Zeiss primes or more megapixels?

[dan_south]

<p>As the owner of both camera, the D700 will give you a noticeable a resolution edge over the D200, at least more than the extra 2MP would suggest. D700 shots in good light look to my eyes as though they have about TWICE the resolution of a D200 shot. Maybe this is the bonus of the larger pixels and lower noise of a full-frame camera.</p>

<p>The D700 will also be much, much, much, much, much better at just about ANY ISO value over ISO 200. The D200 is a VERY noisy camera. The D700 offers much better autofocus capabilities, as well.</p>

<p>That said, there's also a large resolution gap between the D700 and a 20+ MP sensor (by any manufacturer). That's a difference you can see quite clearly.</p>

<p>Zeiss lenses? In some tests the late-model Nikon zooms actually rate better. Plus with Zeiss you get no VR.</p>

<p> </p>

[blumesan]

<blockquote>

<p>That said, there's also a large resolution gap between the D700 and a 20+ MP sensor (by any manufacturer). That's a difference you can see quite clearly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would not dispute that a significant resolution difference exists, and one that can be demonstrated <em>in certain circumstances.</em> However I doubt very much that the difference can be seen, even by the most keen eyes, in an A2 size print.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Graham,<br>

The Canon 17-40mm will not do the job as well as the newer Nikon zooms let alone some of the ZFs - I used to have one on my 1Ds II a few years ago. It's not a bad lens at all - it's just not as good as some of the newer ones and on a 5D II its deficiencies will be apparent.<br>

The ZF range is largely extremely good and in some instances it is far better than anything Nikon (or Canon) has hitherto produced. Nikon's new primes (and the PC-Es) may well upset that though but for the meantime the 21mm, 35mm and 100mm ZFs reign supreme. I sold off all my Nikon pro zooms once I had run parallel tests with the ZFs.<br>

Anyone thinking of making serious investments in ZFs should subscribe to diglloyd.com and see detailed comparisons between ZFs and the best that Canon and Nikon have to offer. They are impartial and painstakingly done and show up some surprising results both for and against ZFs.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Graham, you've listed travel photography and landscape as your two main interests. A DSLR is not the ideal camera for these genres, they are made for sport and such. I tend to think that, if you want to use 'the best' glass, you want to travel light for travel, you want to shoot landscape and print big, then a 35mm rangefinder camera such as a Leica, Voigtlander or Zeiss, with some nice Leica glass would fit the bill. This would come in at around the same price as your digicam with zoom lenses. Now if you don't want to limit yourself to just one camera, then get somthing like a Voigtlander Bessa with a Leica 35mm Summicron, and a Mamiya RB67 (frame size about 5 times the size of a Nikon D3x) with a 65mm lens and a 127mm lens. Then you've got your three interests covered. A good quality scanner such as the Epson V700 will do a great job on both the 135 and 120 film, and you will also add the ablity to make proper prints on an enlarger....maybe that doesn't interest you now, but you could turn around and make a nice one off print on some fibre paper in 20 years time. If you have an image that you really love, then it won't bother you to send it off for a drum scan if you really feel the need for absolute maximum scan quality. Use some <a href="http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html">Adox CMS-20</a>, and you really are in resolution heaven.</p>

<p>The main issue with the SLR lenses, is that they employ a retrofocus design, which compromises the image quality. Get a retrofus zoom lens, and things get even worse. Even some cheap normal lenses such as a Voigtlander 35mm on a Voigtlander Bessa is going to exceed the best glass from Canon or Nikon on a thier best digicams. DSLR's are great, I have a D3, but they have their limitations as does any other camera. I would never use the D3 for landscapes if I had other options available to me. As a hobbyist Graham, I see no reason why you would want to compromise your image quality just for the convenience of digital. If you don't have clients looking over your shoulder, or demanding same day turn around, there really is no point.<br>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

Mamiya RB67 with 90mm, 65mm, and 127mm lens = <em>$800 </em><br>

Voigtlander Bessa with Leica Summicron 35mm lens = <em>$1500</em><br>

Epson scanner = <em>$400</em></p>

<p><strong>TOTAL = $2700 </strong></p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>I see two different points here:<br /> 1. Camera upgrading (looks like everybody agree here, any current version will perform much better than your D200). The question is... Canon or Nikon? Which system do you prefer? Pixel resolution, AF, flash, ergonomics, <em>empathy</em>, etc. <em>After that</em>, once you have choosen what works for you, I`d think on the lens choice that could give you <em>a bit more IQ</em> or not, faster AF or whatever. If you start mixing that variables this can be an endless maze. I`d first resolve this issue. <br /> 2. Lens choice. Here is the tricky thing. Is it worth to you a bit more resolution in trade of AF, zoom versatility or money? Does a Zeiss prime will give you higher IQ than a "N" pro zoom or even a Nikkor prime at landscape working apertures? Do you have a whim for a Zeiss lens? (something perfectly legitimate, my ZAS (<em>NAS derivative</em>) is asks me for a 50/2 Macro Planar... ) If so, I`d simply go for it.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I agree wthat renting makes good sense before buying. Here is a good place to do that for Zeiss and other good glass and other photo equipment. Note that the link is just for wide angle lenses for Nikon: <a href="http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/nikon_wide_angle">http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/nikon_wide_angle</a><br>

Other lenses can be found at other links.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

[kevin conville]

<p>Some good responses. Full frame in either the D700 or 5DII are both good options for high image quality. Ronald's suggestion of Zeiss ZF lenses makes sense. Nikon's 14-24 is a brilliant lens as well. IMO the Canon 17-40 you mentioned shouldn't even be a part of this discussion. Most of Canon's wide lenses aren't very good and none of their wide zooms are.</p>

[tommarsh]

<p>It seems obvious that getting more detail and true colors in any photo are desirable objectives. I am a comparative novice at photography. A basic question: Assuming the same lens is used and the same ISO and White Balance and aperture settings, does the Nikon D3X with 24 MP and a full frame image sensor give more detail and better color than a D700 with a full frame but only 12 MP?</p>

<p>Thank you for your response.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>However I doubt very much that the difference can be seen, even by the most keen eyes, in an A2 size print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Granted, but I didn't mention prints. I don't print all of my photos, only a select few. But I review each of them on a monitor at various magnification levels. This online inspection is where the differences can be seen clearly.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>A basic question: Assuming the same lens is used and the same ISO and White Balance and aperture settings, does the Nikon D3X with 24 MP and a full frame image sensor give more detail and better color than a D700 with a full frame but only 12 MP?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't believe that there would be much difference in color. More detail depends on lens quality, camera stability, focus accuracy, depth of field, and the amount of detail inherent in the subject. A clear blue sky doesn't have a lot of detail, for instance. Nor does a bank of fog. If your camera shakes or your focus isn't completely accurate, you're not going to capture the detail that any quality DSLR and lens can render. And a some ISO settings, I would choose the D700 over a camera with more pixels. The D700 is amazingly clean up to ISO 3200. The D3X doesn't even go that high.</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Less than 2 years ago Canons 5D was the choice for anyone wanting (somewhat) affordable FX digital. I dont think anyone cared that it was 12 MP and it was a clear winner for landscape photography. Now we have the D700 with the same 12 MP's, but, all around much better performer than the 5D. However, the D700 does not get the credit that the 5D got. A little late I guess. But, with the new 5D2 you get 8 more MP's for less money and at $800.00 you cant beat the 17-40mm.</p>

<p>I would be very surprised if most of the photographers that responded here did not consider trying the new 5D2. At least the ones who are not bound to Nikon.</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>The price of more megapixels trends down, while the price of well designed/made lenses goes up. Buy lenses now, and buy higher megapixels later, when they're cheaper and there are [maybe]more choices.</p>

[stephen_worth]

If resolution for landscapes is what you're looking for, you shouldn't be looking at digital. The difference between cameras

and lenses isn't great enough to justify the cost. If you were looking for speed and low light, a D700 would be a great

investment. But it seems you're a film photographer who has traded image quality for the convenience of digital. You aren't

going to see much difference unless you bite the bullet and get a medium format camera. Find a quality lab to scan for

you. It will be much cheaper and more effective for you than getting high end digital equipment that really isn't up to what

you're asking it to do.

 

The alternative is to decide if you really need all that resolution. If you're just looking at images on a monitor, you aren't

pleasing the viewer of your work. You're just gaining some sort of theoretical satisfaction. Unless your images are drop

dead gorgeous and deserve to be printed to fill a wall with spectacular detail, you really don't need to go down the

expensive road you're going.

[walterh]

<blockquote>

<p>Find a quality lab to scan for you. It will be much cheaper and more effective for you than getting high end digital equipment that really isn't up to what you're asking it to do.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Steven this is a suggestion that is too often overlooked.<br>

But it depends on the number of images one shoots. For a low volume this is always an excellent alternative, especially if one is able to use lens and back movements for landscapes. If larger numbers of images are used the cost of film (plus follow up costs) quickly exceeds a digital MF back. Use a fine tip pencil and do the calculation for your application. Of course large numbers of MF digital images require more capable computing and storage as well as backup power that is also expensive.</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>I switched from using manual Nikon SLRS and Nikkor lenses nearly fifteen years ago to Contax SLRs and Contax Zeiss lenses, and have not been disappointed at all. Should bear in mind that the Zeiss glass will offer a different "look" than the Nikkors and only you should be the judge as to which is preferable. As for the current ZF Zeiss lens lineup, while several lenses are derived from the earlier Contax Zeiss designs (including the 50mm f1.4 Planar, which, IMHO is the best fast 50mm lens I have ever used, period, with respect to contrast and resolution), most of the others are new designs based on the latest technology. But even fifteen years ago, I was still surprised that my 25mm Distagon (not the same design as the current one, but ancestral to it, and actually, a design dating from the 1960s for the Contarex SLR system) didn't substantially outperform my 24mm Nikkor lens.</p>

[matt_smith24]

<p>Having used many of Nikons pro lenses and currently still do, I'm very impressed with the Zeiss ZF 100 MP I recently bought. There is something different about the look that Zeiss lenses give that can't be reproduced by Nikon. It's not just the sharpness, which is indeed very sharp, nor the micro contrast or even the colours which are quite vibrant. It's a kind of solid, more realistic look - don't know how to describe it but it's there. I'm going to get the ZF 35 when my bank balance recovers and then the ZF 21.<br>

To answer the OP - get a Zeiss 35, then a Zeiss 21 and a Nikon FX body, You won't regret it.</p>

<p> </p>