a d90... made do with what I had... PS a little bit and had some decent images as well. Canon or Nikon... I think it is the shooter's preference at the high end/FX level. Compare the DX level and you will see a bit of differences still today on low noise and since you can only push so far on DX, that's where choosing a nikon or a canon will come in. high iso low noise, 5dmk3 > d800, but it wasn't so long ago that d700 > 5dmk2 so it will forever be changing and in comparison, we won't be able to switch systems each time something new comes up that is better. Who is better than whom just ends up to be a fanboy/girl that wants to say one is better than the other. Thanks for the picture comparison though for those of us that want to see what we have currently compared to what could have been.
Terrible Comparison The Nikon was used in a somewhat backlit situation this comparison makes no sense shoot both Cameras under the same lighting and then we can compare
Why everybody is comparing jpgs? At http://www.imaging-resource.com/ you can download the RAW files and compare them with same conditions of noise reduction. And..... nobody has seen that canon´s images ares 2/3 EV + exposed than nikon´s ?? So nikon´s images are underexposed compared to canon´s... so noisier than in a correct exposure
Too much talk. Go use your camera to take photos, please. Either one of this will be more than most people here could even dream of needing. Some of us will get one, and that's great. Me included. But I could care less, creativity and vision have nothing to do with pixel peeping or tech specs. Thanks.
And that's directed at both Canon and Nikon people here. Both cameras are true gems, which can basically do anything you'd ever want with a digital camera. The rest is just keyboard banter. I'm happy knowing I can have yet another useful tool in my arsenal!
I don't think it's a good or fair test. You can crank up ISO to 6400 on most cameras, and providing the scene is well lit, it can look ok. Pitch black environment, at 6400 you'll see LOTSA grain... Nikon looked to be in a dimly light area compared to Canon...
But in saying that, Nikon is not pushed for it's ISO performance, but the Canon was... So I knew Canon would win even before looking...
Also, to anyone looking to buy, it's worth noting the price difference also.
It's personal preference, but the Canon easily wins with ISO Performance, and I am impressed with it's ISO capabilities...
But I have spent a lot on Nikon lenses so I am Nikon faithful
It looks like somebody would like to shit on Nikon! What a bad comparins images.. what a shame...
I think Led Zeppelin prophetically named it's song after this endless thread.
http://youtu.be/sW6xaDGmffQ
Since the Mark III has 2 stops better iso performance than the Mark II you could sell your Canon EF 400/2,8 L IS II USM and buy a EF 400/4,0 DO IS USM instead and get the same or better noise quality as before. Then you could afford a brand new Nikon d800 with optics. You get both 36Mpixel and badass iso with the canon. Cheers everybody. ;-)
This is a terrible comparison. Its not the same lighting or the same image. What is the point? Obviously a Canon fan I guess
Can you guys pls see the "Update notification as well on side of the photos". In case if you missed it here is copy and paste from there.
P.S > Next time pls read the article carefully and comment coz it make you look like an idiot. Update:Nikon equivalents for the Canon shots below are too large to load here, so please visit the site here for images taken with the D800 in the same conditions, where you can find examples with noise reduction as well!
Stop the ford and chevy comparison with canon or nikon cause if your not paying your bill with your camera than your just a gear head what would karsh ,adams and the rest of the great photographer's say to this nonsense!
Well among other things, they'd probably recommend you go back to grade school and learn the difference between "your" and "you're," as well as the fact that an apostrophe before an "s" indicates the possessive, not the plural.
This thread is a serious hate-a-thon...for a site & thread where peeps are at minimum specialists (fstoppers isn't anywhere as broad FB i.e.) & sometimes professionals, it's straight-laden with an extreme amount unnecessary hyper-negative stabs. Fuck.
Jr. Miller
Glad it wasn't my wedding you shot at iso 1600 on a 20d they must look awful! bad enough at iso 800.
Aside from the inaccurate comparison of two cameras shooting two different atmospheres (Nikon in an obviously low-lit setting and Canon's obviously in a studio) let us remember too that aside from the first "Image Sample" on Nikon's list, all of the following ISO examples are significantly cropped - inevitably revealing more noise: just another reason this article is inappropriately called "a comparison." It seems that some of us need to reexamine the simple process of the scientific method - the distinction between controls and variables.
I'm publishing information about Nikon D800 in my blog: http://www.jmallorqui.com
I'm currently "struggling" along w/ a Canon 50D for nature photography. It's about time to upgrade, and I'm surprised to say that the high pixel Nikon has an unexpected degree of my attention. Here's why I care about pixels - LEAVES. As in, the millions of little critters hanging off trees. When I shoot a forest of trees, I need sheer resolution to render the detail of leaves and pine needles. My research so far has me leaning towards either the Nikon or saving some serious $$$ with a 5D Mark II. That would be less of an upgrade, but still a big upgrade nonetheless. It's looking like the bargain pick for what it provides to a shooter like me. (I have to buy new lenses in either case since I'm using APS-C lenses today - and yes, I know, that's part of my leaf-rendering problem too.)
Who whant's to use 25000000000000 ISO ????
Not me for sure.. cant they go for more low iso instead.. much more intrest!
Event/Sport photographers who have to freeze fast moving subjects or rapidly changing environments in poor light where flash/additional light modifiers aren't permitted but still need a reasonably clean image
From my understanding, when downsampled/upsampled to the same image size/resolution - the noise from both are very comparable with the D800 edging out in detail.
And I do agree, high ISO matters. But then again I'm very much like Ben Goff above where I'm a photojournalist and shoot at night a fair bit. I never know if I'm shooting the late afternoon outdoors concert or late night indoors music show.
That said, I shoot with the D800. Haven't had a problem pushing the ISO. The dynamic range of the D800 is just a winner/killer for me.
I have read this entire thread and there are some very interesting points of view. Some have validity. Some are not really reading the same thread as I am. LOL.
The baseline of any test, for a camera or in a real life situation, is to have "Identical" points of reference.
This has not happened in this piece. Ergo, the test is a failure and any conjecture on it becomes redundant.
Premature comparison and waste of time. Use the same lighting scenario when you compare two different cameras.
I own the 5D mark III, I work often with a friend who owns the Nikon D800 (and the D3s).
If you see to the quality at high iso (from 1600 to 3200/4000) I can tell you that Nikon absolutely wins on photos and Canon absolutely wins on video.
In photo the D800 has a awesome grain at high iso, the 5D mark III has red dots instead.
In video the D800 is not usable beyond the 1250 ISO, the 5D mark III instead is noiseless till 3200iso and usable till 6400/8000iso.
Here's a much simpler look at the situation. You'll notice the camera with the best noise is.......the Canon 6D! Followed closely by the D600. While the D800 unsurprisingly has the most visible noise, if you were to reduce the image resolution to match that of the Mk III, the Nikon would actually have BETTER noise than the Mk III. The Mk III has some ratty blue channel action going on. But look at that 6D, ay? Not too shabby.
Yep.... this test doesn´t work. How about comparing the same picture, taken with both cameras? It is not that hard, isn´t it?