I'm firmly in the Nikon camp, but am considering going to the D700 (from my D70). I wonder why Nikon's resolution is so low, relative to the Canon's of simliar quality. I have read a few reviews on this issue, and some of the state that this is a negative for the D700 because, absent scaling, you can really only blow a 12MP pic to 8x12.
What are your thoughts on this?
I have 20x30 prints from my old 10mp XTI that look fantastic. I don't know what the final resolution was, but I swear I can't see any problems. I admit—that's higher than I would usually blow something up. in addition, I continue to see 13x19 (and higher) prints from my friend's old 5D that look magnificent. I think printing isn't a matter of pure mathematics. Would you be able to tell the difference between a 150ppi and 300ppi print of the same image? Only your own testing will determine this.
I'm firmly in the Nikon camp, but am considering going to the D700 (from my D70). I wonder why Nikon's resolution is so low, relative to the Canon's of simliar quality. I have read a few reviews on this issue, and some of the state that this is a negative for the D700 because, absent scaling, you can really only blow a 12MP pic to 8x12.
What are your thoughts on this?
It really depends on both the subject matter and the technique used for printing. I have a number of 20" x 30" images that look great from a paltry 8 MPix imager. You almost have to try printing some images to understand whether they really will work at large sizes.
I used to have a dandelion image that made a very nice 8" x 10", from only a VGA (480 x 640) resolution imager (although it was from a 3-chip video camera and it was a "true" still, as opposed to a video frame grab.)
I do recommend that if you know for sure that you will want to print big, shoot RAW and then perform a large image interpolation directly from the RAW image. This works better for me than a "native" resolution image interpolation from RAW (or shooting JPG) and then up-ressing later.
For a real treat do try using stitched multiple images captured with a panoramic technique and software.
I'm firmly in the Nikon camp, but am considering going to the D700 (from my D70). I wonder why Nikon's resolution is so low, relative to the Canon's of simliar quality. I have read a few reviews on this issue, and some of the state that this is a negative for the D700 because, absent scaling, you can really only blow a 12MP pic to 8x12.
What are your thoughts on this?
You can send out jpegs to Smugmug or any number of vendors that specialize in large and poster size prints and get superb 20x30 or even larger from very small and relatively low resolution images.
It's in the upsizing software, printing method and printer they use that you or I cannot afford.
I'm firmly in the Nikon camp, but am considering going to the D700 (from my D70). I wonder why Nikon's resolution is so low, relative to the Canon's of simliar quality. I have read a few reviews on this issue, and some of the state that this is a negative for the D700 because, absent scaling, you can really only blow a 12MP pic to 8x12.
What are your thoughts on this?
I have many 24x36" prints from the D700 and lower resolution cameras. They look fantastic. I rarely print smaller. I think I might have a single 16x20...
14-24 arrived this morning. The beast makes the EF 85 f/1.2L look like a can of cat food. Now for a little testing to make sure I got a good one.
It's so strange; Last week, my camera bag looked so different to the way it does today. It went from EF 24-105, EF 35L, EF 135 f/2L, EF 50 f/1.4, Nikon 50 f/1.4G to no 24-105 or 35L. All this balance of power stuff is exhausting!
At least I can get the Canon adapter for the 14-24 and share the love.
At least I can get the Canon adapter for the 14-24 and share the love.
I thought about going that route instead of the 16-35 MKII when I got my 5DMII. In the end, the 16-35 won out because I also wanted to keep AF in that focal range. With the converter, you have to manual focus which makes it pretty much a dedicated landscape lens, at least it would for me.
I'm firmly in the Nikon camp, but am considering going to the D700 (from my D70). I wonder why Nikon's resolution is so low, relative to the Canon's of simliar quality. I have read a few reviews on this issue, and some of the state that this is a negative for the D700 because, absent scaling, you can really only blow a 12MP pic to 8x12.
What are your thoughts on this?
I just finished a exhibition of 24 8x10's from a 2.0MP camera and I didn't hear one thing about the lack of resolution from anyone at the opening
If you get a properly exposed image capture you can blow the images up to huge sizes, if you mess it up even 24MP wont save you
Oh and I just took my D700 into the studio, it is amazing there
The Cream Machine (85 f/1.4) and 105 Micro arrived today via Borrowlenses—NICE. Also trying 180mm f/2.8, which I quite like, but it just feels sort of... old. That's the problem with Nikon's aging lens lineup. The new stuff looks and feels great, with fast, silent AF. Bummer there's such a disparity.
Cream feels amazing—it's older, but beautifully built and I think this specimen is more or less brand new. No AF-S but the AF is pretty quiet compared to the 180. Optically, gorgeous. A little CA, but I knew that going in. I think I've found my people lens, but will try the 135mm DC to be sure.
It seems that your Canon gear is getting rusty. Let me take care of that!
The thing is, you're right.
I'm down to a 5DmkII and a 135 and 50. If in fact I sell the 5D, the 135 goes as well, but I'll have to sacrifice a rabbit or something to avoid evil spirits, as it is a talisman. I'll keep the 50 for my Elan II (which I may never use again!).
Whatever happens, I need to take more photographs. Every shot you miss is the one you didn't take.
I'm down to a 5DmkII and a 135 and 50. If in fact I sell the 5D, the 135 goes as well, but I'll have to sacrifice a rabbit or something to avoid evil spirits, as it is a talisman. I'll keep the 50 for my Elan II (which I may never use again!).
Whatever happens, I need to take more photographs. Every shot you miss is the one you didn't take.
Don't worry about the evil spirits! I worked my mojo that if you send me your canon gear, they won't do anything to you!
Thnx Pindy, for the great review of transitioning over to the 'other' side.
I've often wanted to shoot both Canon and Nikon. I bet everyone is curious also. Like you said, we are all so lucky to have this technology today and we ARE very spoiled. I may still rent a few Nikons this year.
I do think, however, that if you had used a 1DMKIII you may have realized that the custom functions in that camera, as well as 10FPS carry it's weight easily over the Nikon camera at that level. You can also reverse any of the dials, etc. [just for general information]. The custom functions are incredible. It's a few days work just to go through them all, and Canon has put out a manual just for them using examples for where they work best. You can choose exactly how many FPS you want, and the autofocus is instant.
The most valuable comparison to me and why I bought the MKIII instead of a Nikon D700 is the teleconverter usage. The MKIII is the only camera out there that allows autofocus on stacked teleconverters, even f5.6 lenses and focus is instant. its pretty amazing to me after hating the hunting the 40D produced. [a biggy for me deciding because I really can't carry heavier lenses around all day, being a wildlife shooter, this was a deciding factor for me. [just more general info for those in limbo ]
How are sky colors with the Nikon? Have you noticed a difference? I know most doesn't matter because of PP and raw shooting, but I probably would own a Nikon already if I had liked their nature colors. Do you notice a difference? Thanx. And I have read that Nikon seems to be about one/third stop lighter when shooting which would be a plus for wildlife. Any thoughts on that comparison? thnx. Enjoy! [I'm jealous:D I want both!]
I do think, however, that if you had used a 1DMKIII you may have realized that the custom functions in that camera, as well as 10FPS carry it's weight easily over the Nikon camera at that level.
I don't doubt I would have loved the 1DmkIII but with 2 major dealbreakers: integrated grip (don't want one) and sensor size. I think I have ranted elsewhere here that I think Canon got it wrong in terms of it's product tiers at the higher end.
How are sky colors with the Nikon? Have you noticed a difference? I know most doesn't matter because of PP and raw shooting, but I probably would own a Nikon already if I had liked their nature colors.
I don't remember seeing much of a difference after my usual pp routine. Gotta say pretty happy with both.
For what it's worth I switched from the 40D to the D700 and couldn't be happier. I had to spend a lot of time in Photoshop previously getting the colors right and on the D700 they are just amazing straight off the camera, no Photoshop required at all. I have decent lenses though as well.
The primary difference that I've noticed isn't just the fps or full-frame versus cropped, but the camera's metering and computer smarts are just better, and are always spot on. I just leave it on auto WB and auto ISO and shoot. No need to worry about messing with all the settings to get a proper exposure.
Once in awhile it can get fooled in trick lighting so I'll use manual, but 99% of the time it's metering and WB/ISO settings are perfect.
Plus I love the high ISO performance. It's truly amazing.
Update: I realize it's not fair to compare these two bodies directly but whatever :P
Thnx Pindy, for the comments. I'm always interested in the differences of equipment and appreciate your work here. it's funny, but I probably wouldn't have bought the MKIII if it was a FF. I need the reach for wildlife, which is shorter than my 40D, but it gives me a little wider 24-105L, so I am happy for landscapes. I love the grip. I used my 40D this week, and hated the short, unbalanced feeling. I don't use the auto ISO, but my friend does, and has a high percentage of excellent exposures on the MKIII. I think you can limit it also. I don't quite understand where ISO vs. shutterspeed kicks in, and which has priority in auto ISO, but in Tv it does well. One other thing I love about the MKIII is I can see my exposure meter variance during shooting, which is new[or may have been on all the 1Ds]. Love it!
The older Nikons had unnatural bright skies and bad crayon greens for wildlife, IMO. [I'm a color freak ] - I think the D700 is better now. I've seen some fabulous work with it. Very sharp, and alot of detail, possibly better autofocus than canon [not quicker, but more accurate].
I don't doubt I would have loved the 1DmkIII but with 2 major dealbreakers: integrated grip (don't want one) and sensor size. I think I have ranted elsewhere here that I think Canon got it wrong in terms of it's product tiers at the higher end.
I don't remember seeing much of a difference after my usual pp routine. Gotta say pretty happy with both.
Thnx Pindy, for the comments. I'm always interested in the differences of equipment and appreciate your work here. it's funny, but I probably wouldn't have bought the MKIII if it was a FF. I need the reach for wildlife, which is shorter than my 40D, but it gives me a little wider 24-105L, so I am happy for landscapes. I love the grip...
Indeed, there is no perfect camera, just the one that does what you need the best at any given time. I like ultra-wide angles, so FF is kind of a must for me. The other thing necessitating a FF camera is high ISO. I routinely shoot in conditions that are 1/30 or 1/60 @ f1/4 @ 3200, handheld.
I'm sure I would like the feel of the grip (lord knows I take a lot of portrait oriented pics) it's the size and weight. At least with the added grips, it can be my choice.
I never tried sports photography till yesterday when I shot a track day. And whoa, the AF on this camera is amazing for it, that 3D tracking feature is
Point at the bike before the corner and just follow it in, its amazing
Well, ladies and gentlemen... I'm selling the 5DmkII. The time has come to commit to a camera. The mkII is a brilliant, brilliant camera, just, as it turns out, not the camera for what I need most. If I spent more of my time in the out of doors, on tripods, I would likely keep it, but my indoor seat-of-my-pants circumstances are the most important and I'm happy with the Nikon for this, at least. I will miss, in no particular order:
My 135L
100% USM across the lens lines
The f/4 zooms, the f/1.4L primes
The resolution
The images I could make when I did my job.
But, that's about it. There are a number of things I won't miss, as I've laid out in this quasi-blog of mine and I can only look at these cameras as which is having the "least-objectionable" qualities, since no camera is perfect. As my 135L gets picked up tonight by a local buyer, that'll be it for lenses so this begins a new chapter, hopefully one of taking more and better photographs, not because of the camera, but because I want to improve, but hopefully the ergos of the D700 will see me through!
I own the 50G, the 14-24mm and next, probably the 85 f/1.4 or maybe the beautiful but massive 24-70. Proceeds means lens sales! as Elvis said: caught in a trap.
Comments
I have 20x30 prints from my old 10mp XTI that look fantastic. I don't know what the final resolution was, but I swear I can't see any problems. I admit—that's higher than I would usually blow something up. in addition, I continue to see 13x19 (and higher) prints from my friend's old 5D that look magnificent. I think printing isn't a matter of pure mathematics. Would you be able to tell the difference between a 150ppi and 300ppi print of the same image? Only your own testing will determine this.
It really depends on both the subject matter and the technique used for printing. I have a number of 20" x 30" images that look great from a paltry 8 MPix imager. You almost have to try printing some images to understand whether they really will work at large sizes.
I used to have a dandelion image that made a very nice 8" x 10", from only a VGA (480 x 640) resolution imager (although it was from a 3-chip video camera and it was a "true" still, as opposed to a video frame grab.)
I do recommend that if you know for sure that you will want to print big, shoot RAW and then perform a large image interpolation directly from the RAW image. This works better for me than a "native" resolution image interpolation from RAW (or shooting JPG) and then up-ressing later.
For a real treat do try using stitched multiple images captured with a panoramic technique and software.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
You can send out jpegs to Smugmug or any number of vendors that specialize in large and poster size prints and get superb 20x30 or even larger from very small and relatively low resolution images.
It's in the upsizing software, printing method and printer they use that you or I cannot afford.
Gene
Poverty?
Good luck. Fantastic lens.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yes—poverty. Or heartache! Hopefully it will extend a love affair.
I have many 24x36" prints from the D700 and lower resolution cameras. They look fantastic. I rarely print smaller. I think I might have a single 16x20...
It's so strange; Last week, my camera bag looked so different to the way it does today. It went from EF 24-105, EF 35L, EF 135 f/2L, EF 50 f/1.4, Nikon 50 f/1.4G to no 24-105 or 35L. All this balance of power stuff is exhausting!
At least I can get the Canon adapter for the 14-24 and share the love.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I thought about going that route instead of the 16-35 MKII when I got my 5DMII. In the end, the 16-35 won out because I also wanted to keep AF in that focal range. With the converter, you have to manual focus which makes it pretty much a dedicated landscape lens, at least it would for me.
Now go take some pictures and report back.
Link to my Smugmug site
I've been TRYING! Honest!
I have not really taken anything so far that I would deem uploadable, but I have to say... Everything people say about the corners—IS TRUE.
I just finished a exhibition of 24 8x10's from a 2.0MP camera and I didn't hear one thing about the lack of resolution from anyone at the opening
If you get a properly exposed image capture you can blow the images up to huge sizes, if you mess it up even 24MP wont save you
Oh and I just took my D700 into the studio, it is amazing there
Cream feels amazing—it's older, but beautifully built and I think this specimen is more or less brand new. No AF-S but the AF is pretty quiet compared to the 180. Optically, gorgeous. A little CA, but I knew that going in. I think I've found my people lens, but will try the 135mm DC to be sure.
www.tednghiem.com
The thing is, you're right.
I'm down to a 5DmkII and a 135 and 50. If in fact I sell the 5D, the 135 goes as well, but I'll have to sacrifice a rabbit or something to avoid evil spirits, as it is a talisman. I'll keep the 50 for my Elan II (which I may never use again!).
Whatever happens, I need to take more photographs. Every shot you miss is the one you didn't take.
Don't worry about the evil spirits! I worked my mojo that if you send me your canon gear, they won't do anything to you!
www.tednghiem.com
I've often wanted to shoot both Canon and Nikon. I bet everyone is curious also. Like you said, we are all so lucky to have this technology today and we ARE very spoiled. I may still rent a few Nikons this year.
I do think, however, that if you had used a 1DMKIII you may have realized that the custom functions in that camera, as well as 10FPS carry it's weight easily over the Nikon camera at that level. You can also reverse any of the dials, etc. [just for general information]. The custom functions are incredible. It's a few days work just to go through them all, and Canon has put out a manual just for them using examples for where they work best. You can choose exactly how many FPS you want, and the autofocus is instant.
The most valuable comparison to me and why I bought the MKIII instead of a Nikon D700 is the teleconverter usage. The MKIII is the only camera out there that allows autofocus on stacked teleconverters, even f5.6 lenses and focus is instant. its pretty amazing to me after hating the hunting the 40D produced. [a biggy for me deciding because I really can't carry heavier lenses around all day, being a wildlife shooter, this was a deciding factor for me. [just more general info for those in limbo
How are sky colors with the Nikon? Have you noticed a difference? I know most doesn't matter because of PP and raw shooting, but I probably would own a Nikon already if I had liked their nature colors. Do you notice a difference? Thanx. And I have read that Nikon seems to be about one/third stop lighter when shooting which would be a plus for wildlife. Any thoughts on that comparison? thnx. Enjoy! [I'm jealous:D I want both!]
I don't doubt I would have loved the 1DmkIII but with 2 major dealbreakers: integrated grip (don't want one) and sensor size. I think I have ranted elsewhere here that I think Canon got it wrong in terms of it's product tiers at the higher end.
I don't remember seeing much of a difference after my usual pp routine. Gotta say pretty happy with both.
Thanks for your comments!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
The primary difference that I've noticed isn't just the fps or full-frame versus cropped, but the camera's metering and computer smarts are just better, and are always spot on. I just leave it on auto WB and auto ISO and shoot. No need to worry about messing with all the settings to get a proper exposure.
Once in awhile it can get fooled in trick lighting so I'll use manual, but 99% of the time it's metering and WB/ISO settings are perfect.
Plus I love the high ISO performance. It's truly amazing.
Update: I realize it's not fair to compare these two bodies directly but whatever :P
The older Nikons had unnatural bright skies and bad crayon greens for wildlife, IMO. [I'm a color freak
I have to rent one some day.
Who needs a Gretag-MacBeth when you have these jammies?
Indeed, there is no perfect camera, just the one that does what you need the best at any given time. I like ultra-wide angles, so FF is kind of a must for me. The other thing necessitating a FF camera is high ISO. I routinely shoot in conditions that are 1/30 or 1/60 @ f1/4 @ 3200, handheld.
I'm sure I would like the feel of the grip (lord knows I take a lot of portrait oriented pics) it's the size and weight. At least with the added grips, it can be my choice.
Point at the bike before the corner and just follow it in, its amazing
My 135L
100% USM across the lens lines
The f/4 zooms, the f/1.4L primes
The resolution
The images I could make when I did my job.
But, that's about it. There are a number of things I won't miss, as I've laid out in this quasi-blog of mine and I can only look at these cameras as which is having the "least-objectionable" qualities, since no camera is perfect. As my 135L gets picked up tonight by a local buyer, that'll be it for lenses so this begins a new chapter, hopefully one of taking more and better photographs, not because of the camera, but because I want to improve, but hopefully the ergos of the D700 will see me through!
I own the 50G, the 14-24mm and next, probably the 85 f/1.4 or maybe the beautiful but massive 24-70. Proceeds means lens sales! as Elvis said: caught in a trap.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
They're all fantastic—can't forget that. These are what a friend calls "champagne problems".
+1
Here's one of the reasons I like the D700: 6400 ISO and it looks great! (There's no PP, just WB correction! In-camera NR is OFF.)
http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=195
Baby photography here
Here is about types of bokeh
http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=192
What is bokeh?
http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=181