And I did not interpret it as your saying the D800 wins. However, I found the point that landscapes are it's biggest strength to be very cogent. I reviewed a tremendous amount of information before making this decision and your comments were very helpful, but of course there was also other helpful info.

Regarding prime vs zoom, because of the terrain I shoot in, it is unusual that I can precisely frame a scene in the field with a prime lens. Thus, with primes I need to do more cropping in pp than most landscapists (is that a legitimate word?), or than I would with zooms. Someone posted earlier how that would negate some, or even all, of the sharpness advantage of primes and that made sense to me. Perhaps I'm mistaken but it thus seems to me that high quality zooms would be the best choice for my work.

Way back in my film days all of the aftermarket lens makers products were considered significantly inferior to Nikkor, Canon, Konica, Pentax, etc. lenses. Thus, I was quite (pleasantly) surprised to find how this has changed. More choice is always good, IMHO.

Thanks. It appears to me that most of the Mark III's for around this price are gray market or refurbished items. I'm not even finding any used ones for much lower. And the battery does cost somewhere in the $60-80 dollar range (I don't recall exactly).

I really did think it would be an excellent buy for a fellow Hog but If I'm wrong I will return it - yes, we do have a receipt. I'm not a dealer or professional seller so I may not be as well informed as I should be, but the situation is as I described - nothing dishonest is going on.

<you have a particular use in mind, and that use is exactly the biggest strength of one of the options. The coin may not have 2 heads. But it is definitely weight in favor of one side.>

Amehta, this comment, along with several others, has finally persuaded me (it seems clear which of the two you refer to although you did not name it). So the D800E it will be.

Next will be lens choices. After learning how DXO Mark does their ratings I've spent a lot of time looking at their reviews of most every possible (for me that is) lens and was astonished to find that the new Tamron SP 24-70 and SP70-200 scored higher than any of the Nikkors. Although not cheap they are somewhat cheaper than the Nikkors. I wonder it they are really that good. Those are two of the focal lengths I would want.

Mike

It was purchased at a really exceptionally low price from a reputable seller, and at the price I am offering we will not lose money. This also avoids me having to go through the hassle of the return processes (they would be separate for the camera and battery). So, I thought I would offer fellow Hogs a chance to buy it at this low price By comparison, B&H currently prices it at $3399 and some other camera stores at $3299.

In the post just above, what does the "This!" refer to?

This is a new Canon-USA 5D Mark III body, not gray market or remanufactured. The extra battery is a Canon LP-E6, not a cheap aftermarket item. All Items that normally come in the box are in there, including the blank Canon-USA warranty registration card. The shutter count is zero (unless Canon test fires them at the factory).

The camera has never been removed from it's internal packing material. I did open the box (they are not sealed) to check that all items were there and they are.

Reason for selling - this was a misguided Christmas gift that turned out to not be the camera I wanted.

Buyer pays for whatever the shipping costs me, their choice of carrier and type of shipment.

Price = $2815 plus the $85 PayPal fee if using PayPal.

<<but it's not a nifty fifty on a canon rebel >>

I've heard the nifty fifty also called the "plastic fantastic." Perhaps a better name for it on a crop sensor camera?

Once again, thanks to all who have offered opinions and information on this subject, too many to thank individually. But a special thanks to amehta for the well reasoned rebuttal to the post that held that opinions are worthless and I should not have posted this question on the forum.

IMHO, opinions are usually valuable, and it's now my job to digest all of the opinions given and come to a rational decision on a 22 vs 36 mp dslr for my very narrow range of use, landscape photos on a tripod.

From what I have learned at this point it seems to me that either camera is probably fully capable of taking superb 24X36 landscape images if proper techniques is used. However, I can't seem to shake a small feeling of doubt if the Mark III would fully match the D800E at the maximum print size I would do. Perhaps the DXO Mark ratings are overly influencing me?

If there is no difference in IQ between the two cameras for the prints I would make then I would prefer the Mark III. I'm more familiar with Canons. My last 35mm dslr was a Canon that served me very well for many years and I have never owned a Nikon. And, although I may be mistaken, it seems to me that Canon offers some non-IS L lenses that would work well for me and are substantially less expensive than Nikkor lenses. Two examples (there are others): the 17-40 F4 refurbished at $672 from Canon and the 70-200 F4 refurbished at $564 from Canon. For exclusively tripod work I shouldn't need IS or faster lenses, I think. I gather that Nikon does not identify it's highest level lens line as Canon does with the L designation, making comparisons more difficult for someone unfamiliar with Nikkors.

So I'm not at a final decision point yet but am now favoring the Mark III. I know this has been a long thread that has probably burned out, but if anyone has any other thoughts I would welcome them.

Mike

I also prefer not to crop but the terrain where I do most of my shooting may not allow precise framing in the camera, at least not with primes. For example, my favorite viewpoint for fall color fronting the main Teton peaks is an isolated national forest road with no possibility of getting either closer or more distant.

This issue also raises the primes vs zooms question. Back in my earlier film days the conventional wisdom was that primes were definitely superior for maximum sharpness. I've read that is no longer necessarily true with modern zooms. Since I plan to buy all new glass this is another decision I will have to make.

Mike
Idaho

Btw, in my post above I meant "...perhaps with some modest cropping," not modest sharpening. For sharpening I would probably be willing to do more than modest.

Mike

I just re-read each post done in response to my question ( a good way to start the new year, I think!), ;o) and value the posts one and all. In response to a couple of the suggestions:

Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't believe the ergonomics of the two cameras is as important for me as it is to most photographers, since the camera will be used almost exclusively on a tripod.

Regarding going to a larger format camera, either film or digital, I did do some shooting many years ago with both 120 roll film and 4X5 view cameras and went back to 35 mm. The reasons would take up too much space to explain, but some of you might find one anecdote amusing about me taking the 4X5 view camera on a float trip through the Grand Canyon in 1978. This was also a photo seminar lead by landscape photographer Phillip Hyde. My best photos were not taken with the view camera but rather with my tiny Rollei 35, one of the first pocket cameras. I abandoned the view camera not long after that.

I'm obviously still in the learning stages of digital photography but definitely don't want to be a pixel counter. My only interest in the number of pixels is if they will produce better results for my specific type of photography. So I don't want to appear obsessed with pixel counts but I do have one (I hope last) question that is perhaps a rephrasing of my original question. The Canon is 22 mp., the Nikon 36. What are the opinions regarding the maximum size of very sharp landscape prints that can be made at these two different mp levels, perhaps with some modest sharpening?

Thanks again and best withes for a happy new year with great photographic experiences for everyone.

Mike

Once again, thanks to all who have replied. The great majority of the posts have been very helpful. I especially appreciate the clarification of the DXO scoring, which I did not understand.

My original post was not intended to be primarily about Canon VS Nikon (brand loyalty does not play a part in my decision) but rather if the extra 14 megapixels of one camera would produce sharper, higher IQ, 24X36 cropped landscape prints than the other, using the shooting techniques that I do. It's clear from the answers that the D800 would, less clear for the Mark III.

If any Mark III users could describe their experience on this specific point it would be helpful and appreciated.

Mike
Idaho

Many thanks to all of you who replied.

Does anyone have any comments about the DXO Mark ratings? As I mentioned in my original post, I was surprised how much higher the D800 rated than the Canon, and how consistently Nikon lenses rated higher. This confuses me because in the real world great results are obviously obtained with Canon equipment.

My computer is an older macbook, used with an asus monitor, and I have been planning to purchase a new one.

Jerry - yes, I live on the west side of the Teton Range, the side we locals call "the quiet side," and have a great view from the east facing windows of our house. This is a landscape photographers paradise. When the aspen trees turn color in the fall, usually in early - mid October, it's especially fabulous.

I'm leaning toward the D800E. Thanks again for all the valuable input.

I have been lurking on UHH for several months and greatly appreciate the knowledge and wisdom that exists here. This is my first post. I did do a search regarding my question, and although there are many threads on Nikon vs Canon, D800 vs 5D MK III, etc., I did not find anything on my specific, narrow question.

I have decided to purchase a full frame dslr to be used exclusively for landscape photography and have narrowed the choices to the D800E and 5D MK III. I would hope to do prints up to 24X36 or so, and would also do some cropping at times. Although my experience with dslr's is thus far limited, I have several decades of film photography experience and believe I use good landscape technique - always a tripod, aperture set for best lens sharpness, mirror lockup, cable shutter release, etc. I am attempting to learn post-processing using Lightroom and also recently purchased Elements. My lenses are Canon EF from the film era (manufactured in the 1980s) but I would replace them with L lenses if I purchase the Canon, so the legacy lens issue doesn't apply to my situation. If I purchase the Nikon I would buy the best Nikkor lenses I can afford.

My question is: Given the 24X36 maximum print size I wish to make would the extra pixels of the D800E provide a tangible advantage in IQ over the 5D MK III? And, are there other features of either of these cameras that would influence the choice between them for exclusively landscape use?

I have read the DXO Mark reviews of these two cameras and was surprised how much higher the D800 sensor was rated compared to the MK III, and also how Nikon lenses usually had significantly higher ratings than the Canons. But I don't know how these evaluations apply to the real world. Any comments on this would also be appreciated.

Thanks very much in advance for any advice.

Mike
Idaho