Canon EOS 5D Mark II versus Nikon D3

[danny3]

I think all of yall have too much time and money on yalls hands.This reminds me of the old agument of the corvette

and the mustang,as to which is better.Lets try comparing apples to apples, not oranges to oranges.Adan Dickernson

said it right when he said "Nikon and Canon make fine products, and Nikons are getting a lot better. I would base my

decision on investment and intensions, if you have an extensive collection of lenses and they work great for you;

stick with your equipment. Both cameras offer a great solution to your needs; depending on your requirements and

budget, you will not be disappointed with either body. Plus with the money you will save getting the 5DmkII, you

could get some sweet glass over the excessive penalty involved in purchasing the D3." I'm still tring to buy a used

digital Nikon(D200) but the money is not there so i do what i can do with what ive got. My little Kodak z612 holds up

well to the elements,and has taken over 5500 pictures this year flawlessly.And besides if you dont have a good eye

or you are going to totaly warp your didgtal image you don't need to spend $2,000-$3,000 on a camera . buy a point

and shoot pocket camera, that will yeild the same results. On the mp concern... if i have 12,000mp on a 3x5 index

card or 21,000mp on a 3x5 index card the index card with 12,000mp, each mp will be larger and less distorted when

enlarged, thats the way I see it. I hope you all had a great thanksgiving and my God bless!

[ruslan]

I consider you a seasoned pro, but support your arguments with figures. Mentioned by you films are fine, no doubt, but are rare like dinosaurs,)) 200 lpmm - I do agree. See this - Tamron 90/2.8 Macro gives 90 lpmm at 2.8 - 90*24=2160 on a shorter side. It corresponds to 6.9 Mpix resolution. Above mentioned macro lens is considered sharp. 50 mm (no matter of what brand - may be except expensive Leica 50/1.4 ASPH) at f2 is SO soft! See photozone.de, photodo.com, for resolution testings and tell me where I am wrong.

 

And if you shoot handheld you have a micro-shifting (shake) what decreases the sharpness - and have blurring. The larger size the more obvious the blurring is. Therefore in photojournalism super-resolution has even harmful effect. The more resoluton of the sensor - the faster shutter speed is needed to render all resolution (both sensor and the lens). If I were Jerry Gardner it would depend on what size I want to print,... and how universal and rugged camera I want. If he wants to print 1 meter on a shoter side and shoot with tripod in good condition - go Canon -if not larger than 40 cm and use it in harsh condition with new ZF Zeiss lenses (legendary) - go Nikon. One more argument - let us compare 12 mpix Nikon with new Zeiss 85/1.4 ZF with 21 mpix Canon with ho-hum 35-135 IS zoom. We shall see that the optics is the name of the game not pixel count.

[scott_ferris]

Berg,

 

As always compelling arithmetic but wrong,

 

The active area you refer to is the only relevant area, I presume Canon know more about sensors than you, they say you can reduce the pitch but keep the photodiode area (active area) the same. They have fitted more pixels in the same space but maintained the light sensitive area of larger pixels.

 

"To cram more pixels into the same area, the pixel pitch must be reduced, the photodiode is then smaller and will hold less signal, reducing the dynamic range and SNR." The first part of your comment is correct, pixel pitch must be reduced, the rest is completely wrong.

 

I only post this not to prolong the agony of anybody still reading but to show that I do understand what I am talking about even if I don't know the full terminology and that despite your continued inaccurate posts you still didn't look at a print!<div></div>

[fujimike]

Thankyou Dave Luttmann for reapeating exactly what i have said! Hopefully the poor confused guy now looking for an excellent camera will remember my words and make the right choice in choosing Nikon which as i spoke was in truth. They are the camera manufacturer of the year, this is fact! One cannot deny the truth only get irritated by it!

Jerry my own opinion and i repeat my opinion (its obvious some people cant handle other opinion's!) is to go to a decent camera shop and try for yourself. Also look at the reviews for the Nikon D700 v's canon 5DII and for the Nikon D3 and you will discover for yourself and from expert critiques that the latest Nikon's are far superior in many aspects to the canon. Im not saying canon is a bad choice because they are good camera's but not on the same level of professionalism as Nikon. Good hunting. No doubt these words will be repeated by some irritated person which does keep me amused!

[ed lake]

Looks like the Nikon D3x has been announced in Nikon Pro magazine. There are several threads over at dpreview talking

about it. This adds another iron to the fire.

 

Cheers

[Dave Luttmann]

Michael,

 

Please point me to a review of the 5D2 vs the D700 or D3. I'd love to see it where it says that the Nikons produce more detailed large prints..

 

 

Tom,

 

I never said the D3 could not be used for landscape. You can use an old D30 if you'd like. But, place finely detailed 20x30 prints side by that were shot with each camera and you'll quickly see which one people choose. I know.....because I have. And yes, for this type of work I normally use 4x5.....but that wasn't the question. Given the choice between the D3, D700 or 5D2 for producing detailed landscape prints, the 5D2 is the choice.

 

Ruslan, you do know how many pixels it takes to create a line pair, do you not? Most agree the figure is between 2.1 and 2.4. Just to use your math, and a middle figure of 2.2 pixels to line pair gives 4752 on the short end and 7128 on the long. Multiply the two, and you get 33mp with the lens.....which low and behold is a bit more than 6.9 mp. That is why I've found 5040spi scans from a Scitex that where shot on B&W film are still scanner limited.....because for good glass, lens figures go beyond 125lp/mm.

Seriously, plop that Tamron on a 1Ds2 and a 8mp 20D and according to you, both will resolve the same. I think you see your problem here. I've done enough scans from high rez B&W like Tech Pan with Leica glass to know better. And nearly 20 years of wedding and portraiture work with both film and digital with various formats gives me a pretty good base to work from.

[Dave Luttmann]

Michael,

 

I've often found fools are easily amused.

[ty_mickan]

Dave, if one must use a 35mm DSLR for landscape, then by your reckoning, the best one for the job would have to be the Nikon D3x which has just been announced (leaked) by Nikon, with 24.5mp.

[Dave Luttmann]

Or the a900 Tom. But as previously mentioned, for landscape, I use 4x5. But I'm particularly anal about print quality. I'm curious to see where the price on the D3X comes in. After spending mega bucks on the original 1Ds and 1Ds Mk2 for wedding work, it would be nice to see Nikon come in at a lower price point. But then again, as I've ceased the wedding portion of my business this year, I don't really have the need for one......but there's always Santa.

[photos of hans koot]

D3x here it is on PN: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00RdCl

[fujimike]

Oh dear. Not what Jerry intended im sure! Instead of discussion with people giving their opinions unfortunately people like Dave Luttmann are getting irate and are getting personal with rude unintellegent names. Well i certainly wont be dropping to that level as im only on here to give Jerry my thoughts on Nikon and Canon. Anyway Jerry u have my thoughts. The future choice is in you're hands. The future is Nikon!

[thomas_hardy1]

So why would Nikon produce a 24MP camera?

[gdwhalen1]

My opinion is that "God help all of you."

 

I have been shooting for 30 years. Leica, Nikon, Canon, 4 x 5 (Rodenstock), Pentax, Pentax 67, You name it, I've shot

it. Have had 3 darkrooms, dozens of computers and monitors. Epson Large Format printers, Canon printers, HP

printers. Shot Velvia, Kodachrome, every chrome every made. Ilford, Agfa.

 

And you know what. Big fucking deal. It's all about the image. Anyone ever examine the resolution of Steve McCurry's

Pakistan girl or Steichen's Balzac or Adams, "Moon and Half Dome"? Hell no. They view it, absorb it and enjoy it. Only

bad photographers that want to feel like they are good photographers get in a pissing war about pixels, dpi, etc.

 

Just go shoot and enjoy the process. I would NEVER buy a print because it has more pixels. Never. I would but it

because it was pleasing to my eye.

 

So, get out of the text/tech book and go shoot and do the best with whatever equipment you have. Rant over.

[Dave Luttmann]

Gary,

 

If Ansel did the shot twice.....once with 35mm and again with 8x10......and the same prints were side by side at 32x40......I think I know which one I'd choose ;-)

 

Guess which one will be more pleasing to your eye?

[phillip_bond]

@Gary:

Well put. For the most part I totally agree with you. It is my feeling that if viewers begin to worry more about a print's resolution then the image itself may not be strong or compelling enough.

 

Of course I admit that it is difficult for me – being in the business – to <b>not</b> get up close and look at the technical details of a photograph...

 

(the detail in Moonrise is very good though...)

_

phil

[mike_hitchen]

Dave: you forget one essential point. When people go to the musem, art gallery, poster shop or buy on line they see the picture IN ISOLATION: they do not see a 35mm version next to a 8x10 version. No-one would look at an Ansel Adams and think "its great, but it is only 35mm. It would be better in 8x10 so I won't buy it". They see a great shot and buy the print.

Do you think one of HCB's most well known pictures (Gare St Lazaier) and diss it because it was taken with what we could now consdier apalling standard equipment? Nope. They see a great shot and buy the print.

 

Good concept+good execution = great picture. I am not saying that 8x10 won't be better than 35mm, just that quality will always shine through. In that respect I agree totally with Gary.

[scott_ferris]

Gary that completely misses the point!

 

I have studied originals of both "Moon over Half Dome" and "The Afgan Girl" I have a signed Nat Geo of the later. Though my experience of the Adams prints were technically a let down the resolution at the sizes I saw were very relevant.

 

It is all about the image and in landscape photography resolution and detail can play a very important role in that image.

 

Yes a box brownie can replicate most of the pictures we take but would they be pleasing to look at? Some posters have decried the use of 36x24mm sensors as being able to do the job, some say they can do the job easily even with only 12mp, Jerry's is happy to accept the limitations the format brings but wondered which system would give him the best results. Of those who have looked at prints of the size talked about everybody has said the same camera.

 

People can be passionate about imparting impartial and experienced information, that doesn't affect their ability to take good pictures, some can, some can't, an olympic runners coach can't run as fast as his protege but does that mean he can't impart his knowledge to help that runner go faster?

 

Rant more relevantly next time, latest rant over. Scott :-)

[Dave Luttmann]

Mike,

 

I didn't forget that point....but my point is that high quality is high quality. Why choose a camera that limits you in an area? Yes, both can turn out great large prints.....but one will be better....and at a lower cost.

 

Seems like an easy decision to me. And while the prints may not be viewed side by side.....don't you want the higher quality available for your work?

[berg_na]

<tt><i>"They have fitted more pixels in the same space but maintained the light sensitive area of larger

pixels."</i></tt><br>

Scott - If you trust the marketing literature, some companies can do magic...<br>

    When you shrink the pixel size, either the photodiode area or the in-pixel circuitry has to shrink. If you reduce the

circuitry, the transistor size, noise will suffer, the 1/f noise component will increase. Higher noise will cause lower

dynamic range and SNR. There's no free lunch. I think that you're a reasonable person and that some day you'll

understand my point. I do agree with you though that this discussion is going nowhere, so this will be my last post

on

this thread.

[mike_hitchen]

I agree with you, Dave. But all this reminds so much of the HiFi argument (my other hobby). The general quality of

everything from CD players to amplifiers to speakers is so high compared to a few years ago that the reviewers zero

in on ever-smaller detail. Detail that is actually irrelevant to 99% of the population - in a 4mx3m room with average

furnishings the room plays such a significant part that most of those sonic details are either inaudible or are, in

practice, rendered irrelevant.

And I think photography is reaching that same point.

 

Like you, I believe in getting the very best tools I can afford, and I sometimes exceed my budget if the advantages

are worth it. But will either of these cameras *really* limit ability due to pixel count alone? It seems to me that the

D3 and the 5DmkII have different strengths and the decision should be based on those - some experienced

photographers who have two cameras will for some types of shot use the camera with lower pixel count because of

other technical advantages (AF speed, fine detail, focussing accuracy etc). Like hifi, wine drinking or buying a car:

the more experience you get and the more expensive/refined the product the choice settles more and more on the

and the finer detail - I just think that given the standard of prints both cameras give, that pixel count is less and less

important and it is things like handling and how you look at your prints.

 

So I think more important things are what is your usual viewing distance when looking at your prints, do you like

doing a lot of post-processing (crops, montages etc) for effects and other arcane detail. Unfortunately at the moment

no-one has yet published a review directly comparing the two cameras so everything at this stage is hypothesis. If

you think about it the 50D vs 40D argument (noise vs resolution) is still going on months after the 50D was released -

and if people still can't decide you have to ask if the difference is worth the cost.

[Dave Luttmann]

Berg,

 

You've already been proven incorrect. Dancing around the issue like you have is laughable.

 

Mike,

 

Why are so many of us photographers into high end audio as well. I've got a mountain of gear from Krell, Magnapan, VPI, Koetsu, SME......well, enough to sink a ship.

[fujimike]

Yes agree with Gary. Unfortunately since photography has gone digital people have got so hung up on pixels, photoshop and technology. To me these people are not photographers but techno lovers. Ok if thats what they want to be but for the purpose of the original question intended, that is Nikon or Canon for landscape work, both will do the work if the photographer has the eye for it, is inventive and creative, but my opinion was go for Nikon as Canon's do feel like something that just came out of a cheap christmas cracker!

[Dave Luttmann]

Odd....when people view the prints.....they don't ask how the camera felt or looked on your tripod. Point!

[thomas_hardy1]

"but my opinion was go for Nikon as Canon's do feel like something that just came out of a cheap christmas cracker!"

 

 

Your penchant for preserveration is astounding. Head injury or mental illness?

[Dave Luttmann]

Thomas Hardy , Nov 28, 2008; 03:13 p.m.

 

"but my opinion was go for Nikon as Canon's do feel like something that just came out of a cheap christmas cracker!"

 

Your penchant for preserveration is astounding. Head injury or mental illness?

 

 

 

He's just trolling for a reaction. My gut feeling is nether head injury nor mental illness.....but gear envy. I'd say he has neither camera in his "tool shed."