Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Nikon D5200 vs Canon 5D Mark III


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,727 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:28 AM



Let's pit the $700 Nikon D5200 against the $3000 Canon 5D Mark III and see which one comes out alive.
 


  • markm, Taxrummawoodo and SanSanych like this

#2 PAVP

PAVP

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:32 AM

Thanks Andrew.  Once again beautiful images.  I must say i'm shocked at the low light quality of the D5200 and I also must say that the 5D3 looked very nice as well.  It holds onto so much of it's IQ in low light.  I'd love to see the D5200 get a hack to tweak the image a bit and see if we might get even finer grain and more DR minus banding.



#3 alanpoiuyt

alanpoiuyt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:37 AM

Grabbed the D5200 yesterday. Great find - thx Andrew. I'm have trouble finding your recommended custom settings tweaks in the menu. How do you get to sharpness, contrast, tone, NR etc?

#4 Thomas S. Mihailos

Thomas S. Mihailos

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:01 AM

Andrew,

 

Do yourself a big favor champ. 

Don't formulate an opinion about a camera if you haven't physically tested it (1DX)

I have two and the video is not, in the least like the 5D MArk III's

never mind what the technical specifications state. 

One thing most people are forgetting is that the sensors are not identical plus the 1DX has to Digic 5's dedicated, 

The 5D Mark III has only one.

Your posts are informative, witty and amusing at times but . . .

they take an ugly turn into sounding like the fruitless raving banter of a silly commentator when you go off into tangents on how Canon has betrayed the little guy, no they haven't they have a whole lineup to choose from according to budget.

As far as the 1DC that is a horse of a different strain altogether, and again, let's be honest, and test it out before "reviewing" it, it would only be the right thing to do.

 

 

I have one with a second on the way and have used it "simply" with old Nikon glass and an Iscorama nestled on top.

Simply like most camera men in the past have done. Try to do as much in camera and as little afterwards, it changes the result.

Just like shooting black and white and adding physical red and green filters as the contrast (in camera) that cannot be added in post.

The advice of Orson Wells to Peter Bogdanovich in how to film Paper Moon in 1973.

When it is, it looks and more importantly "feels" different.

The result is "organic".

I am not a Canon fanboy, nor one of Nikon, Red , Sony, Panasonic, Arri or any other camera I own or use.

I am particular to the tool being one I had whip one out my bag with me on a split seconds notice, in the middle of a pouring rainstorm without batting an eyelash, only the 1DX and the 1DC can do that - and do it like no other.

This is the 1DX with the Canon 50mm f1.2L completely weather sealed from a Fuerza Bruta concert with my wife back in the summer.

They poured and sprayed water all over us during the whole concert.

We could ring out our clothes and fill a bucket afterwards that's how bad it was.

The camera was covered in water and little bit of styrofoam and I wasn't really concerned.

 

She did the editing and added the music.

 

 

Canon may have it's downfall's in steep price, but they do deliver a product unlike no other.

 

 

And although this comment will never probably meant to be posted, because you will have to review it before hand - it doesn't matter one bit. It was actually meant for you.

 

In closing your Bridge (Anamorphic) 

It is one of the most beautiful pieces I have ever seen. It is touching, moving and full of "feeling"

When i first watched it, I sent it directly to my wife, we are both fans of classical music and even though the piece is an AIR rendition, it is still none the less beautiful.



#5 Sebastian Leitner

Sebastian Leitner

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:12 AM

hi there. i have to chime in here because i feel the need of clearing up something.

 

do not judge picture quality from looking at the raw footage only! the bad nikon 24bit codec will easily break apart in color correction and certainly in grading in post! where it might be enough for web, a high quality (cinematic) production starts off by transcoding to a sound format (respectively prores 422) - 5DtoRGB offers the best quality and i'm sure after that the nikon footage will not longer look that similar.

 

also: is the nikon moire free? i daubt it, the 5dmk3 is and has beautiful details (even without sharpening, who needs that kind of sharpness on a big screen anyways) and no aliasing whatsoever! on neither of the possible resolutions and framerates. if you use the 5dmk3's interframe option, the IPB it offers the same technical specs as the nikon (24bit, smaller filesize, good compression quality). difference gone.

 

in april there is an update coming for the 5dmk3 that will probably bring fullHD hdmi out - hey say it will be 422, but i seriously doubt that, like it was on the nikon d800, where it was confirmed that it is the same signal just put in a 422 container. but there goes the advantage of the fillHD out of the nikon.

 

bottom line: the video quality is nothing like "the same". it is very similar in the low setting. but with the intraframe ALL-I codec (also together with magic latern) you have a wonderful cinematic picture (with the right picture profile for more dynamics) that holds up beautifully in post: no aliasing added when sharpened, nearly broadcast standard (100mbit foor ALL-I, BBC), less banding and artifacts, practically noise free at ISO derivates of 160.

 

of course the prize point is a huge argument, but again: the quality is not even closely the same (built quality and video quality). i'm sure there are a lot of other aspects i did not mention besides the video features (i only use the mk3 for that).



#6 wolfkil

wolfkil

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:24 AM

Hello, I just came recently across this very nice page. So please forgive in case I missed something I may ask here. And I am a pure hobby photographer so not at all aiming at > 1k € equipment.

 

Indeed the 5100 looks very interesting to replace my six year old Nikon DSLR and hopefully altogether my Pana-mini-DV cam. What I am still a little bit concerned is the rolling shutter effect and the jerking when doing panning (is there a fixed word for this effect?). There are still these HD camcorders around (e.g. Panasonic HC-X909) with a comparable price as the 5200 but solely aimed at shooting video. So do they anything better than a 5200 or GH3 (as I told I will never think of a class like 5D)?

 

Sorry for this non-pro question here. But in case that you have tested a pro-sumer camcorder like the HC-X909 I would be interested on your experiences.

 

Thanks again

Wolfgang



#7 A2T2

A2T2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:26 AM

Wow, I think Andrew said all that, but in any event they look the same!



#8 markm

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:40 PM

The Nikon wins hands down. Higher resolution and more latitude. The thing is though we know the Mark 3 is inferior but with bokeh shots it has a filmic look that hasn't been beaten and that's it's strength.

 

I hate these little DSLR's form factor with their fiddly little buttons and rubbish monitoring. Although on a budget definately good. I bet the Nikon is the worst of the lot in this regard and it's limited lens choice. However Image is king on a budget.



#9 ahmed Ghazzawi

ahmed Ghazzawi

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:16 PM

The C300 is so far away from both of these 2 cameras , i work at an HD broadcast network and the final image broadcasted from the C300 is much much sharper and cleaner from any ( soft and muddy ) dslr . Personally i prefer a full frame look but the broadcasted results for these are still immature . Its fine for any independent projects , corporates , dvd or for the net , however this is not the case for an HD broadcast work were the C300 shines . 
apart from resolution the C300 is unmatched with its proper clean audio xlr inputs , hi iso , rolling shutter and many other features like histogram ; a proper histogram , big , clear and could be set in seconds ,plus the magic ND filters .
still i prefer the full frame image of the canon 5d mk 3 but only not for HD broadcast , it looses too much from its magic .
thank you for sharing



#10 Optionald

Optionald

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:32 PM

Andrew,

Thanks for the test. Did you ever get to test a D5100? I know the 5200 has the new sensor from Toshiba, but other than that they seem like pretty much the same camera (plus and minus some autofocus points). I'd be curious to see if the D5100 was delivering similar quality and no one bothered to test it because of all the hurdles Nikon puts on their cameras to get clean video out of it.



#11 PAVP

PAVP

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:41 PM

As for the D5200 vs 5Dmk3 footage holding up when tweaked in NLE, there are actually people who have worked with the D5200 footage and have been able to make adjustments with good results from the D5200 internal codec.  Whatever they did it works much better than you'd think.  Then you also still have the option to add an external recorder to the D5200 and it would still be cheaper than the 5Dmk3.



#12 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,727 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:30 PM

Andrew,

Thanks for the test. Did you ever get to test a D5100? I know the 5200 has the new sensor from Toshiba, but other than that they seem like pretty much the same camera (plus and minus some autofocus points). I'd be curious to see if the D5100 was delivering similar quality and no one bothered to test it because of all the hurdles Nikon puts on their cameras to get clean video out of it.

 

The D5100 wasn't usable because it lacked manual control of shutter and ISO in video mode. The image was poor too, with moire and aliasing issues. Not much better than a $200 GF1 really! Now the D5200 is a different league even though the body design and ergonomics are pretty similar.



#13 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,727 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:33 PM

As for the D5200 vs 5Dmk3 footage holding up when tweaked in NLE, there are actually people who have worked with the D5200 footage and have been able to make adjustments with good results from the D5200 internal codec.  Whatever they did it works much better than you'd think.  Then you also still have the option to add an external recorder to the D5200 and it would still be cheaper than the 5Dmk3.

 

All the footage in this shootout is graded in Premiere with the fast colour corrector and digitally sharpened.

 

As I said in my review, the D5200 grades well for a DSLR. Of course it is a world away from the Blackmagic's raw or ProRes but then so are the C300 and 1D C and they are $15k and $12k.



#14 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,727 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:40 PM

hi there. i have to chime in here because i feel the need of clearing up something.

 

do not judge picture quality from looking at the raw footage only! the bad nikon 24bit codec will easily break apart in color correction and certainly in grading in post! where it might be enough for web, a high quality (cinematic) production starts off by transcoding to a sound format (respectively prores 422) - 5DtoRGB offers the best quality and i'm sure after that the nikon footage will not longer look that similar.

 

I disagree about not being able to judge picture quality from the raw footage but what you see here HAS in fact been graded quite heavily. What do you mean by 'not that similar'? To the 5D? It is very similar. Grades about the same - 5DtoRGB or not!

 

also: is the nikon moire free? i daubt it, the 5dmk3 is and has beautiful details (even without sharpening, who needs that kind of sharpness on a big screen anyways) and no aliasing whatsoever! on neither of the possible resolutions and framerates. if you use the 5dmk3's interframe option, the IPB it offers the same technical specs as the nikon (24bit, smaller filesize, good compression quality). difference gone.

 

May I draw your eye to 1:00 on the shootout? Yes that is moire on the 5D Mark III shot - centre top - it twitches a bit towards the end of the shot. The D5200 actually has slightly less.

 

in april there is an update coming for the 5dmk3 that will probably bring fullHD hdmi out - hey say it will be 422, but i seriously doubt that, like it was on the nikon d800, where it was confirmed that it is the same signal just put in a 422 container. but there goes the advantage of the fillHD out of the nikon.

 

It's a real pain we've had to wait over a year for something that should have been in there in the first place. If they are going to start disabling stuff and reenabling it later maybe I can 'disable' part of my payment too and give them the extra money when it is de-crippled at some unspecific later point.

 

bottom line: the video quality is nothing like "the same". it is very similar in the low setting. but with the intraframe ALL-I codec (also together with magic latern) you have a wonderful cinematic picture (with the right picture profile for more dynamics) that holds up beautifully in post: no aliasing added when sharpened, nearly broadcast standard (100mbit foor ALL-I, BBC), less banding and artifacts, practically noise free at ISO derivates of 160.

 

You're wrong.

 

of course the prize point is a huge argument, but again: the quality is not even closely the same (built quality and video quality). i'm sure there are a lot of other aspects i did not mention besides the video features (i only use the mk3 for that).

 

You're wrong.


  • markm likes this

#15 A2T2

A2T2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:43 PM

Andrew, what was the profile you used? the d5200 also has a lot of banding in the raw still files and am wondering if this can be solved with a better profile? thanks.



#16 tomto

tomto

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:45 PM

Cant help feeling Andrew is looking for an excuse to bash Canon.

Crucial thing is the 5DMkIII hold grading much better than D5200. Also the Canon can shoot a flat profile giving more DR. Not to forget clean HDMI firmware update soonand I have a feeling Canon, unlike Nikon, will deliver better video using clean HDMI.



#17 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,727 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:48 PM

Andrew,

 

Do yourself a big favor champ. 

Don't formulate an opinion about a camera if you haven't physically tested it (1DX)

I have two and the video is not, in the least like the 5D MArk III's

never mind what the technical specifications state. 

One thing most people are forgetting is that the sensors are not identical plus the 1DX has to Digic 5's dedicated, 

The 5D Mark III has only one.

Your posts are informative, witty and amusing at times but . . .

they take an ugly turn into sounding like the fruitless raving banter of a silly commentator when you go off into tangents on how Canon has betrayed the little guy, no they haven't they have a whole lineup to choose from according to budget.

 

Appreciate some of your comments but it is clear I have a different opinion when it comes to Canon, price and image quality! I have physically tested the 1D X and I have seen a lot of original video files direct from the card, plus other people's very valid and comprehensive comparisons to the 5D Mark III and I still don't believe the image is that different. Maybe a very slightly better way of handling highlights and a different look to resolution when viewed very close-up but nothing to warrant the extra $3000. For you the extra seems worth it because of the better build quality and weather sealing. Not denying it isn't a nice camera but I have better things to spend $6000 on, especially since the Blackmagic Cinema Camera has the better dynamic range, smoother gradation, better colour, finer noise grain, less compression and much more creative workflow for half the price of the 1D X.

 

Canon do indeed have a whole lineup according to budget, it is just that the budget end of it is rubbish. Whoever is still shooting on a 7D, or 600D for example could be getting a better image for the same budget price tag from any number of rival cameras such as the GH2, GH3, D5200 and D7100. The budget Canon range still has some advantages but the video image is not one of them I'm afraid.

 

The upgrade path is crazy expensive too. It goes from the $1000 range pretty much straight to the 5D Mark III at $3000 - that's a lot extra for the 'little guy' as you put it. Then it doubles to $6k then doubles again to the 1D C level. The game has changed under $3000 now with the Blackmagic and a lot of strong budget DSLRs and mirrorless cameras.


  • markm likes this

#18 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,727 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:48 PM

Andrew, what was the profile you used? the d5200 also has a lot of banding in the raw still files and am wondering if this can be solved with a better profile? thanks.

 

Please read the article before asking obvious questions.



#19 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,727 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:53 PM

Cant help feeling Andrew is looking for an excuse to bash Canon.

Crucial thing is the 5DMkIII hold grading much better than D5200. Also the Canon can shoot a flat profile giving more DR. Not to forget clean HDMI firmware update soonand I have a feeling Canon, unlike Nikon, will deliver better video using clean HDMI.

 

It isn't an excuse. I don't need one to give Canon a hard time.

 

Facts speak for themselves. 5D Mark III is $3000 and D5200 is $700. Look at the video. They're giving similar results.

 

I don't shoot with a flat profile on a DSLR it doesn't make sense. You trade important stuff like gradation, good skintones and colour for like ONE STOP extra dynamic range, and increase noise especially in a low light situation. It isn't worth it. Both grade similarly and have similar dynamic range - in the daylight shootout you will see that.

 

Clean HDMI on the 5D Mark III doesn't yet exist so until that day comes you're just speculating as to what it might be like.


  • markm and TwoLions like this

#20 Ernesto Mántaras

Ernesto Mántaras

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, Argentina

Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:16 PM

Great comparison. The D5200 looks to be a great budget camera, and it's only fair you compared it to the most expensive and sorta popular DSLR under the $3000. Certainly not an excuse to bash Canon.
It's a shame that it lacks versatility on the lens choice, but for the price it's incredible how well it performs (and how it's better in some ways than the 5DIII!). But like you've mentioned in some comment, right now I need 1080p60 and I have invested in some MFT glass so it's the GH3 for me now (and hopefully a BMCC with MFT mount some time in the future!).
 


Sites:   @Vimeo   |   @Facebook   |   @Twitter

SIGNATURE_THIN.gif

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users