In reply to Stephen.

Hi Stephen,
Currently, I use both Sony and Nikon, but I rarely use my Nikon lenses on the Sony, mostly because I get no automatic help and no EXIF information. However, it seems that an adapter for the Nikon F mount is on the way for the Sony E-mount providing auto focus (I can’t wait!). From a Canon perspective, this is already an option. It seems that the new Sony A7R II is optimized for using Canon lenses and that auto focusing should be really good. But manual focusing using the Sony, is really no problem. I wouldn’t worry too much on this. The Sony camera is, in terms of dynamic range so much more than the Canon cameras. It’s not always, that you can expose properly, to get the details from a specific shadow. But the more dynamic range you have available, the more likely it is, that you can raise the shadows, within one exposure. The quality of the noise in the shadows of the Canon is really bad because it has red and green color noise, which is harder to get rid of. Regarding the 70-200 – Sony doesn’t have a f/2.8 offering yet. I ‘only’ have the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, and that is awesome. The sharpest lens that I own. My guess is that the Canon is similar, but the Sony 70-200 f/4 will not be able to compete.

A bit late to the conversation … Nevertheless, I had my 5D III stolen last month (with a bunch of other equipment) and I’ll be compensated enough to purchase gear that will replace the loss. I like my 5D, with the lighting quick responsiveness and focusing action. I’ve preordered the new Sony a7R II, but wonder about all the lenses and the focusing and handling performance. Yes, the DR is an advantage on the latest sony sensor, but your sentence here really is crucial: “Shadows should remain shadows on the Canon 5D Mark III.” Why would I want to raise the esposure in shadows 2 or 3 stops, rather than properly exposing scenes? I love both the canon lens line up, plus all the 3rd party lens offerings, particularly the stuff coming from Sigma (and Tamron). I realize I could purchase Canon lenses (again) plus the metabones adaptor, but what will work is rather unpredictable. Would it be stupid to repurchase the 5D (plus 70-200 f/2.8 IS) rather than the new Sony?

In reply to Greg Duda.

Hi Greg,
I think this is a wild goose hunt, you are on. What you see here, has more to do with the processing, than the actual capabilities of the cameras. These might be shot as a JPEG photo, and not a RAW photo. Then you rely pretty much on what the camera does. The Nikons have D-Lightning, which does some enhancements on the shadows. But that really doesn’t add anything, that wasn’t there. What is important though, is that newer Nikon cameras in general does have better dynamic range than Canons do. And Canon has got some color noise in the shadows, that can be difficult to get rid of.
I don’t know if that answers your question.
–Jacob

In reply to Jacob Surland.

Jacob,

here’s a typical look from Canon and Nikon side by side: http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/010/1/9/Nikon_D60_vs_Canon_EOS_400D_by_knifeofdreams.jpg Much detail and contrast in both shades and lights on Nikon vs. rather muddy shades and close-to-burn-out lights on Canon. However, the difference in the Dynamic Range of those 2 cameras wasn’t that huge yet – 11 Evs on Canon vs 11.4 Evs on Nikon. How would you explain that? Maybe there are some other factors involved, too, like in-camera preprocessing with some curve algorithms? As for the colors, the colors from Canon look more natural to me, with an exception of the skin tones.

Btw., where do I find the next section on Dynamic Range? Can you post a link?

In reply to Greg Duda.

Hi Greg,
You’re very welcome. Yes there is a lot of difference, and it has to do with the much higher Dynamic Range of both Nikon and Sony cameras, compared to the Canon cameras. If you read the next section on Dynamic Range, you will see example photos, where I show how huge the difference between the Dynamic range of Canon and Nikon cameras. You can call it more clarity or details in the shadows, but it is because of a higher dynamic range.
–Jacob

Thaks you very much for this review. I have a question which is of much significance to me. In the comparison of these 2 photos (https://caughtinpixels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Nikon-D800-and-Canon-5D-Mark-III-comparison.jpg) you concentrate on their color reproduction. To me, there’s one thing that attracts my attention more than the color. While the bright parts of the both images (the water and the sky) look more or less the same as far as the number of the detail is concerned, the dark parts (the rocks) look very much different – the Nikon picture reveals much more detail and contrast than its Canon counterpart. Actually, I was reading before about Nikons bringing a more clear and neat image than Canons and these 2 pictures seem to confirm that. Would you confirm that Nikons bring more contrast and clarity in the dark areas of a picture while the general level of exposure stays the same? Many thanks in advance.

In reply to Paul.

Now having been in both camps, and even joined the Sony camp too, with a Sony A7R, I still wouldn’t go for Canon. In the kind of photography I do, I really enjoy the extra Dynamic Range the Nikons (and the Sony) also have. It is quite a lot. Today I would probably go for Sony, with an adapter. I do this for my Nikon lenses – what annoys me, is that I don’t get full integration, which is no exif information. Manual focus I survive without. But using a Canon 16-35mm with a canon adapter on the Sony A7R is not a bad option, because there are better adapters for Sony<-> Canon. You might want to read this https://caughtinpixels.com/reviews-2/5-reasons-to-buy-a-sony-a7r-and-5-reasons-not-to-buy-a-sony-a7r/ article before jumping to conclusions. But bottomline – Nikon is superior to Canon in terms a better sensor. And with Nikon D810 out, this gap is just increased.

Now that the new Canon 16-35 f4 is has been released and tested, many are saying it is nearly as good as the nikon 14-24 and better than the Nikon 16-35 f4 vr. If that was the case would you still have settled on the D800? I am having a really hard time deciding which camp to join in the full frame world. I only see myself getting two lenses for the first while, Nikon; 16-35 f4 and 24-120 or Canon; 16-35 f4 is and 24-105. I do a lot of travel to Europe and elsewhere so that would be my primary use. Thanks for any insight!

In reply to Thomas Jacobsen.

Hi Thomas,
I don’t have any hands on experience, but according to Photozone.de, this lens is better than both 16-35 f/2.8 and 17-40 f/4. Reading the review, I would consider this lens good enough for me.
–Jacob

Hi Jacob,

Any thougts on the release of the new Canon 16-35 mm f/4 L Lens? Could it be the game chaner in favor of the 5d MK III?