DSLR for large format / architectural photographer

[markus_muller]

<p>I`m an architectural photographer shooting mainly large format with a sinar f2.<br /> I used nikon film and digital cameras some years ago- but never for serious architectural photography. Now I need a good dslr with shift lenses for some jobs. I´m not sure if I should buy a nikon d700 or the canon 5d markII . I don`t have lots of good nikon lenses. Otherwise I`m used to the nikon handling and menu navigation, and the nikons feels better in my hands than the canon cameras.<br /> But what about image quality? Is there really a big difference between 21mp and 12mp?</p>

[phule]

<p>[[is there really a big difference between 21mp and 12mp]]</p>

<p>How big are your prints?</p>

[markus_muller]

<p>-very different. With what size do you think it would be better to use the 5d mkII.</p>

 

[markus_muller]

<p>and what about the "old" 5d. I don`t care about high iso, fast autofokus.... its all about image quality.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Forget this megapixel nonsense. The real issues are lenses and sensor size. Personally I use Nikon and Minolta but Canon has the most complete line of perspective control lenses. Nikon has 24mm, 45mm, 85mm and Canon has 17mm, 24mm, 45mm and 90mm. If you want the best flexibility when doing super wide angle interiors, you want a Canon "full frame".</p>

[SteveH]

<p>I agree with Andrew. I have Canon 24 and 90 mm tilt-shift lenses. They are sharp and flexible. I use the 90 with extension tubes for macro photography and the 24 for "view camera like" landscapes. Also you can use the Canon teleconvertors with them (though this does not show up in the exif data). I understand from Nikon users that the Nikon tilt-shift lenses are very clumsy to use. You might want to consider the 5DMk2 or (if price is no object) the 1Ds Mk3 for their live view capabilities and the ability to magnify for precise focus. </p>

[john_a5]

<p>Megapixels will actually help you in several ways. The most important one for architectural work is the fact that there will still be times when you need to do some perspective corrections in post as well as the possiblity of some barrel distortion. Having the extra pixels gives the image more to work with and the actions are far less destructive.</p>

<p>I think you will also find the 5dmII's ability to handle higer iso's of some advantage. Not that you will necessarily using high iso's, but the noise levels at all iso's is much better than the original 5d and you may find that bumping up your iso, with confidence of getting what you want, a plus.</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>"But what about image quality? Is there really a big difference between 21mp and 12mp?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Article from a longtime Canon pro here that may be useful: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5DIIreview.shtml What's under the 'Resolution' heading is interesting reading.</p>

<p>I made the same choice last month, and went with the D700. The article figured into my decision somewhat, as FX lenses needed to be purchased as well (I upgraded from a D200 w/ all DX lenses, save one). I've not read or heard of anything similar with the D3X as of yet. However, my final decision came down to AEB versatility and ergonomics (not just a matter of what I was used to, BTW). I did like the 5DIIs lighter weight, and it's certainly an excellent camera. I made the right choice for me and the kind of shooting I do. YMMV.</p>

<p>There's rumored to be a D700X (or the like) on the horizon that might make the mp issue moot. It makes sense in light of the D3X and Nikon's history of DSLR product progression.</p>

[aginbyte]

<p>Markus, just finished my first extended test with Canon's new 17mm TS. Lens is amazing, so much better than the previous 24mm TS which I shot with extensively. Coupled with a Canon 1ds Mark III, the combo is a superb choice for architectural work. Also shoot with a 5D (original 5D, not the Mark II), and both cameras do well. The difference is simply the size of the output print. Both are capable of anything in the normal commercial range, but the 1ds Mark III is just sharper and more detailed. I think both work well. </p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>I've been using the new Canon 24mm T/S II, and it is as amazing as everyone says it is.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_24_3p5_tse_c10/page6.asp</p>

<p>Nikon introduced a new 24mm T/S last year and it's apparently very good, although I haven't tried it.</p>

<p>Camera-wise, I would recommend the 20mp-plus class for architecture whether you choose Nikon or Canon; the 12mp-class (D700, 5D I) is better at high ISOs, but that's not usually an issue for architectural work.</p>

<p>Btw, if you get a 5DII, don't fret about the image quality based on scrutiny of jpg's; the RAW files produce much better results and most of those who complain about mushy photos turn out to have been shooting jpg.</p>