Nikon D800 Canon 5D MkII comparison

[Flake]

OK I know it's digital rev reviewing the two, but they appear to have had their hands on the new Nikon, I think it's interesting reading in the abscence of anything else.

Oh & if anyones offered any cheap Nikon gear some one stole the van with all the Nikon roadshow gear last night in Southern Ireland, including the D4 & the D800 round about £100K worth (Don't we know someone here with links there?)

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/nikon-d800-vs-canon-eos/OTE5NzQxMQ_A_A

[Maui5150]

What is the point in comparing a $3000 brand new camera to a camera that is 2 years old and $1000 cheaper. 

One would certainly hope for 50% more in price, and two years newer that the comparison would be one sided.

Now a 1Dx vs D4 would be much more interesting

[vbi]

Essentially everyone knows that the 5D2 is the camera to beat as it set a new standard in IQ when it was released. Hence the comparisons.

[Maui5150]

Essentially everyone knows that the 5D2 is the camera to beat as it set a new standard in IQ when it was released. Hence the comparisons.

Quote I liked in there:  "However, in the right hands, the Canon EOS 5D Mark II can still beat the D800 if you are not looking at large high res landscape shots."

I guess the photographer matters for something, but also goes a long way to say while most of these newer cameras are more capable and have great improvements, most cameras we are currently shooting with are very adequate as well

[sb]

This is not a "review", this is a joke. And by the way, since when does 5DMk2 have only 1 movie mode? At least get the spec sheet right....

[Maui5150]

Given this is Digital Rev, it is hard to tell what is a joke and what is a review.  One could also read that as their reviews are often jokes or filled with jokes...

[awinphoto]

What is the point in comparing a $3000 brand new camera to a camera that is 2 years old and $1000 cheaper. 

One would certainly hope for 50% more in price, and two years newer that the comparison would be one sided.

Now a 1Dx vs D4 would be much more interesting

You mean 3 going on 4 years old and was a month or so ago almost $1200 cheaper... 2 separate generations, 2 separate beasts... It would be like pitting Dan Fouts head to head now with Phillip Rivers (football) or the like.  Not very fair comparison I would say... but for a slow news cycle, i guess you get what you get

[D.Sim]

What is the point in comparing a $3000 brand new camera to a camera that is 2 years old and $1000 cheaper. 

One would certainly hope for 50% more in price, and two years newer that the comparison would be one sided.

Now a 1Dx vs D4 would be much more interesting

it would give people an idea of what the new camera can do, comparing it to whats already been established...

But then again its digitalrev, they're doing it for a lark, with a bit of info thrown in if you know what to look for.

[dystorsion]

As much as I like digitalrev, I have to say this article is terrible (not because of the nature of the comparison)

[Edwin Herdman]

The author has an interesting conspiracy theory, stating that Sony and Nikon have cooperated on both the XQD format (ugh, let's pick the three hardest letters to type at the same time) and on digital sensors.

[zim]

Have to admit I quote enjoyed reading that bit of fun (then again it is 5 in the morning and I’ve got insomnia) what I do find interesting is the spec sheet comparison and just how well the MkII stands up. I wasn’t doing digital SLR photography four years ago so it really brings home just how much of a game changer it must have been when it was released. Put in a better AF and duel card slots improve the IQ at higher ISO a bit and those spec sheets would look very similar to me, and I’m sure that’s the least they will do.

[Kernuak]

I have to say that they chose the wrong type of photographer as a match to the D800. At 21MP, you can already prints easily at A2, 240 ppi, which is pretty big and if you reduce the quality to 150 ppi, you can approach 1 metre (39 inches) on the long side. It isn't often you would need to print larger than that for a landscape. Also, the sample landscape images from the D800 looked less than perfect to me, even at 50% (which tends to be my measure as to sharp enough), as there were pretty soft in the corners. Ok, so it was with the 14-24, which while it is pretty highly regarded, it is still a wideangle zoom. Maybe the images would look better with a top quality prime, but with the target market (and also many Nikon pros), zooms are pretty much standard at wider angles. Had they mentione studio portrait photographers or even product photographers, it would have been a different matter. They wouldn't care about corner softness, as the subject would be somewhere around the middle, give or take a thousand pixels or so, then the corner softness would help. If you are making full use of the resolution, then I don't think it is a landscape camera, without exceptional glass. If you are reducing the image size, then I'm sure it would be fine, but then why have 36MP to start with? Yes the detail would be nice, but how far does that go?

[neuroanatomist]

... why have 36MP to start with? Yes the detail would be nice, but how far does that go?

It's the perfect camera for the lazy amateur photographer.  Slap on a wide lens (14-24 is perfect for that), point
and shoot, and crop out your desired composition later.   

Seriously, though, there are many settings in which it's best to frame loosely and crop later, and times you need to change orientation in post and still have enough resolution.  Consider - a D800 shot in landscape orientation can be cropped to portrait and leave a 16 MP image.

[Kernuak]

... why have 36MP to start with? Yes the detail would be nice, but how far does that go?

It's the perfect camera for the lazy amateur photographer.  Slap on a wide lens (14-24 is perfect for that), point
and shoot, and crop out your desired composition later.   

Seriously, though, there are many settings in which it's best to frame loosely and crop later, and times you need to change orientation in post and still have enough resolution.  Consider - a D800 shot in landscape orientation can be cropped to portrait and leave a 16 MP image.

True and I have done that myself for wildlife, but for landscapes, I would prefer to shoot in portrait in the first place, but then I don't like spending more time than I have to on PP.

[psolberg]

... why have 36MP to start with? Yes the detail would be nice, but how far does that go?

It's the perfect camera for the lazy amateur photographer.  Slap on a wide lens (14-24 is perfect for that), point
and shoot, and crop out your desired composition later.   

Seriously, though, there are many settings in which it's best to frame loosely and crop later, and times you need to change orientation in post and still have enough resolution.  Consider - a D800 shot in landscape orientation can be cropped to portrait and leave a 16 MP image.

yes but beyond cropping, which is nice, the reason this is a landscape dream camera is because each landscape is unique. if you shoot landsapes, you know you often wait for the light to be perfect, the weather to be perfect, and the mood to be perfect. And if you shoot landscaes, you know this rarely happens. When it does, trust me, you want to capture all 36 million sucker pixels for posterity because that momment will never repeat itself.

So while I don't have much need for 36MP most of the time, I fully understand that if you spend thousands if not tens of thousands in glass, and getting to the location, you want to get all the detail you want. Take for instance a trip to antartica. You'll pay nearly 20K after it is all said and done. Do you want to walk away with 36MP or 20MP per file? though so...