Canon or Nikon for Full Frame

[Peakoverload]

I really thought I knew what I was going to buy and now I'm not sure. Long story short. I've shot Canon cameras for many years the only reason I bought Canon in the first place was because when I went to buy my first DSLR, the Canon EOS 10D felt better in my hands than the Nikon counterpart (D100 IIRC).

Due to cost I haven't upgraded my camera for many, many years and because of that I've found that I've shot less and less because I can see the inadequacies of my camera and that is something I want to rectify.

My current set-up is:
Canon EOS 30D
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L USM

I find that I shoot predominantly at the wide end, I can barely remember the last time I used my 70-200 and for that, and a few other reasons, I want to go full frame. What I don't like about my current camera is:

Resolution. I'm not a big one for pixel peeping but the lack of detail in smaller objects within the frame is something that bothers me quite a bit.
High ISO performance. I really don't like using flash at the best of times but the 30D is so noisy that really I don't like to go above ISO 800 as anything above that just has lost too much detail.

Apart from that everything else is 'fine'. Not great, everything can be improved upon, but nothing that really means I miss a shot or that a shot doesn't look good.

The type of photography I do is a bit general. Mostly landscape, cityscape type stuff, some street photography, some portrait, a bit of wildlife from time to time, rarely ever any sport.

So I'm now looking to upgrade. When the Canon 5D MKIII came out in 2012 it immediately became the camera I wanted as it met everything I really needed. Excellent high ISO performance, much higher resolution, full frame etc. However 4 years is a long time and rumours of a MKIV have been going around for ages and who knows if or when it's ever going to come. I'm going on a trip for which I want my new camera in June and so the clock is ticking and I doubt I can wait for the MKIV.

So I'm currently considering three cameras. Canon 5D MKIII, Canon 5DS, or to jump ship and go with the Nikon D810.

Rather than list all the things I like about all three cameras, it's easier to list what I don't like about all three cameras.

Canon 5D MKIII
Resolution (but only in comparison to the other 2 cameras, it's still nearly 3x that of my current camera)
A slow SD card slot
No built in flash. As I say I don't like using flash generally and I don't want to carry my speedlite with me all the time just for that one shot that may need it. The excellent ISO range hopefully means I could shoot in low light more easily without flash but it would be nice to have a built in flash just in case.

Canon 5DS
The price! It's only just affordable to me
ISO range is very limited
Noise. Compared to the other 2 cameras the 5DS is noisier at it's highest ISO's
No built in flash

Nikon D810
Noisier than the 5DMKIII at it's max ISO
ISO range not quite as high as the 5D MKIII
Got to learn a new system (not that big a deal)

In terms of FPS, all cameras are pretty much the same at 5/6fps and my current 30D only manages 5fps anyway so that's fine.

In terms of lenses for the 2 Canon bodies I'll be selling both my Sigma lenses and getting the Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS USM and the 16-35 f/4 IS L USM. If I went for the Nikon I'd be selling all my lenses and probably buying, Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED FX Full Frame Lens, Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR FX & Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR Lens (although admittedly I know little about Nikon lenses so don't know if these are the best choices).

So which would people recommend?

 

[twist]

D750

 

[Kei86]

I moved from an EOS 20D to a D810. I have no regrets, really didn't get on with the D750 and had lost interest in canon as they'd been dithering about for ages. AF is usually spot on and miles better than the old 9 point canon system. (The nikon system is very similar to the 45 point eos 1 series system which I found great) Personally I find the noise levels on the D810 to be great. (I have a film background so I like more grain than most) ISO 64 is essentially grainless and the dynamic range is incredible. I can post some examples of images shot at 6400 and 12800 if you want a look.

Buying used really helps save a lot of money. I bought my 810 and most of my lenses used and probably saved the better part of £1000. (D810, 16 f2.8, 80-200 f2.8, 100 f2.8 macro) Lens wise, bear in mind that the 14-24 is a big bulbous lens that is not filter friendly. There is a 16-35 f4 or an 18-35mm f3.5/5.6 which is easier to work with. Personally, I settled on a 20mm prime and 16mm fisheye. I don't use a mid zoom, just ultrawide prime, 50 prime and an 80-200 f2.8 for telephoto. The 70-200 f4 has a very good reputation and I did consider it as a better lens to travel with. (as the 80-200 is quite heavy)

 

[D'@ve]

If you are thinking of jumping ship and especially because of the subjects you are interested in, don't ignore the new FF kid on the block, the Pentax K-1 which ships in April. It's likely to be the best landscape and night time FF DSLR out there, especially among the 36MP offerings and when you consider the rock bottom price of $1800/£1600.

There are several useful and quality-enhancing features that no other FF DSLR has, some that Nikon and Canon can never have unless they change their whole design philosophy. I'm not saying that it's better than Nikon or Canon 36MP+ DSLRs (all of which are more expensive) but it's certainly different, quirky even, and one you should take a look at before finally choosing. There's a current Pentax Full Frame thread just below this one, if you want to find out more.

 

[snerkler]

If you are thinking of jumping ship and especially because of the subjects you are interested in, don't ignore the new FF kid on the block, the Pentax K-1 which ships in April. It's likely to be the best landscape and night time FF DSLR out there, especially among the 36MP offerings and when you consider the rock bottom price of $1800/£1600.

There are several useful and quality-enhancing features that no other FF DSLR has, some that Nikon and Canon can never have unless they change their whole design philosophy. I'm not saying that it's better than Nikon or Canon 36MP+ DSLRs (all of which are more expensive) but it's certainly different, quirky even, and one you should take a look at before finally choosing. There's a current Pentax Full Frame thread just below this one, if you want to find out more.

The new Pentax looks a bit disappointing IMO, expressed a few reasons on the Pentax thread.

OP unless you're thinking of selling all your lenses and no doubt losing a lot of money then why not stick to to Canon and get the 5D3, does everything you require. IMO you only see the extra res on large prints, a HD screen can only display just over 2mp, and a 4k screen just over 8mp so the 5D3 has more than enough.

However, if you are considering jumping ship then IMO then the D750 and D810 are both better cameras overall than the 5D3. I researched this a lot because these were the 3 cameras on my hitlist when I swapped to FF.

Not quite sure why you say the D810 is not as high end as the 5D3? I believe it's every bit as high end, if not more so. Also, I believe the noise handling is better on the D810. The D750's noise handling is better than both, and the AF system is arguably better in terms of speed, accuracy and low light capability. I do believe the Canon has more customisation over AF, but I'm not entirely sure what you'd need over and above the Nikon's AF customisation to be quite honest.

Both Nikons have considerably more dynamic range at base ISO making them better for landscape, and the D750 also has the tilt screen which can prove extremely useful for landscape. The D750 is noticeably lighter than the other two, and for me has a much better grip.

I genuinely don't think there a better bang for buck FF than the D750 at present.

 

[Peakoverload]

Yeah not interested in the K1 as its Pentax. Used a couple of Pentax film bodied many years ago and hated them and I don't like the rang, availability or quality (of some) of Pentax lenses so not considering that at all.

I'd prefer to stick with Canon but would jump ship for the right camera. When comparing noise on the D810 compared to the 5DMkiii the Nikon was just as good if not better at low to high ISO right up until you reached the highest ISO for the Nikon, at which point it was noticeably worse (to me) then the Canon. The D750 isn't one I hd considered but I am now as it does look very interesting. I think the reality is that if the 5DMkiii had been released last year or even 2 years ago I'd just buy it, I was blown away by it when it was first released. It's only because a replacement has been talked about for so long and there are a couple of things that I'd prefer to be a bit better. I'd prefer a fast SD card slot for backup and I'd prefer a resolution of 36Mp or above BUT not at the expense of more noise, slower buffer, lower max ISO.

 

[Peakoverload]

I moved from an EOS 20D to a D810. I have no regrets, really didn't get on with the D750 and had lost interest in canon as they'd been dithering about for ages. AF is usually spot on and miles better than the old 9 point canon system. (The nikon system is very similar to the 45 point eos 1 series system which I found great) Personally I find the noise levels on the D810 to be great. (I have a film background so I like more grain than most) ISO 64 is essentially grainless and the dynamic range is incredible. I can post some examples of images shot at 6400 and 12800 if you want a look.

Buying used really helps save a lot of money. I bought my 810 and most of my lenses used and probably saved the better part of £1000. (D810, 16 f2.8, 80-200 f2.8, 100 f2.8 macro) Lens wise, bear in mind that the 14-24 is a big bulbous lens that is not filter friendly. There is a 16-35 f4 or an 18-35mm f3.5/5.6 which is easier to work with. Personally, I settled on a 20mm prime and 16mm fisheye. I don't use a mid zoom, just ultrawide prime, 50 prime and an 80-200 f2.8 for telephoto. The 70-200 f4 has a very good reputation and I did consider it as a better lens to travel with. (as the 80-200 is quite heavy)

Thanks for the very useful reply. I would certainly be interested in seeing some example shots at high ISO if you have the time. Good point too about the 14-24, the 16-35 is more what I wanted anyway. What was it about the D750 you didn't like? I'm still finding myself drawn to Canon (primarily familiarity and being able to keep my 70-200 and getting the 100-400 in the future) and im possibly more drawn to the 5DS than the MKIII but it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. That said if I were starting out with nothing I'd very probably go with Nikon which is why I am considering making the jump.

 

[snerkler]

Yeah not interested in the K1 as its Pentax. Used a couple of Pentax film bodied many years ago and hated them and I don't like the rang, availability or quality (of some) of Pentax lenses so not considering that at all.

I'd prefer to stick with Canon but would jump ship for the right camera. When comparing noise on the D810 compared to the 5DMkiii the Nikon was just as good if not better at low to high ISO right up until you reached the highest ISO for the Nikon, at which point it was noticeably worse (to me) then the Canon. The D750 isn't one I hd considered but I am now as it does look very interesting. I think the reality is that if the 5DMkiii had been released last year or even 2 years ago I'd just buy it, I was blown away by it when it was first released. It's only because a replacement has been talked about for so long and there are a couple of things that I'd prefer to be a bit better. I'd prefer a fast SD card slot for backup and I'd prefer a resolution of 36Mp or above BUT not at the expense of more noise, slower buffer, lower max ISO.

I know you say you want a high res camera for the fine detail in small objects but what are you intending to view on? I'd suggest downloading a Canon 5DR RAW file, copying it and downsize one to your screen res and then see if you can see a difference between the two. I couldn't when I did this. Don't forget there are downsides to high res files such as processing times in Lightroom and Photoshop.

I'm surprised you're not talking about DR more with you saying you mainly take landscapes and cityscapes. The DR on the D750 is so good I've stopped bracketing shots now, I can recover all the detail I want in one shot. You can pull up the shadows a hell of a lot with little to no noise. @twist posted a comparison between the D750 and 5D3 in shadow/underexposure recovery and the difference was quite staggering.

One other thing to consider before jumping ship is the lens line up, does Nikon have what you want? IMO Nikon's wide angle lenses are superb, but their top end 14-24mm is a bit odd in terms of the front element and requires special filters. I've got the much cheaper 18-35mm but I have to say it amazes me every time, the detail and sharpness is superb.

On saying all this the 5D3 is a truly superb camera and it's only in extreme situations where it'll fall short compared to the Nikons. Is this worth dumping all your lenses for? Have you tried a Nikon, you might not even like the control layouts etc. @Rookies swapped from the 5D3 and never got on with the D750, he preferred the Canon controls and particularly the Q menu. He's now actually swapped to the A7ii and is right at home with that.

Nikon D750 vs Nikon D810 vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III | DxOMark

 

[newbie1]

5DM3 is a great all rounder - it's my main camera and I have a large collection of canon lens. But if I was starting out the Nikon D750 but be extremely tempting! Try it out and see what you think

 

[snerkler]

To my eyes the D810 looks better here at 12800 ISO compared to the 5D3, and don't forget by the time you've downsized to view on a normal screen it'll look even better, probably comparable to the D750.
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

This is a good review with some nice sample images.
Nikon D750 Review

Here's the thread I mentioned demonstrating the exposure recovery of the D750 compared to the 5D3 (about 1/3 way down)
Nikon D750 Review: Nikon... You've Created a Monster

This is also worth a watch in regards to shadow recovery

 

[Kei86]

Thanks for the very useful reply. I would certainly be interested in seeing some example shots at high ISO if you have the time. Good point too about the 14-24, the 16-35 is more what I wanted anyway. What was it about the D750 you didn't like? I'm still finding myself drawn to Canon (primarily familiarity and being able to keep my 70-200 and getting the 100-400 in the future) and im possibly more drawn to the 5DS than the MKIII but it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. That said if I were starting out with nothing I'd very probably go with Nikon which is why I am considering making the jump.

I dumped almost all of my canon equipment when I moved and I had a fair bit. (EOS 300D, EOS 20D, EOS 3, EOS 650, 17-40 f4 L, 70-200 f4 L, 15mm fisheye, tamron 90 macro, 28-90, 75-300, 35-80, 35-70) Ironically, what prompted my move was buying a nikon 300mm f2.8 which I liked so much adapted to my canon that I wanted a proper nikon body to use it with. So went and bought a Nikon F5 film camera and it all spirraled from there as I loved it.

I didn't get on with the D750 because of the control layout and the god awful push on viewfinder attachment system. I much prefer the pro control system and circular screw on eye pieces as they are the same across all my cameras and the eye pieces can be swapped between bodies. I'm generally comfortable using almost any camera, be it canon or nikon. Neither interface stands out as being better or worse than the other at the pro level. Canon's 1 series interface doesn't seem to trickle down to lesser models which is disappointing as I really liked it in the early T-90 stage and on the EOS 3. (1n with eye control focus) The D8xx series has the same interface as my F5 and the D3/4 series which is great.

Here are a few sample shots at various ISO's from 6400. I don't use any luminance noise reduction at all as I prefer grain with detail to smooth with poor detail. Chroma NR is used to reduce colour blotching, which is amazingly good compared to the 20D. There is some pull in the shadows at high ISO but don't expect the earth. If you underexpose at high ISO, expect noise if you pull the exposure up.

6400
Sodium Light by Kyle, on Flickr

8000
Charles Street by Kyle, on Flickr

12800 - rarely use it this high as I generally don't need to. But it surprised me, as it's better than my 20D was at 400. (really shows how much technology has moved on in 10 years)
Senedd by Kyle, on Flickr

 

[snerkler]

I didn't get on with the D750 because of the control layout and the god awful push on viewfinder attachment system.

It's not the best viewfinder granted, I've since swapped mine for the Dk-3 'system' and it's much better.

I like the control layout of the D750 and the ease of swapping modes, but I guess this comes down to preference
Here's an example of ISO 12800 on the D750 in a very dark scene as can be seen from needing f2.8 1/40 and 12800 iso. With the naked eyes the cyclists aren't easily due to how dark it is, the lights on the ceiling of the tunnel aren't bright. Some NR applied in post

DSC_3959 2 by TDG-77, on Flickr

 

[D'@ve]

Yeah not interested in the K1 as its Pentax. Used a couple of Pentax film bodied many years ago and hated them and I don't like the rang, availability or quality (of some) of Pentax lenses so not considering that at all.

Well not being keen on a brand is just as good a reason for not considering it as any other, so fair enough. Though there's little relationship these days between the old Pentax and Ricoh's Pentax, apart from the old lenses and their tendency for quirkyness. You are right about the lens range though, it will take a while for them to catch up after 15 years of FF neglect.

 

[Peakoverload]

Cheers all for the replies and sample images, very, very interesting reading. I've also managed to download sample RAW files of the 5DMKIII and D750 (not yet done the same for the D810).

Obviously it's going to depend on how well lit the scene is etc but anything up to ISO 25600 on the 5DMKIII seems very usable with noise easily kept under control with Lightroom, whilst ISO 51200 was more a case of 'in an emergency'. On the D750 ISO 25600 was also usable just not as good as the Canon. When I say usable I don't mean no difference to ISO 100, 800 or 1600 but acceptable when a tripod or flash is not suitable or possible.

The one thing that did really impress me about the D750 (and therefore the D810) was the dynamic range. That really is a bit of a game changer, it was insanely good. Whether it's enough to make me jump ship I'm not sure. On a day to day basis more dynamic range is going to be more useful than good high ISO performance and if I was just starting out I'd almost certainly go Nikon. Having made some investment with Canon and knowing Canon bodies very well, it's not so clear cut.

What I'm pretty sure I want is the Canon 5D MKIV but unless that is announced very, very soon with guaranteed shipping by mid May at the latest then it's too late for me.

As for whether I need the 5D MKIII or 5DS, well I do print large a lot. Most of my prints are A2 with some being A0 (yep even with an 8MP camera) but I also sell stuff too. I'm not a pro but I do sell prints as well as stock photos through Alamy etc. I don't earn loads, not enough to justify spending thousands on gear but it keeps me in memory cards and beer.

I think I've basically narrowed it down to, in order of preference:

1. Canon 5D MKIV (IF it's released in time and affordable to me - unlikely on both accounts)
2. Canon 5DMKIII or Nikon D750 - I think the choice of lenses may swing me on this and probably towards Canon but the Nikon is very tempting.
3. Nikon D810
4. Canon 5DS

 

[Kei86]

If it helps at all I've uploaded a few sample raws from my D810 on dropbox for you.

 

[snerkler]

Cheers all for the replies and sample images, very, very interesting reading. I've also managed to download sample RAW files of the 5DMKIII and D750 (not yet done the same for the D810).

Obviously it's going to depend on how well lit the scene is etc but anything up to ISO 25600 on the 5DMKIII seems very usable with noise easily kept under control with Lightroom, whilst ISO 51200 was more a case of 'in an emergency'. On the D750 ISO 25600 was also usable just not as good as the Canon. When I say usable I don't mean no difference to ISO 100, 800 or 1600 but acceptable when a tripod or flash is not suitable or possible.

The one thing that did really impress me about the D750 (and therefore the D810) was the dynamic range. That really is a bit of a game changer, it was insanely good. Whether it's enough to make me jump ship I'm not sure. On a day to day basis more dynamic range is going to be more useful than good high ISO performance and if I was just starting out I'd almost certainly go Nikon. Having made some investment with Canon and knowing Canon bodies very well, it's not so clear cut.

What I'm pretty sure I want is the Canon 5D MKIV but unless that is announced very, very soon with guaranteed shipping by mid May at the latest then it's too late for me.

As for whether I need the 5D MKIII or 5DS, well I do print large a lot. Most of my prints are A2 with some being A0 (yep even with an 8MP camera) but I also sell stuff too. I'm not a pro but I do sell prints as well as stock photos through Alamy etc. I don't earn loads, not enough to justify spending thousands on gear but it keeps me in memory cards and beer.

I think I've basically narrowed it down to, in order of preference:

1. Canon 5D MKIV (IF it's released in time and affordable to me - unlikely on both accounts)
2. Canon 5DMKIII or Nikon D750 - I think the choice of lenses may swing me on this and probably towards Canon but the Nikon is very tempting.
3. Nikon D810
4. Canon 5DS

Where are you getting your source re high ISO noise as every test example I've seen shows the D750 is better than the 5D3?

 

[snerkler]

Don't forget the D810 would need to be downsampled to be a direct comparison.

 

[twist]

Cheers all for the replies and sample images, very, very interesting reading. I've also managed to download sample RAW files of the 5DMKIII and D750 (not yet done the same for the D810).

Obviously it's going to depend on how well lit the scene is etc but anything up to ISO 25600 on the 5DMKIII seems very usable with noise easily kept under control with Lightroom, whilst ISO 51200 was more a case of 'in an emergency'. On the D750 ISO 25600 was also usable just not as good as the Canon. When I say usable I don't mean no difference to ISO 100, 800 or 1600 but acceptable when a tripod or flash is not suitable or possible.

The one thing that did really impress me about the D750 (and therefore the D810) was the dynamic range. That really is a bit of a game changer, it was insanely good. Whether it's enough to make me jump ship I'm not sure. On a day to day basis more dynamic range is going to be more useful than good high ISO performance and if I was just starting out I'd almost certainly go Nikon. Having made some investment with Canon and knowing Canon bodies very well, it's not so clear cut.

What I'm pretty sure I want is the Canon 5D MKIV but unless that is announced very, very soon with guaranteed shipping by mid May at the latest then it's too late for me.

As for whether I need the 5D MKIII or 5DS, well I do print large a lot. Most of my prints are A2 with some being A0 (yep even with an 8MP camera) but I also sell stuff too. I'm not a pro but I do sell prints as well as stock photos through Alamy etc. I don't earn loads, not enough to justify spending thousands on gear but it keeps me in memory cards and beer.

I think I've basically narrowed it down to, in order of preference:

1. Canon 5D MKIV (IF it's released in time and affordable to me - unlikely on both accounts)
2. Canon 5DMKIII or Nikon D750 - I think the choice of lenses may swing me on this and probably towards Canon but the Nikon is very tempting.
3. Nikon D810
4. Canon 5DS

May want to also have a look at this... agree with Snerkler, the D750 is a fair bit better than the 5d3 in terms of high ISO.

 

[snerkler]

Another example of the D750 shadow recover vs the 5D3

Canon 5d Mark III vs Nikon d750

 

[Peakoverload]

I've downloaded matching RAW files from Imaging Resource. I'm also trying to interpret real world results rather than test cards etc. A dark scene is going to result in more noise on any camera at a high ISO compared to a more well or evenly lit scene at the same ISO. You could say "that's the point, you need high ISO in dimly lit scenes" which is undoubtedly true but I wouldn't photograph a dark scene without flash (where applicable). What I'm interested in is achieving a high enough shutter speed in low (not dark) light. In my opinion, I just prefer (slightly) how the 5D3 handles it compared to the D750. If you are talking very dark scenes or small objects with fine detail than yeah the D750 may have the edge.

It's 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

One of the other things I'm basing this on is lenses. My intention is to buy for Canon:
16-35 f/4 L USM
24-105 f/L USM

I already have a 70-200 f/2.8 L USM but I'm considering selling that and buying
100-400 f/4-5.6 L II IS USM

These lenses appeal to me a bit more than the Nikon equivalents. That's not to say that the Nikons are bad. The Nikon 16-35 isn't as sharp as the Canon. From what I understand there isn't a great deal of difference between the Canon 24-105 and the Nikon 24-120. The Nikon 80-400 looks naff compared to the Canon 100-400, at least at the long end which is what I'd be primarily interested in. So any benefit there may be in the Nikon body would be partially cancelled out by the lenses and that factored with having to learn a new system seems more hassle than it's worth. That said, I would like more dynamic range

 

[newbie1]

I enjoy shooting with the 5dm3 and have those zooms apart from the 24-105. I did think about selling the 70-200 2.8 when I got the new 100-400 but it has the edge for indoors or otherwise low light and I really like the look of the images wide open. Did you think about the 24-70?

 

[Peakoverload]

Yeah I have thought about the 24-70 but I've read some reviews that say the 24-105 is sharper, don't know how true that is though. More importantly the extra reach of the 24-105 is more useful to me as I don't normally carry the 70-200 or 100-400 with me unless I know im going to need it.

 

[twist]

I've downloaded matching RAW files from Imaging Resource. I'm also trying to interpret real world results rather than test cards etc. A dark scene is going to result in more noise on any camera at a high ISO compared to a more well or evenly lit scene at the same ISO. You could say "that's the point, you need high ISO in dimly lit scenes" which is undoubtedly true but I wouldn't photograph a dark scene without flash (where applicable). What I'm interested in is achieving a high enough shutter speed in low (not dark) light. In my opinion, I just prefer (slightly) how the 5D3 handles it compared to the D750. If you are talking very dark scenes or small objects with fine detail than yeah the D750 may have the edge.

It's 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

One of the other things I'm basing this on is lenses. My intention is to buy for Canon:
16-35 f/4 L USM
24-105 f/L USM

I already have a 70-200 f/2.8 L USM but I'm considering selling that and buying
100-400 f/4-5.6 L II IS USM

These lenses appeal to me a bit more than the Nikon equivalents. That's not to say that the Nikons are bad. The Nikon 16-35 isn't as sharp as the Canon. From what I understand there isn't a great deal of difference between the Canon 24-105 and the Nikon 24-120. The Nikon 80-400 looks naff compared to the Canon 100-400, at least at the long end which is what I'd be primarily interested in. So any benefit there may be in the Nikon body would be partially cancelled out by the lenses and that factored with having to learn a new system seems more hassle than it's worth. That said, I would like more dynamic range

Thats the point of DPR studio, it gives you the results from the exact same lighting conditions with exact same exposure, light or dark, downsized etc or not. In all cases the ISO performance from the D750 is better than the 5D3, that will be the exact same end result in real world testing. Surprised that after youve seen the results you still prefer the blotchy chroma from the 5D3.

The Nikon 16-35 also scores higher according to DXO than the Canon does. Overall the 24-120 also appears to perform better than the Canon.

I can understand why you are a little biased as a long time Canon shooter but then you should just stick with Canon.

 

[snerkler]

I've downloaded matching RAW files from Imaging Resource. I'm also trying to interpret real world results rather than test cards etc. A dark scene is going to result in more noise on any camera at a high ISO compared to a more well or evenly lit scene at the same ISO. You could say "that's the point, you need high ISO in dimly lit scenes" which is undoubtedly true but I wouldn't photograph a dark scene without flash (where applicable). What I'm interested in is achieving a high enough shutter speed in low (not dark) light. In my opinion, I just prefer (slightly) how the 5D3 handles it compared to the D750. If you are talking very dark scenes or small objects with fine detail than yeah the D750 may have the edge.

It's 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

You're the only person I know that has said/thinks the 5D3 handles noise better than the D750 though I prefer to look at real world examples for most things (especially lenses) but for a direct noise comparison then strict test scenarios are the only way to do this, as you will be well aware there are sooooo many variables that can affect noise and so imo real world examples aren't ideal at assessing noise performance.

Of course you need to get what you're happy with, and if you think that the 5D3 is better then that's all that matters

One of the other things I'm basing this on is lenses. My intention is to buy for Canon:
16-35 f/4 L USM
24-105 f/L USM

I already have a 70-200 f/2.8 L USM but I'm considering selling that and buying
100-400 f/4-5.6 L II IS USM

These lenses appeal to me a bit more than the Nikon equivalents. That's not to say that the Nikons are bad. The Nikon 16-35 isn't as sharp as the Canon. From what I understand there isn't a great deal of difference between the Canon 24-105 and the Nikon 24-120. The Nikon 80-400 looks naff compared to the Canon 100-400, at least at the long end which is what I'd be primarily interested in. So any benefit there may be in the Nikon body would be partially cancelled out by the lenses and that factored with having to learn a new system seems more hassle than it's worth. That said, I would like more dynamic range

This highlights a very important part of choosing a system. Lenses are obviously vitally important and whilst it's swings and roundabouts with lenses, those particular ones that you have mentioned that you want the Canon examples are arguably better. Looking at DXO mark the 80-400mm scores higher than the canon 100-400mm, but at the long end I too prefer the Canon. I'm not overly impressed with the Nikon at the Long end. TBH if I was in the market for a lens like this I'd get the Nikon 200-500mm (if I wanted to stick to main brand), or the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm which are comparable to the Canon at 400mm (and even comparable at 500m compared to the Canon at 400mm), but of course have the benefit of the extra reach. The Nikon arguably trumps them all, although it's a touch call between this and the Sigma Sports, and the Sigma has an extra 100mm.

Again for the money the 16-35mm isn't great at the wide end (fine from 18mm where it matches/betters the Canon), and throughout the range the 18-35mm is a bit sharper and you don't lose any significant aperture at the long end (f4 vs f4.5). Of course you do lose the weather sealing. Interestingly, according to DXO the 18-35mm is also significantly sharper than the Canon 16-35mm f4 too (on the D750 and 5D3 respectively)

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR on Nikon D750 vs Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED on Nikon D750 vs Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM on Canon EOS 5D Mark III | DxOMark

Strangely this site would have you believe the opposite, but I know from owning the 18-35mm that it's MUCH sharper than this test would have you believe. It's bitingly sharp, and the drop off on the edges is nothing like that.
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens Image Quality

However, based on the lenses that you're looking at and the fact you're already invested into Canon sticking with Canon is the obvious choice imo. Also add into the fact you strangely think that the Canon has better noise handling I think you just prefer Canon I would suggest looking at the Sigma sports 150-600mm (if you're strong), or if not the Tamron/Sigma C before buying the Canon 100-400mm though, they might surprise you.

 

[tapzilla2k]

It's in the eye of the beholder when it comes to noise, you can analyse it scientifically but it's what you see that counts. My Kingfisher photos were shot at ISO 2000 (due to bad lighting conditions), however I printed one of the images at A3 size and the noise doesn't look that bad. For me judging ISO requires prints and a magnifying glass. I tend to think a lot of people get hung up on specifications and don't get on with shooting pictures and printing them.

As with any Camera the choice always boils down to Ergonomics and a control layout you can get on with. Then you look at other factors like ISO, sensors, AF etc.
As for Sigma's super telephoto lenses, you only need to be strong enough to carry them in a bag (I'm considering a roller type bag to save my poor neck and lashing a tripod to a little stack truck thing). Once you put them on a tripod or monopod the weight issue disappears mostly.