D700 vs 5D Mark II

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.

"My question is, will I see a big difference in image quality in 8x10" prints with the 5D?"

 

No.

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.

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

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

"<I>Ask yourself what the weak link is in your photography. I'd bet a lot that it is not your current camera.</I>"

<P>

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.

<P>

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.

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.

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.

I have some great prints at 30 x 20 inches off a D300.

 

Robin...

So, then, more quality is not visible except in much larger prints? Is that a fair assessment of the reality of megapixel count?

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.

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.

"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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

"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.

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.

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

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.