D700 vs 5D Mark II

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ira casel, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. I have been a long term Nikon user, first film and now digital. I have a D80 and have been thinking of upgrading to the D700 for full-frame. However, I now see that the new 5D has a 21.1 megapixel sensor. My question is, will I see a big difference in image quality in 8x10" prints with the 5D? Would it make sense to ditch all of my Nikon gear and switch? Or, will Nikon play catch up? In which case I would just wait.
     
  2. "My question is, will I see a big difference in image quality in 8x10" prints with the 5D?" No.
     
  3. 8x10 prints? No need for 21 mpix. The more pixels for a given surface sensor, the more noise. And you get enormous files, which take an enormous time to process. This pure marketing pixel race makes no sense unless you have to make huge, and I mean huge, prints, in billboard league. Canon couldn't compete with the recent Nikon noise control in the D3 and D700, so they went for the pixels. Stick with your Nikon gear and get the 700.
     
  4. Go out and take pictures with what you have. Unless you have very specialized needs, any of today's top cameras will meet your requirements. Brand switching for the latest great thing is simply foolish. If you wait 6 months or a year, it will likely switch back. Spend your money on travel, paper, and ink, or a good photography course, not the latest incarnation from Canon or Nikon. Your D80 didn't stop working when the D90 was released (though Nikon might like that). Ask yourself what the weak link is in your photography. I'd bet a lot that it is not your current camera. The 5DII has not been released, tested, and reviewed so all this is pure speculation. There is much more to using a camera than megapixels. If the autofocus is not good, you'll just have a lot of unsharp pixels. Second, assuming everything works as it should, a big assumption, the 8x10's from either camera will be indistinguishable. Good luck. Eric
     
  5. I pretty much agree with Eric. I have stuck with Nikon through the past tough years, and no way I'd jump now that they have the momentum. You don't mention what lenses, tripod, lighting system, software you have. All of this works together as a system. It makes absolutely no sense to run out a buy a big $$ camera and not have the first class lenses to support it, or the tripod etc. too. I too have looked at the D700 since I am a night photographer. I didn't want to buy $2,500 camera plus $3,000 worth of FX lenses all at once. So, I bought a used D300 for now. I will later buy a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and then a 14-24mm f2.8. Meanwhile, price on the D700 will drop. I come out ahead and will be using Nikon's best lenses the whole time. Kent in SD
     
  6. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    "Ask yourself what the weak link is in your photography. I'd bet a lot that it is not your current camera."
    I think it quite safe to say that for by far the majority of us, the weakest link is neither the camera itself nor what is in front of it, i.e. the lens.
    In many cases the weakest link is what is (or isn't) under the camera, namely photographers not using a proper tripod when they can, and especially what is behind the camera. The last one is typically very difficult to admit.
     
  7. My D70s made a gorgeous 8x10" print. Buying a Canon 5D MKII to make 8x10" prints is like buying a Porsche 911 to drive 35mph.
     
  8. Purely from the specs, the 5D II seems to be more or less on par at high ISO, I guess in practice it will be slightly worse, but not much. Everything else that I've heard of, with the one exception of resolution, seems inferior to me. Think of what the the D300/D700 are: the most professional semi-pro cameras Nikon ever made. The D200 was far superior to the Canon 20/30D in everything but the sensor. With the D300 Nikon remedied that. The D700 is basically the same camera. You trade in the 100% viewfinder and you get FX and insane ISO instead, but both are maybe more pro than a D2X ever was. If you already had lots of Canon L glass (and you need damn fine glass to make use of 21 mpx), I'd say go for it, even if you don't print bigger than 13x19. In your situation I can't imagine any reason to change. Why should you? Nikon will have the same early next year, rumour has a launch date of December, 1st for "something big". Whatever Nikon throws at us, you'd probably still be better off buying their newest pro cam than dumping your glass and buying everything anew from Canon. On the other hand: for 8x10 you need neither.
     
  9. I have some great prints at 30 x 20 inches off a D300. Robin...
     
  10. So, then, more quality is not visible except in much larger prints? Is that a fair assessment of the reality of megapixel count?
     
  11. More is not always better. More megapixels doesn't necessarily mean better image quality, and certainly not for an 8 x 10 image. A 100mp image and a 6mp image will look identical for an 8 x 10 (all other things being equal). "Will Nikon play catch up?" I think you have it wrong as to who has to play catch up. There are many features like better weather sealed body, higher frame rate, more focus points and a better focusing system (to name a few) that make the D700 superior to the MKII and a better value. What you will see with the MKII is much, much more accurate exposure with the MKII (assuming its metering is identical to the original 5D) than the D80 which may appear to make your pictures look better. Assuming correct/identical exposure on each camera at low ISO, you will not see a difference. If you are happy with your D80, keep it. If not or if it is missing needed/wanted features, upgrade. But be aware that IQ (except at higher ISO) will likely not be any different.
     
  12. After reading the reviews of the new Canon 50d w/ 15 MP on a CMOS ensor, I'd seriously wait before I purchased the new 5d, even if I was a canon shooter. The IQ issues on the new 50d because of the high pixel count make me wonder if they'll have the same issue on their 5d, even if it is a full framed camera. As to switching your equipment from NIkon to Canon because of more MP....that just seems rediculous to me. No offense but I would think if you own a D700 you would know how little the higher MP really matter to most photography. I'm sure the MarkII is an amazing camera, but so is the D700. In any event I would never buy a camera before it was reviewed and tested. Frankly I can't believe how many people are willing to pre order a camera before it's ever released. I don't care who the maker is.
     
  13. "So, then, more quality is not visible except in much larger prints? Is that a fair assessment of the reality of megapixel count?" Even then, not necessarily. it depends on how the prints are being made. Epson right now is sponsoring a pretty intense one day simina wit h various very knowledgable speakers --Jeff Schewe, Mac Holbert, John Paul Caponigo, Greg Gorman, Jack Resnicki, and Andrew Rodney. It is called the Epson Print Academy http://www.epsonprintacademy.com for the schedule and more info. I went a couple of weeks ago and took the track 2 course. One of the things I learned was that if you have a good printer, you can send files to it at any resolution (ppi) from about 180 ppi on up and a high quality printer wil ldo a damn fine job depending on the printers dots per inch resolution setting (they recommended 1440 for the Epsons). if you use Photoshop open the image you are going to print and choose Image > Image Size and uncheck (turn off) the Resample Image option. Now re-size your image to the desired size in inches or centimeters and as long as the Resolution is above 180 you are good to go. You don't need to interpolate the data via either Photoshop's interpoaltor or external software or plug ins like Genuine Fractals. I use a Canon IPF6100 imagePROGRAF printer, not an Epson, so this week I tried this approach making some 16x24s fro m12.1 mp files and also using GF. Guess what? They were right. You can make fine quality 8x10 prints from high quality 5 and 6 mp cameras as long as you know what you are doing when making the photo and processing it.
     
  14. YES you will see a very evident quality difference: The D 700 has less noise. A LOT less noise. at ISO 800 has as much noise as the Canon at ISO 100. Amazing!
     
  15. I am very surprisded on the extrmely low noise on my D 700. I have read the avobe comparison at a magazine that tested a 5D. It make sense because the larger pixel size on Nikon's sensor.
     
  16. So far my testing has shown the D700 has a one stop advantage over the D300. In other words, the D700 at ISO 6400 is about the same as the D300 at ISO 3200. I don't expect the new 5D MKII to have any advantages over the D700 other than more pixels.
     
  17. Hi Ira, Unfortunately, the 5DMkII is not out in the real world yet. Until it is released, much of what is written is speculation or, in some very limited cases, based on pre-production samples. Has anyone posting here actually used the 5DMkII themselves? Whether to change brands will depend upon the amount of equipment you have now. You write that you use to use Nikon film equipment. If you have many full frame Nikon lenses that you can use on the D700, you should take the cost of replacing those lenses with Canon lenses in to account. If you have only Nikon DX lenses, then you are starting from scratch when you move to a FX camera. Although your DX lenses are usable on the D700, they reduce it to an 5 Mega Pixel camera. You would be better off upgrading to a D300, if you intend to make much use of your DX lenses. Do you have an extensive collection of Nikon flashes or other accessories that would be usable on the D700? If you do, that should also be taken into account to establish the cost of changing brands. In any case, I expect Nikon will be forced to with respond by reducing the price of the D700 when the 5DMkII is available, and eventually by producing their own 20+ mega pixel camera.
     
  18. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    Bob Atkins just finished photo.net's Canon 50D review: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/50D/review/ Bob confirms DPReview's observation that in terms of high ISO results, the 50D is actually a step backward from the 40D. That is precisely the negative effect from cramping too many pixels into the same area, thus affecting the quality of those pixels. The 5D Mark II has yet to be tested by independent parties. I am sure Nikon will introduce its own 20+MP camera soon. I can only speak for myself, but it is unclear to me 20+MP plus its side effects is what I really want or not.
     
  19. I have only been using digital for seven months, so I have a lot to learn, however I have used film for forty years. Ok the more megapixels gives you much more room to crop and still maintain detail. However the quality of the pixels has a tremendous effect too. We can't just say because there is more pixels, the quality of the photo will be better.
     
  20. The only advantage I can think of for a 20MP camera is the ability to crop. I sometimes do crop down by at least ha.f, Having more pixels to start with would be a help. Of course, if your lenses can't handle the resolution of a 20MP sensor, I don't see the point of buying the camera. There's also a question of how well sharpness will hold up with extreme crops if you didn't use a solid tripod. I too used a D80 for the past two years. So far, I'm finding the D300 performance to meet my expectations. That's with Nikon's best lenses and a $900 tripod/head though. Kent in SD Kent in SD
     
  21. Xaviere Farre said: "The D 700 has less noise. A LOT less noise. at ISO 800 has as much noise as the Canon at ISO 100. Amazing!" Has a lot less noise than a Canon what at ISO 100? Can you elaborate?
     
  22. "So, then, more quality is not visible except in much larger prints? Is that a fair assessment of the reality of megapixel count?" That depends on how you print and who is looking at it. If you are the type of person who can look at a print and go "wow, that's an 8x10 contact print", then no, 12mp isn't enough. If you're a little more "normal", 12mp is fine. A 12mp camera makes an 8x10 that just about anyone would define as "really good". At normal viewing distance, it's pretty much razor sharp and highly detailed. But it can look even better. Hand a print of the same subject shot with the same lens on a 12mp and 21mp camera to a group of "civilians", and the odds are not one will be able to say which is better. Hand them to a connoisseur, an expert print maker, or a photographer with a good eye, and they will be able to tell the difference. You have to know what to look for, and you have to practice seeing it. For me, I tend to push it to the limits of my ability to tell, which means I do sometimes do a 2 shot stitch from a D2X or D3 into an 8x10. That's me. Those who know me, know that I'm, well, a little weird. A 12mp (D2X, D3, D700, D300, etc) image printed at 8x10 is 350dpi. When you take into consideration the nature of the Bayer sensor and it's anti-aliasing filter, that's closer to 250dpi (in case anyone is interested, 350/sqrt(2)). That's 62 line-pairs/inch (dpi/2) or 4.8 lpm (line-pairs/mm, the way we used to measure resolution back in the "good old days". The common criteria for a "sharp" print is either 6 lpm or 8lpm, depending on who you talk to. Most DOF marks on lenses and DOF tables are based on 6 lpm onto an 8 inch x 10 print. To reach 6 lpm on an 8x10 needs 3450 pixels on the 8 inch side (6 lpm * 25.4 mm/in * 2 pixel/lp * sqrt(2) for the AA * 8 in), which is 17.9mp. To hit 8 lpm, we need 4600 on the 8 inch side, which is 31.7mp OK, that's the criteria. Now, how do we reach it? 6 lpm on the print is 12 pixels/mm = 304.8 dpi, and 8 lpm is 406.4 dpi. If you're really good at printing (know your printer's "basic cell" size, and scale up to that size properly) you really can make a print that exhibits the 8 lpm of the most demanding "critical sharpness" criterion. All that aside, I've also made 17x22 prints from the 12mp cameras that I've really loved. That's only about 175 dpi (125 dpi with AA filter). They don't look like 8x10 contact prints, but they do look pretty good. So, sometimes the math breaks down.
     
  23. If the largest print you make is 8x10, I would just stick with the D80. If you really need the added features I would go with the D300, it's basicly the same camera with smaller sensor. If you really need or want FF sensor then it's a toss up. So many people pixel peep and think that this camera is better than this one, or vice versa. They all have excellent IQ, pick the one that has the features you need most and go with that. If you think you might like HD movie camera also, then I would think about the 5DII, but you have to determine what camera will provide you with features you need or want most based on what you will use it for. Don't get caught up in Nikon is better than Canon or vice versa, they both make excellent cameras.
     
  24. Hum, You know if Ira wants to get a new camera I think it would be good for the economy. And what if he makes an 8 x 10 of a very highly cropped RAW file? Did you think about that? And then he might also need a faster computer. All in all, I think he should seriously consider helping out the system. And he should go out there and buy photo courses, books, and go take pictures and have lunch and a coffee while he's at it... I think Ira's should follow his hunch for the good of all. Luc www.lucbourgeoisphoto.org
     
  25. Xavier Farre , Nov 20, 2008; 12:02 p.m. "YES you will see a very evident quality difference: The D 700 has less noise. A LOT less noise. at ISO 800 has as much noise as the Canon at ISO 100. Amazing!" Can you provide your source for that assumption......I'd like to see it.
     
  26. I have a D80. An 8x10 is pretty solid from an inkjet printer. But when I go up to A3, oddities begin to occur, especially in the details. Keep in mind that the pixels on a 21mp sensor will be larger than those on your D80. Also remember that your DX camera will challenge your lenses more than than the 5D will. How high you need to go with the ISO may need to be factored into this as well, but nobody knows for sure yet.
     
  27. Amazing how many people appear to have tested the 5D Mark II and concluded that it has noise issues. I assume they must all be professionals that have the camera on trail from Canon. Or perhaps they have never tried the test. The sample images on dpreview and dphotojournal do not suggest that it has the noise problems suggested above. i was also unaware of any relaible magazine tests - Amateur Photographer has done a brief test (but not a full one) and they suggest the Canon High ISO performance is very good. Can Xavier Farre please share the name of the publication that has done the D700 vs 5D mark II test so we can see just how far Canon has fallen!
     
  28. if you need 8x10 only I WOULD LIKE TO AGREE to ELLIS VENER at the 1st answer . NO
     
  29. High ISO noise should not be the only factor in selecting between D700 or 5DMKII. There are other features which defines the quality of your pictures. D700 has the latest auto-focus engine, which dwarfs 5DMKII auto-focus in a big way. You cannot even start comparing the build quality between the two. Other features like remote flash system, better exposure metering, weather sealing, high fps etc.. make D700 a much better choice. D700 is a photographer's dream camera. It is built for photographers in mind and photography as an objective. You should compare D700 with Canon IDsMKIII (and not 5DMKII) for its features. Which means you are getting much more in much less, if you go with D700. Btw, I had been a canon user for a very long time and recently sold my Canon gears and bought D700. This move alone has made me a better photographer. I get focused, properly exposed images, with right amount of flash light EVERY TIME. All the best in your purchase. Whatever you decide, I hope will add excitement in your photography enthusiasm. :)
     
  30. Check this out. It seems as though DXo have invented a testing benchmark for cameras in real world conditions. I knew the D3 would be the best, but I assumed that the 1Ds would be second. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor
     
  31. The whole problem is noise.... not the camera but in us. Too much info is also as bad as too little info. Personally, photography is never about the camera. Both N & C make good DSLR & lens and our job as photographers is to make good photos. Please don't get caught in the battle of specs.... the whole thing is how we achieve balance between our wants, needs and desire. D80 is definetely good for 8x10" prints.
     
  32. The two cameras are actually quite different when it comes to their respective design philosophies. The D700 is somewhat of a simplified and compact derivative of the D3, a high speed sports/PJ camera w/ a moderate pixel count and very low noise. It does have the top of the line AF and overall set-up, which all made it a unique choice. With a MB-D10, the camera would become very much like a D3. The 5D Mark 2 is a high resolution landscape/architecture camera. From all of the materials about that camera I have read so far, it seems that Canon wants to make the camera excel in general image quality, instead of dedicated high ISO performance. Some suggested (I read it off an older thread on photo.net) that Canon's marketing department was behind the decision to put in the 21 MP sensor into the camera, obviously for "propaganda purposes"; and that Canon's engineers claimed that the camera would have done better with high ISO noise if the MP count had been more moderate. Although obviously the 5D Mark 2 will suffer from noise due to its large amount of pixels and their relatively sizes, we got no reason to say that its noise control technology/performance is inferior to the D700's. A 21 MP 5D Mark 2, a 15 MP 50D, and a 14 MP G10...chances are Canon's really applying their technology the wrong way as far as sensor design goes.
     
  33. Stick with Nikon. I too have a D80, and instead of buying a newer model, I got a good deal on a used D2Hs (which only has 4 megapix - but better AF). Comparing 8"x10" fast-action shots from a 10 megapix D80 and a 4 megapix D2Hs - I am happy with results from my used D2Hs.
     
  34. It is true that the 21MP has no effect on the quality of an 8x10 print, BUT the fact that you can crop out probably 12 seperate and distinct 8x10s at excellent quality from one 21MP photo is nice : ) As one friend of mine told me, he wants to one day able to crop away all but the center 3% and still have a high quality photo: ) That way you only have to worry about center sharpness of the lenses you buy.
     
  35. The simplest difference is that the Nikon camera works with Nikon lenses, and the canon camera works with canon lenses. If you are already in a system then stick with it. At this stage of the game, and with the class of camera you are looking at, I'm guessing you have some nice kit to go with your cam, it would be uneconomic to ditch once system and buy into who ever is ahead in megapixel matters this week. What happens next week when somebody else is ahead? An SLR system is as much about the system as the SLR. I use canon and won't be changing, I've spent too much on it, I know how everything performs I'm happy with my lot. And I've only got a scabby old 10Mp camera. What an inadequate luddite am I? In fact I've been spending more money on the system than the body and will continue to do so. I was intrigued by the video capability of the 5Dmk2, as that is my primary work, but it's not going to do what I want so I can live with A3 prints for now.
     
  36. Some are saying nobody has had chance to compare the new 5D markII noise issues, so it will have noise problems like 50D, please don't belive that. In fact somebody has had a chance to test it, check out what Digital Pro talk had to say about it, then tell me it suffers from high noise problems. Here is a quote: "Everybody knows I'm a speed junkie so for me the big question is how much can I "goose" that ISO and still capture a good picture? So how far could I go with the 5D Mk II? OK, folks - here it is - how about 3 stops higher than 800 ISO!!! Let me re-phrase, as Law and Order Jack McCoy would say, at 6400 ISO, I'd say I see the same noise characteristics as I see currently see on my 40D at 800 ISO. When I run Noise Ninja on both the Canon 40D and the 5D Mk2 file at 6400, I'm am getting the same "noise index" number. That calculates for to me to be the same amount of noise in the two images.That means, dear readers, the the old 800 ISO is the new 6400 ISO!!!!" Check it out yourself. http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2008/11/its-revelations-monday-8-hours-with.html
     
  37. if you want it and you can afford it, buy it, who cares what people think, only one person has to be happy and that is you.
     
  38. Definitely sell all your Nikon equipment and buy Canon for a few more MP. Then when Nikon releases a new body in six months or a year, do it again. It'll do absolutely nothing for your photography, but it'll be great for the economy and the rest of us will have cheap stuff to buy on eBay.
     
  39. Isn't it sort of a rule of thumb that, all else equal, More Resolution = More Noise? So taking two cameras with the the same size, Sony made, CMOS sensor, wouldn't the one with less megapixels produce less noise? "Buying a Canon 5D MKII to make 8x10" prints is like buying a Porsche 911 to drive 35mph." Haven't you seen any of those old guys who drive a Porsche? They never seem to do the speed limit. They don't buy em to go fast, they buy em to look cool.
     
  40. >> "Isn't it sort of a rule of thumb that, all else equal, More Resolution = More Noise? So taking two cameras with the the same size, Sony made, CMOS sensor, wouldn't the one with less megapixels produce less noise?" Other factors such as sensor design, micro lens design, processor's performance, and others could also play very important roles in this.
     
  41. The DxO folks say that their research indicates that higher resolution compensates for higher noise in the sensor's smaller pixels. Noting too, that one can downsize a high res pic and keep detail, but that when one upsizes, the process cannot invent fine detail. Some would say that a smaller print made from a higher resolution capture will have a certain better look than the same size print from a lower resolution camera. (I have Nikon D300 and too much money in glass and accessories to think about switching. But the Dxo article provides very interesting food for thought) /www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights> Dave Ralph
     
  42. Old brother,my D40 could print 8"X10" photoes very well.I think your D80 will do it perfectly."The more pixels, the more noise. "is well answer.
     
  43. Some pros dislike the D40 for its over-simplified design, while pixel-hungry consumers and mass retailers bash it for its low MP count. But the truth is: if used by a skilled photographer, perhaps with good lenses, the D40 is capable of fantastic results. Its image quality and noise performance obviously have something to do with its relatively large pixel size and low pixel density. >> "D40 could print 8"X10" photoes very well.I think your D80 will do it perfectly." If the D80 is doing an ok job as of now, it might be a good idea to keep it, and perhaps invest in lenses and exploit the creative potential that come along. Better and more affordable options probably will always be available in the future.
     
  44. It is too early to tell how good the 5D II will me in real world situations or whether like the 5D it will have mechanical problems (mirror falling out for instance), adequate weather sealing, low noise at high ISO in most situations, and then there is the whole concern about the reliability of Canon gear. My last camera before the D3 were Canon 1D Mark III's and although they were the best in terms of WB accuracy and overall fill flash exposure accuracy they were noticeably inferior to the D3 and that is why I sold them and the Canon lenses and strobes. The larger the picture the greater the viewing distance so the resolution really is not relevant for 99.9% of the pictures people take. Billboards for example at done at 110dpi and large trade show banners are done at 140dpi, magazine adds at 140dpi, so this perceived need for 300dpi for a 16x20 print is erroneous. And unless the printers are capable of printing at 300dpi, which they are really not, or unless the RIP software is up to the task, even 240dpi may be overkill when it comes to the actual quality of the print at normal viewing distances. When people make judgments based on viewing images at 100% on a monitor they really are not thinking the process through to completion.
     
  45. This is a Nikon Forum, ppl here will always tell you NIkon is best, higher MP dont' matter. Years ago, nobody has USM IS technology and now, everyone has, almost. If you want to take full advantage of the tecnology, you have to upgrade. Also, if you don't crop your pictures, 21 or 12MP on a 8x10 print makes no difference. You can also select different size of the image like L, M, S jpeg or raw if you worry about large files taking too much space. Generally speaking, technology is moving forward, like it or not its individual preference. A film camera with manaul lens takes nice pictures as well. it's your choice.
     
  46. forget all the rhetoric. the answer is simply no, you won't see much of a difference in 8x10s. at print sizes above 16x20, the 30% more detail of the 5dmkII would become apparent. if you are just printing 8x10, 21mp is complete overkill unless you are cropping each pic 50% or more. that's useful for internet pixel-peep comparisons, but in real-world shooting? nah. a better comparison mught be the original 5d with the d700 (since the 5dmkII really competes with the dx3 and the 24mp sony in terms of mammoth megapixel FF cameras). the 5d might get a bit of a slight edge in IQ as far as being less noisier, but when you factor in the nikon's better ergonomics, faster speed, and better AF module, it becomes a no-brainer choice, unless you never shoot anything that moves.
     
  47. Have you looked at the Fuji S5? It doesn't handle as quickly as the Nikon D300, but it provides the ability to shoot at much higher dynamic ranges, from what I've read. I am no expert on either camera. I shoot with a Canon 5 D, but I am considering a Nikon D700. Canon just announced their new 17mm Tilt-Shift lens though, and that is something I am VERY interested to get. I think I'll spend my money there, since when I tested a Nikon D700 for noise yesterday, I found that it was extremely noisy at ISO 3200. I was shocked. The fact that it can shoot at ISO 6400 is nice, but not if the photos will be unusable, and I consider photos from my 5 D to be practically unusable when I shoot at ISO 3200. The Nikon D700 seems to produce more noise at ISO 3200 than my Canon does, and it's obviously noisier when set on ISO 6400, so in my opinion, the D700 is not ready for prime time. I guess I'll skip this generation of upgrades, and wait for the Canon EOS 5 D Mark III. Hopefully it will offer the new pattern from Kodak (that will replace the Bayer pattern) and pixel-binning noise reduction technology, as well as 16 bit color. If Fuji introduces a full-frame version of their sensor, or if Foveon introduces a full-frame sensor, I'll have to do lots more research.
    Good luck with your decision.
     
  48. I have some great prints at 30 x 20 inches off a D100.
     

Share This Page