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

[albertdarmali]

I just had a look at the website that you linked too, and again, they are products of a well-done post processing.

 

If you are thinking about a camera that can give you that kind of result straight out of camera, (without considering things like lighting/post processing/techniques/etc), I have to tell you I haven't seen such camera yet.

[walterh]

Michael I do not know any recent Nikon DSLR and no Nikkor lens that will not give a "sharp" image with a long edge of 600 pixels. If the image is lacking it is the photographer and his shooting technique. No insult to you - the limit for my photos is the photographer all the time ^^.

[sjmurray]

"The 5D seems to just blow away everything in Nikon's digital arsenal as far image quality is concerned."

 

How are you making this determination? Its impossible to compare cameras looking at jpgs on the computer. That said, the best way to compare would be to look at prints of the same subject, taken at the same time by the same photographer using the two cameras. My guess is that images of the D80 and 5D would be nearly identical at about 11x14, but maybe the 5D image could be enlarged a bit more and retain some sharpness due to the larger number of original pixels.

[tonybeach]

"The 5D seems to just blow away everything in Nikon's digital arsenal as far image quality is concerned."

 

The D2x is sharper (if closely scrutinized under a magnifying glass). At base ISO the D2x is also unrivaled in its shadow detail. For "full frame" devotees, the 5D fills a niche that performs very well at high ISO, but if you're a detail freak who demands the best then you shoot medium format, and if it's digital the sensor is cropped and you start getting noise above ISO 200.

 

"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."

 

Living within a budget is an important consideration. For me, I just bought my second D200 because I would rather have two of them than one 5D (my desire to start shooting professionally necessitates this choice). If for you the 5D offers what you need better than Nikon, then by all means switch before you become to invested in the UI, workflow, and gear.

 

"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."

 

Actually, the first one is a great lens, the other two are very good. What makes this slightly at odds with what you said earlier is that now you are saying that you are going to spend $3500 on pro lenses. It's the right choice in terms of priorities, better glass first, better body later; but if you purchase "equivalent" lenses for a 5D (300 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/4 IS, 24-105 f/4 IS, and 15 f/2.8 fisheye) you will end up spending $3750.

 

"This isn't a Nikon vs. Canon debate, by the way."

 

It is, and you are inviting the comparisons. I am grateful that this is not DPR, where such a thread would quickly become a melee between Canon and Nikon users.

[oskar_ojala]

I have an D70 and I can do that. Of course, based on the pics I've seen, the EOS 5D can produce picture of much higher resolution than my D70, but you're supposed to get something for the money too. To me it looks more like you need better technique than more equipment, but if you think the EOS 5D will automatically enable you to take shots like the Polo shot then go ahead.

[erik_loza]

Give me any camera and any lens, and I will find a way to make something happen. There are too many special moments out there to make excuses.

[john lehman, college alask]

Going beyond gear envy, there is a long history of formal analysis of sharpness (William's <title>Image Clarity</title> (Focal Press, 1990) is a good summary. Bottom line: if the camera is hand-held with a shutter speed of less than 1/500 second, almost any reasonably good camera in focus with an appropriate f-stop produces on average the same results, since baring other problems, the limiting factor is camera shake resulting from heartbeat and circulation. On a heavy-weight tripod (ideally with a few bags of lead shot on the camera for vibration damping), a pneumatic shutter release and focusing with a magnifier or microscope on the ground glass, there are, of course, dramatic differences in sharpness.

 

Most Photonet participants will probably reject this analysis, since if technique rather than equipment is the bottleneck, it removes the major excuse for buying new toys.

[derek_stanton2]

Any picture, from any camera can be made to look "sharp" onscreen, at 72dpi. I have 'soft'

images shot on film or digital, that, when sharpened at web JPG size look extremely sharp.

 

That said, i do have a 5D. But, not because i think it's sharper than a Nikon. I just prefer

using my film lenses in the manner i'm used to.

 

If you want "sharp," use good glass, shoot at lower ISOs, medium apertures, high shutter

speeds, and put the camera on a tripod.

[ramon_v__california_]

why don't you use the D80 and the 50mm as your learning tools to begin with.

[gv]

While Ansel Adams did use a variety of film formats during his long career, his iconic images

were mainly produced using 8 x 10 view cameras. That's an 8 x 10 inch piece of film folks! I

wonder how many megapixels that equals...?

 

Ansel wasn't a gear-head, but he sure had his technique down. He was also a paid consultant

to Polaroid for many years. I think that he would have added digital imaging to his arsenal

without a second thought.

[john lehman, college alask]

GV, 8x10 film in practice is about 128 megapixels. With a modern studio setup, modern film and process lenses you could get up to 4 times that, but not with a wooden field camera outdoors using 1920's vintage films with a resolution of 25 lppmm.

[Landrum Kelly]

". . . could my Nikon D80 capture images as sharp as those taken by the EOS 5D?"

 

I am sitting here wondering why you would want to compare the D80 with the 5D. A fairer comparison would be between the D2X (or D2Xs) and the 5D.

 

I shot the Kodak 14n (which used Nikon lenses) before I bought the Canon 5D. In good light, the 14n was the sharpest camera that I have ever owned in terms of resolution. (It had other problems, especially at low light or high ISO.) What I have found on both the 14n and the 5D is that the lenses become the limiting factor on what kind of resolution you are going to get (assuming good technique). Whether I was shooting Nikon or Canon lenses, the quality of the lens was finally the critical link in terms of image quality, and both make good lenses. The best lenses will show the deficiencies on the cheaper cameras of any brand.

 

This is my way of saying that even the 5D will not print any more clearly than the D80 if you do not use good lenses. (I won't even get into technique, since not even good glass will save you from bad technique.)

 

My best combo so far with long lenses has been the 5D with the Nikon 600mm f/4 manual focus lens. That has given me far and away the best results in terms of print quality, but I am pretty sure that the guys who are shooting the D2X with comparable lenses are getting comparable quality.

 

It is about light, yes, but it is also about glass. If you have a big stable of Nikon lenses, why on earth would you consider switching?

 

I like to shoot full-frame, but, unless you must have full-frame, there is no particular reason to switch. It is a very expensive transition, and at some point you are going to second guess it. In addition, you are going to miss that nice little aperture ring on your Nikon lenses.

 

I am not comparing the two systems with regard to low ISO performance or build quality. I would caution against switching brands based on the present number of megapixels available or any other single thing.

 

All that said, if you use good technique and good lenses, no, the D80 will not give you the resolution and quality of the 5D--but it will not matter unless you are going to print very large prints. If you do want the capability to do that, then buy the D2X or D2Xs, use great lenses, and perfect your technique. If you must have full frame, shoot Canon. Otherwise, stay with Nikon.

 

--Lannie