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?

 

[Loswr]

... 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...

 

[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.

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...

Personally, for landscapes, I'd rather walk away with a 21MP file, than a 36MP file that exhibits noticeable corner softness. Just as a 36MP camera will show more detail, it will also show up the deficiencies of technique and lens image quality. A file with bad corner softness simply won't be accepted by the major agencies and trust me, some of them are pretty picky. While some of them used to insist on JPEG that was the same dimensions as a 50MB uncompressed 8 bit TIFF (which equates to around 16-17MP), they have largely relaxed the limit to 24MB (about 9MP roughly). They also don't accept sharpened files, so you can't disguise problems easily. It's noticeable that both of the landscape samples from Nikon were taken at f/8 and I can't see any difference between the D800 and D800E files. At mid-range apertures, there obviously is insufficient depth of field, which makes me wonder why they didn't go narrower. Does diffraction start becoming a noticeable problem? If you don't compose with cropping the corners out in mind, then you have just lost an irreplaceable shot by your logic of waiting for the perfect conditions.
In reality though, perfect sharpness and ultimate detail isn't really the most important aspect of landscape photography, it's all about capturing the moment. If you want to sell the image of have maximum impact, then perfect technique and image quality isn't going to get you your goals. The ability to capture the moment to produce an unforgettable image is far more important, whether it is 6MP or 36MP. It's far more about light and composition than fine detail, the detail just adds the extra dimension. Then the image just has to be sharp enough where it needs to be (including the corners). Large files do produce better images to a point, but you eventually reach diminishing returns and for landscape work, I feel 36MP is too much on a full frame sensor, with the current lens lineups, both because of the corner problems, but also due to diffraction limited apertures. With redesigned lenses, then it may become a viable proposition, but until then, I think we have to rely on medium format or larger to get the detail levels without the trade-offs. Any photography that requires the use of mid to wide apertures will definitely benefit from the high resolution sensors though. I could see it being useful for wildlife and portraiture, where it doesn't matter about the corner softness, but any action and the faster frame rate of low resolution cameras may be more important (although the actual use of motor drives by professionals is quite low and I only use it on relatively rare occasions beyond short bursts).

 

[D.Sim]

... 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...

If you were the perfect landscape photographer who waits for the perfect time, perfect weather, perfect mood to take the perfect shot from the perfect location, you won't need a camera because that time will never come.
If you decide to take a camera along just in case it does come, you won't be happy with a FF camera, even with 36 MP, you'll be going Large Format.

is it a landscape photographers dream? not even close - even a hasselblad with all of its dynamic range wouldn't be enough.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Personally, for landscapes, I'd rather walk away with a 21MP file, than a 36MP file that exhibits noticeable corner softness. Just as a 36MP camera will show more detail, it will also show up the deficiencies of technique and lens image quality. A file with bad corner softness simply won't be accepted by the major agencies and trust me, some of them are pretty picky.

Adding more MP can't make things softer, you won't have any less corner detail than if it had 12MP, at worst, you'd merely have the same and at best, noticeably more so what does it hurt?

 

[briansquibb]

Personally, for landscapes, I'd rather walk away with a 21MP file, than a 36MP file that exhibits noticeable corner softness. Just as a 36MP camera will show more detail, it will also show up the deficiencies of technique and lens image quality. A file with bad corner softness simply won't be accepted by the major agencies and trust me, some of them are pretty picky.

Adding more MP can't make things softer, you won't have any less corner detail than if it had 12MP, at worst, you'd merely have the same and at best, noticeably more so what does it hurt?

I think the point being made is that why switch to Noink when the lens are not up to it

 

[Viggo]

Just wanted to point out, again, sorry, that with such increase in res, it will make your favorite lenses look only okay. And the worst part is if you want to shoot some moving subjects you need a way beyond anything shutterspeed, maybe up from 1/1000s with 12 mp to 1/6000s on 36mp, and then you need to up the iso to get that speed, and with that res, you'll get some serious noise, and then apply NR to reduce detail and sharpness, and you might as well just used your old 15 mp camera.