Seriously though, downsampling reduces noise, pretty obvious when you think about it.
Correct me if Im wrong. Say you down rez an image to 1/3 of it's original size. PS or whatever program you use tosses out 2 pixels for every 1 if keeps. Now you might get lucky and it will throw out the noisy pixel and you might not. Yes you are reducing the apparent amount of noise, but not the actual proportion. It's just harder to see the noise because you cut the overall detail in the image.
Correct me if Im wrong. Say you down rez an image to 1/3 of it's original size. PS or whatever program you use tosses out 2 pixels for every 1 if keeps...
If your software simply throws away pixels, it's defective. Sensible programs interpolate using ALL the data in the original image.
Can you state how the build quality of a D700 is superior to the 5DMKII?
Weather seals: Neither, until a manufacturer can include it to their warranty, then they're not sealed enough.
AF: The 5d2 has a nudge more lag than the D700, but is more snappier. 90% of canon users I know have the AF set to Auto area AF, this is the reason why they think Nikon is so much better. When both cameras are set properly, they can both do really well. FWIW, I find it is more the lens and user for accuracy and speed.
FPS: I shoot a lot of action, the last event I shot, I was using single shot. I have 8 fps at my disposal, but I have found that that it is over kill for 96% of people. The 4% I find is best for exposure bracketing.
5D mkII = the sensor has better resolution but the high ISO performance is a bit off.
Oh please! A bit off? Whatever. Ok, ISO 6400 gets a bit noisy, big deal. 3200 is very very nice: http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Events/USM-MFA-Creative-Writing/IMG3638/769306141_nUaVx-X2.jpg
and 1600 is downright clean. It is extremely rare that I "need" anything more than 3200, and probably 98% of the time I am at or under 1600. Hell I remember thinking back in my p&s days that if I could just have a clean ISO 400 I'd be all set! If the available light is so low that you need 6400 or 12800, it's probably going to be a bad photo even if it is noise free. Unless you shoot a lot of indoor sports or night football I guess.
If you are not making huge prints, and have no need for video than the D700 is the clear winner.
I have an 18x24" of this in my living room:
you can see the individual skier tracks in Corbet's Couloir.
And if you have kids, the HD video is a real bonus.
I will take resolution and room for cropping over ISO 6400+ every time.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Comments
Correct me if Im wrong. Say you down rez an image to 1/3 of it's original size. PS or whatever program you use tosses out 2 pixels for every 1 if keeps. Now you might get lucky and it will throw out the noisy pixel and you might not. Yes you are reducing the apparent amount of noise, but not the actual proportion. It's just harder to see the noise because you cut the overall detail in the image.
If your software simply throws away pixels, it's defective. Sensible programs interpolate using ALL the data in the original image.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Yes, and it's the interpolation process that reduces the noise.
Can you state how the build quality of a D700 is superior to the 5DMKII?
Bear
Some of my photos on Flickr
My Facebook
Weather seals: Neither, until a manufacturer can include it to their warranty, then they're not sealed enough.
AF: The 5d2 has a nudge more lag than the D700, but is more snappier. 90% of canon users I know have the AF set to Auto area AF, this is the reason why they think Nikon is so much better. When both cameras are set properly, they can both do really well. FWIW, I find it is more the lens and user for accuracy and speed.
FPS: I shoot a lot of action, the last event I shot, I was using single shot. I have 8 fps at my disposal, but I have found that that it is over kill for 96% of people. The 4% I find is best for exposure bracketing.
Oh please! A bit off? Whatever. Ok, ISO 6400 gets a bit noisy, big deal. 3200 is very very nice: http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Events/USM-MFA-Creative-Writing/IMG3638/769306141_nUaVx-X2.jpg
and 1600 is downright clean. It is extremely rare that I "need" anything more than 3200, and probably 98% of the time I am at or under 1600. Hell I remember thinking back in my p&s days that if I could just have a clean ISO 400 I'd be all set! If the available light is so low that you need 6400 or 12800, it's probably going to be a bad photo even if it is noise free. Unless you shoot a lot of indoor sports or night football I guess.
I have an 18x24" of this in my living room:
you can see the individual skier tracks in Corbet's Couloir.
And if you have kids, the HD video is a real bonus.
I will take resolution and room for cropping over ISO 6400+ every time.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.