With the proper lens and technique, could my Nikon D80 capture images as sharp as those taken by the EOS 5D?

This is an example of the image quality I'm after:

http://www.photo.net/photo/4958224

I've considering selling the few pieces of Nikon equipment I have for a Canon

EOS 5D. The 5D seems to just blow away everything in Nikon's digital arsenal as

far image quality is concerned.

 

I have a Nikon D80 and the 50mm f/1.8 lens.

You do realize the photo you've linked is an example of "HDR" -- in this case a composite of 5 different exposures, taken at different settings, then using software designed to enable the photographer to process a scene so as to preserve (or emphasize) extremely highlights and shadow areas in the same picture ?

Yeah, that image blows away everything in Canon's arsenal also....

I'm well aware of that. All the same, images taken with the 5D are usually tack sharp. This isn't a Nikon vs. Canon debate, by the way. I'm genuinely interested as to whether I've made the correct decision with respect to my equipment. I'm aware that the lenses factor into the equation, but don't think that is the deciding factor here. I'm wondering whether the full-frame sensor is shining through.

 

Here's another example of what I'm referring to: http://www.marko.fi/view.php?folder=play&album=02vw&picture=1touareg.jpg

 

That image is very sharp. I realize it's been digitally enhanced to make the colors more interesting, but again, it's very, very sharp.

 

I don't want to spend more than the cost of the 5D on a new digital SLR, so the truly "professional-grade" cameras are out of the question.

if you have a D80 and a 50 1.8 that are not in disrepair, and you shoot them with an average tripod in sufficiant light and correct exposure, you will be amazed at the resolution and could hardly improve in any way....period.

Sorry --"extremely" should have been "extreme."

 

My point is that the photo is in actuality more a demonstration of HDR than a demonstration of the picture-taking of a 5D.

 

Note also that between the 5D and the 17 - 40mm L lens, the photographer has approx $3250 on the table, and that's before buying his first cf card, his tripod (typically used for that type of shot), etc.

 

Getting back to your original question, though, I would answer "yes," your D80 plus 50mm f/1.8 is capable of very sharp photos.

 

I won't say there's no difference between the $875 D80 and the $2570 5D (using B & H pricing). That would be silly. But I will say that before dumping a perfectly good camera, I'd encourage you to spend serious time and effort both on picture-taking and post-processing to make sure you've really used what you have to greatest advantage.

 

Once you've done that, if you're persuaded that only the more expensive gear can do what you want, then go for it.

 

Incidentally, I've used a Nikkor 50/1.8 a great deal on a D70. While this is certainly *not* among my favorite photos, it was taken indoors in available light with the D70 and that lens. I think the lens is pretty sharp.<div></div>

Couple of thinks to consider. You are viewing these at web resolutions. Both images are highly processed. No reason you can't get a very similar quality image from your D80. You just need to learn the proper techniques in photoshop.

 

That said, yes there are advantages to the 5D. Does that mean you have to buy it to compete, not really. Just work on it for a while, and if by the time your abilities have outgrown the camera, then go look for a new one. Maybe, by then, you can afford a truly pro level (MarkII or Mamiya ZD).

You're right. That photo is sharp. I can see the little pores on the subject's nose and the flecks of color in his eyes.

 

Hey, folks, I'm not dissing the D80--it's a sick little camera. But it seems like the sharpest photos are being shot the EOS 5D or high-end Nikon equipment (and I cannot afford the latter). I'll have to give this some thought. I've had VERY good experiences with the D80, so that's also why I'm somewhat reluctant to, as you put it "dump" my current equipment.

 

Incidentally, I already have a REALLY nice Manfrotto tripod with a pistol-grip head.

As sharp, yes. The D80 is capable of very sharp photos.

Shoot, Ansel Adams could have done that with film.

Zach,

 

Sticking with the D80 seems to be most everyone's suggestion. Maybe I need to buy some more lenses. I'm getting bored shooting with the 50mm f/1.8, not that there's anything wrong with it. It's limiting is all. I have my eye set on the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, the 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye, and the 17-55mm f/2.8--all good lenses, I hear. The problem with the 50mm f/1.8 is that I have to leg myself to and fro to compose the image, which has been VERY beneficial to my photographic eye. I realize that this is only tangentially related to the original question, but it's also a consideration since, if I stick with Nikon, I'll need to invest in more lenses in order to have more freedom to compose.

Psul,

 

Well, yeah, but Ansel Adams shot medium format.

 

Didn't hurt, either, that he was God.

<p><i>"All the same, images taken with the 5D are usually tack sharp"</i></p>

<p>That is due to the lens and technique used, not the body. If you shoot RAW, the body has very little effect on how sharp an image will be, although there are variances between models due to the AA filters and (slight) in camera processing. The point is, your Nikon D80 is definately capable of matching the sharpness you mention. The question is, can YOU?

Your lens is more critical for sharpness than the camera. The second issue is camera movement. But even with camera movement you still can a sharp image. If want a really sharp image a 4X5 or 8X10 viewcamera beats any of the cameras mentioned.

<div></div>

Rofl....

 

I have to laugh because that is close to a mirror of my equipment lineup.

 

80-200 f2.8 AF-D first generation (push-pull) ($400 used, optically perfect sample, small blemishes on lens). This has become one of my favorite lenses. And, if I ever get the money, I will replace it with the 70-200 VR. Amazingly sharp. Excellent choice.

 

The 10.5mm fisheye has given me some of my best images to date. And it is a very optically well made lens. I have had lots of fun with it. But, unless you shoot a lot of skating/rap/etc. Not a lens that will make you money. But definatly a funo one to play with.

 

The only thing, depending on what you shoot, is to add a wide. Something like a 12-24 or 10 - 17. Like I said, the 10.5 is great, but it is no wide angle.

 

Oh, and playing around with them is a great idea. You will find that something in the 80-120mm range is excellent for portraits. Very flattering to the subjects.

I think D80 + 50mm 1.8 will beat 5D + 17 40mm 4 @f/4 hand down in term of sharpness. Yup, sometime it's NOT silly to compare a $1000 combo to a $3200 combo.

After using Canon Rebel XTI with the kit lense for few months I was getting frustrated with the Canon because I wasn't getting that crisp Nikon sharpness - I went and got a little better lenses, a zoom lense and wide zoom - though not L models. A little better lenses than the kit lense that came with the camera. Still I was not satisfied - I looked at my old E4500 pictures and it was more preferable. The XTI body also felt "plasticky"...I went and looked at D200 because I usually lean more towards Nikon for color and sharpness, and Canon for technology. Since I work as an artist I opted for color and picture quality then tech - when I held D200 for the first time I immediately gravitated and made the purchase. I looked at Canon 5D and even their top-notch Mark II cameras...it all looked and felt "plasticky" and cheap looking. Perhaps that's my opinion but D200 was at the time my best choice for performance, budget and other personal considerations. 5D may have all the advancements but D200 seemed like you're still holding a classic camera. It may not be as advanced as 5D but what matters to me the most is basic picture quality - simply put. And I've been very happy with D200. Perhaps you can make that jump to from D80 to D200. Just a thought..

I don't get anyone who takes time out to compare a $ 1,200 - 1,700 camera body to one which cost over $ 3,000. Is that supposed to be fair & correct?

 

If you want the 5D. Buy it. Just remember one thing, the camera is the tool - you're the pilot. The tool is only as good as the pilot is.

 

JMHO

 

Lil

This image has no "rowboat" but it is fairly sharp.

 

 

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5986237

 

 

 

 

The image you capture depends on the lighting at that moment, and how much luck you have at the same time.

 

 

 

 

 

If you really, really want the "best," look into getting a digital Hasselblad. Then find a way to mortgage a $20,000+ camera, body, and lens.

If you really want world class images, you need to sell your d80 and get the most incredible camera that this photo.net photographer uses! His pictures are stunning!

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651

 

When Canon came out with the 20D, I decided to upgrade from my Coolpix 8700 (I had never been impressed with the D70). The day I got it, I had a wedding to shoot (for a friend, just shooting as a guest - they had hired a pro) and was thrilled to have such a wonderful camera to shoot with. My pictures came out good, but I would have had better results with my 8700. I returned it and bought the D70 and got much better results.

 

Years later, I came to realize that the Canon lens I got with the camera was not the best, nor did I understand how to use the camera or lens properly and that with post processing, the pictures actually looked pretty good (all of the shooting 'errors' were mine, not the cameras.

 

Most modern cameras use sensors capable of excellent results. The quality of your pictures is totally dependent on your skills and creativity (assuming the camera has a good lens).

 

After viewing Wilson Tsoi's photos yesterday, I blew the dust off my Coolpix 5400 camera and took a side-by-shot outside my home with my d80. The pictures looked prety much identical. I recently tested my d40, d80 and d200 in side-by-side tests with identical results.

 

Adding to Lil's comment, there is a saying - the harder you work, the luckier you get. Getting good at photography takes a lot of practice and hard work. I have been taking snapshots for most of my life and I have just started taking quality photographs over the past couple of years.

 

And if I may add to Geralds comments, even if you bought the ditital Hasselbald and had the 'best', your pictures would probably look the same as what you are getting now. You pictures will look different when your technique is different than it is now. The camera doesn't matter!

Hi mates, maybe I am a bit out of the subject, but Is not the case that with a good camera and lens and proper technique, you not need photoshop and all the other digital gear? I have old cameras, Nikons 601AF and Nikon 801s, both with good Nikkor lens and with a good photo processing lab I get the results and selling well!! example: http://s201.photobucket.com/albums/aa15/Chucaro/?action=view&current=WhaleRock1.jpg

After all the master Rosenfeld used much primitive gear and have a look at his collection on the museum.

I will never be able to take photos like Rosenfeld, but at least he is the proof that you not need $ 3000 camera plus $$$$software.

If not was for the economic factor I will keep my old film cameras. Only considering now the D80 or D200 for money reasons only but not for the quality of the prints. The lens and technique is what counts.

Cheers

Chucaro

The camera doesn't matter...

 

The short answer is yes.

 

If you are going to shoot a lot of ultra-wide stuff and have very deep pockets, then the Canon

5D is the way to go, otherwise, stick with what you got and learn to use it well.

With digital photography either you do the post processing or the camera does it for you.<p>

 

Photoshop is just a set of tools. If you get a carpenter to build you your house then you need no tools. If you want to build it yourself what are you going to use?<p>

 

As for the original question I think that the 5D and top Canon glass does seem to have a bit of an edge when shooting at f22 or there abouts.

 

But I think that even something like a D70 and the 18-70mm DX can give really sharp images.<p>

 

In this shot <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6066429&size=lg" >HERE</a>

, focus was set to infinity but look how sharp the foreground is.<p>

 

The 50mm f1.8 is even sharper than this, but there are a lot other factors that go into an image, so as others have already said, just go out and make quality images with what you have.

Michael,

 

The picture with 5D that you linked was not a sample picture of how sharp a Canon 5D can be. It's a sample of how good a Canon 5D can be in the right hands. That's a very nice picture. If you gave the guy who took the shot a D80 with a lens in a similar grade (and focal length) as his Canon, he would've come up with the same result too.

 

But notice that it is NOT what you'd get from 5D straight out of camera, but more of a product of a finished picture that has been through lots of post processing process.

 

Your D80 + 50mm is a very capable set of photographic equipment already, I think instead of spending money on more gears, it's better to spend the money on some Photoshop tutorial/books instead. It would improve you more than a new gear.