J
jaduffy007
Guest
briansquibb said:jaduffy007 said:iso79 said:The only thing Nikon beat Canon with the D800 is the megapixels and price (not enough for me and many photographers to switch sides). Everything else, the Mark III does much better.
Actually the D800 not only has a lot more resolution but the quality of those pixels are better, clean shadows, etc. Medium format digital dynamic range too. Qualities I have paid 10's of 1000's of dollars for, now in a $3000 body. In contrast canon is milking its loyal base.
"Everything else much better", such as? I don't know about you, but resolution, DR are pretty much top of my list of priorities. I'm going to resist rehashing this tired old argument in detail, but I can't think of anything the 5d3 does "much better". And just to be clear, I'm not saying the 5d3 is a bad camera, just over priced relative to competing products.
I'm not suggesting it's worth switching sides over ...yet...but that point is within sight. I dont think it serves us to embrace an "ignorance is bliss" mentality, pretending the advantages of the D800 are not highly desirable. 8)
I understood that the noise advantage of the D800 disappeared by ISO 800? and similarly the DR?
While true to a very significant degree, those same advantages disappear even faster and more severely on the Phase One $48,000 IQ180 kit.
You're right but the d800 doesn't fall off a performance cliff until iso6400, especially true with downsizing. So unless someone shoots predominantly at 3200 and higher, why sacrifice the significant advantages from iso100 to 800??
Topaz Denoise and downsizing to 16mp creates miracles.
I really want to stop high jacking this thread, but I didn't start it !!!
Upvote
0