Print comparisons from 12 vs. 21+MP

<p>Has anyone done a print comp between the D700, D300 (D90) and 5D Mark II at 13 by 9? I am not interested in viewing pixels. Is there any sharpness or detail difference in the actual prints at that size? I am not asking for any opinions either or someone telling me to research older answers. I just want to know if anyone has done a comp between any or all of these cameras and what the results were. I have had a D300 and now a D90 and am considering a 5D Mark II if there is a gain in print quality. I don't plan on spending 8 grand on a D3X so Canon is my only alternative.<br>

Thank you for your answers. I really appreciate your help.</p>

 

<p>What lenses do you have now, and what lenses would you have to buy if you jumped systems?<br /><br />What sort of subject matter are you shooting?</p>

<p>The only time I've seen this kind of large prints (larger than 13x19) at the same time was from the NYC Photo Expo. Doesn't matter what camera / lens the photographer used, they all look great. Many of those poster size prints were taken by a 8 or 10 MP cameras. With the proper techniques, all the cameras you mentioned above should be OK.</p>

<p>The primary factors that determine how good your prints are (1) how good a photographer you are and (2) your post processing and printing techniques. For a moderately mid-size print like 13x9, 12MP is plenty. For static images such as landscape, studio fine art type, if you can routinely use a tripod and try to use the middle aperture of high-quality lenses, e.g. f5.6, f8 from a high-end f2.8 zoom, that will make some difference in your final print.</p>

<p>I tested the 24MP D3X earlier this year. Some other photographer and I made side-by-side comparisons between the D3X, D3, and D700. If you print something like 24x16", you can see some subtle advantage from the D3X if you use the right technique and optics as I mentioned above.</p>

<p>I used the 200mm/f4 AF-D macro on a tripod to captured the following flower macro with the D3X and D700. That lens has a tripod collar, and I just swap cameras with identical compositions. I used f11 to gain depth of field and 1-second exposure delay to prevent vibration from mirror slap. I made 11x8.5 prints and cannot tell the difference between the two prints while looking carefully from just a few inches away. That flower has a lot of little "hair" with plenty of fine fine details: <a href="../photo/9206542">http://www.photo.net/photo/9206542</a></p>

<p>I never used the Canon 5D Mark II, though.</p>

<p>Shun, Matt and Andy, thanks so much for taking the time to answer my question. Shun, you exactly answered my queston. Thanks for sharing your experience.</p>

<p>David</p>

<p>I shoot with a D300 and 500mm F4 (nikon), my photo partner shoots with a Canon 600mm F4. She previously shot with Canon 50D, recently upgraded to a 5D. Just this morning I printed a shot she took of a bull Elk with the 5D to 16X24 and the level of detail I find amazing when compared to my D300 or any of her previous photos with the 50D. The difference is quite obvious and impressive, much better quality than possible with my D300. (That's 21mp versus 12mp). The difference may not be quite as apparent in smaller sizes but the possibilities are definitely much greater for a highly detailed photo.</p>

<p>Don, you're not only comparing 21 vs. 12MP, you're also comparing two different sensor sizes (and different lenses). The OP is asking about two cameras of the same format with different pixel counts. Since lens detail contrast drops as you increase spatial frequency, the answer is also different.</p>

<p>Ikka, here's what he asked "Has anyone done a print comp between the D700, D300 (D90) and 5D Mark II at 13 by 9?". I believe I answered his question correctly except the print size was larger. If I'm correct both the D700 and 5D are full frame (FX) formats.</p>

<p>Is that 13x9 cm or inches?</p>

<p>Keith, inches.</p>

<p>Don, thanks a lot. That is what I was asking. I have a D90 and wanted to know if I would see a diff in quality in prints if I went to a full frame 21MP or higher (Sony 850 or Canon 5D II). I can't justify the D3X. I am not a pro and do this for fun. Eight thousand would really take the fun out of it. <br>

Ilkka, explain an increase in spatial frequency. Sorry, I'm in business and not an engineer. :) Assuming the lenses are the same and the sensors are the same would you see a diff? I did not think sensor size mattered because from what I have read the IQ from the D700 and the D300 are about the same.</p>

 

<p>As I pointed out earlier, there are many factors that affect the final print result. If anything, shooting technique, camera/lens support, lens optics, post-processing technique, etc. might have a larger impact than mere pixel count. When you reach 24MP on an FX (24x36mm) area, you have to use the best lenses in their optimal apertures to take full advantage of the many pixels, especially around the edges of the frame.</p>

<p>In other words, unless you keep all other factors the same as I did with my D3X, D700 test, you are actually comparing a lot of other (unknown or not well understood) issues.</p>

<p>I compared the D300, D700, and D3X earlier this year with images from <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com">www.imaging-resource.com</a>.<br>

I posted the following summary on Nikongear:<br>

Is 12MP enough ?? The only way to answer the question is to take images of the identical scene with a variety of cameras and put them through your full workflow to the final print, and then compare them.<br /><br />I bought a D300 two months before the D700 was announced and I wish that I had waited.<br /><br />However I have now done a full scale comparison test of the D300, D700, and D3X at ISO 200 and ISO 3200 and there is VERY little difference between them in a 24" (60cm) wide print. Your opinion may differ and I encourage you to do your own testing.<br /><br />On the web there are several sites showing comparisons of a D3 and D3X, but all show crops at the same pixels/inch rather than the same full image angle, and of course the D3X pics look bigger obviously.<br /><br />One site <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/" target="_blank">www.imaging-resource.com</a> does a better job with its "comparator" page and you can compare a large range of cameras with a large range of static images. <br /><br />On the screen, there are visible differences between the D300, D700, and D3X, however most of these disappear in the final print.<br />I downloaded their files (6MB jpgs for the D300 and D700, and 13MB jpgs for the D3X), and went through my normal workflow -- CS3 smart sharpen and Noise Ninja, both at their defaults. Then I printed all images with Qimage, which does its own uprezzing and sharpening, at full 24" width of my printer.<br /><br />At ISO 200, I could detect NO difference between the D300 and D700, and the D3X image was only very very slightly better. It did show better resolution on the round scale (see the image below) but on normal objects you could not tell one apart from another.<br /><br />At ISO 3200, there was still very little difference between the images. However on the pink cloth swatch the D300 and D3X produced a blurring of the pattern (probably due to Noise Ninja) while the D700 was crisp. The round scale was about the same between the D700 and D3X, with the D300 showing less resolution.<br /><br />Bottom line -- it is very hard to tell these apart in the print and I could sell images from any of these cameras at 24" wide. Your workflow does make a significant difference to the end result and seems to even the playing field between cameras.</p>

<p>I would imagine that there are a multitude of people with 13 inch printers who want to move up to 17 inches. That's where I am anyway. At 13 inches, a D300 with an average tele will produce an amazingly good image. So, the question is, will DX still be enough at 17 inches? A move to FX 20+ mp would end the anxiety. The Sony a850 will probably be about the same price as a 7D or D300s by the time I could afford one. I could set it up with used or Sigma/Tamron lenses and still come out ahead.</p>

<p>We get so caught up in 'is this number of megapixels better than that number of megapixels, DX vs FX etc etc.' The final point is that on the wall does it look good? I never look at prints from a few inches away, so whether x is sharper than y at 3" viewing distance is really irrelevant. I've had prints at 16" x 12" made up from a D700 (good lenses on tripod) that look fantastic, I've also had 16" x 12" prints made up from 35mm slides scanned on an epson V700 (not a great way to scan 35mm) and they look fantastic too, and at a viewing distance of 3 feet, I can't tell the difference. I <em>might</em> be able to tell the difference at 3", but I've never really bothered trying...</p>

<p>Sorry, that doesn't really answer the OP's question, but hey, the D700 can produce way more detail than I need.</p>

<p>Don, I apologize, it was I who read the original post incorrectly. Sorry.</p>

<p>David, under certain shooting circumstances, you may see a difference. Depending on the lenses used, you may see a difference. Depending on post processing, you may see a difference. Depending on how your print the pictures, you may see a difference. Or not.</p>

<p><em>"5D.... level of detail I find amazing when compared to my D300" </em> Dan, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your statement but perhaps the reason for the difference can be attributed to something other than the sensor of either camera (high ISO advantages aside). Lenses, settings and technique can have a dramatic effect on picture quality regardless of the body being used. A 6mp image is enough to produce a very good (or bad) quality 13 x 19 print depending on post processing skills and advanced software.</p>

<p>Is it worth the switch to the Mark II? You would probably have to try the camera and Canon lenses yourself to see if you like it/them and notice any image quality differences. As a user of both Nikon and Canon for over 2 years (began in digital with Nikon 6 years ago), I still use both, won't part with either, prefer one over the other depending on what I am shooting and get great results with both.</p>

 

<p>Another benefit of the higher megapixel count (assuming image quality doesn't suffer) is that you can afford to crop, and still be able to print large sizes with the final picture. </p>

<p>Ryus, you took the words right out of my mouth. I have the Canon 5D2 and the cropping advantage is something I didn't give much consideration to when I bought the camera. However, now I can make beautiful photos out of many shots that I would have deleted using an older camera. The "cropability" of the 5D2 (and I assume also the D3x) is astounding and you still end up with amazing photos. Here's my latest example:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>And here's the actual frame as it came from the camera. Note that the finished image above is probably only 10% of this original frame and yet it still delivers a lovely 10" x 10" print.</p><div></div>

<p>Elliot, I have also shot with both Canon and Nikon and my first choice goes to Nikon. I think that Canon makes great cameras its just my preference. I would love it if Nikon had a higher MP camera that was more in line with the price of a Mark II. If they did I would not hesitate in buying the camera. I just have a problem spending that much money on a FF D700 with just 12 MP's. I know the camera has other benefits but........</p>

<p>Just be prepared to take a step backwards in AF performance if you go for the 5D2. The AF is OK but the D700 AF is in a different league altogether. Other than that I have no complaints.</p>

<p>Guys, I have gotten such great info from everyone that I just subscribed to Photo.net. This is a great source of info. I feel guilty for not doing it sooner.</p>

<p>David, at least for me, 12MP is plenty. Unless your technique and optics are superb, going to 20+MP is largely meaningless. For example, if one shoots landscape, always uses a tripod and stops down a high-end lens, 20+MP makes sense if you need to make large prints. Otherwise, you'll frequently suffer from the lower-quality photosites due to high pixel density and slower frame rate simply because the camera has so many pixels to process. It is very easy to waste the advantage from those pixels due to issues in other links within the workflow chain.</p>

<p>One of the big advantage for the D700 is it excellent AF system and 8 frames/sec with the MB-D10. I shoot enough action that those are important factors. Even with the D3X (which has the same AF system as the D3, D3s, D700, D300, and D300s), I am down to 5 frames/sec and to me, that is a distinct disadvantage. And sometimes I actually prefer the D300 and D300s for the extra reach from DX, but that is another topic.</p>

<p>Jamie Robertson's example is about cropping maybe 3MP out of 21MP. I would rather get the right shot with the right technique and proper lens (focal length) so that I can take better advantage of the sensor (and camera) I have.</p>

<p><em>"Jamie Robertson's example is about cropping maybe 3MP out of 21MP. I would rather get the right shot with the right technique and proper lens (focal length) so that I can take better advantage of the sensor (and camera) I have."</em><br /><em></em><br />I agree, I would always prefer to have the right tool and lens for each given situation but in the real world we all know that's not always the case. What I was saying is that with 20+MP you can often make cracking images out of ones you would normally delete. My original image above would have been instantly deleted as being worthless but with a little patience and severe cropping you can get a nice result out of something. With half the pixel count you simply can't do that... not to the same extent anyway. The shot I took above was a grab shot of a street crowd that caught my eye as I was photographing other things with my 200mm. If I had known the shot was going to appear I would of course used a longer lens and prepared for it better. However, that option wasn't available but with the 5D2 I still got a nice result in the end.</p>