Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2013 · Canon vs Nikon
  
 
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Canon vs Nikon


Shutterbug2006 wrote:
Be prepared to upgrade your computer equipment in a serious way when a high megapixel Canon does hit the market.

I have a friend who jumped on the D800, and other than the known problems they're working through on that cam, and other than the fact he loves the high resolution, he only uses notebooks to process his images and he is finding it very challenging.

Everything takes a lot of TIME, from downloading the files, to processing them - it's a big waiting game for him. His computers are slowing down to a crawl.


I would agree on large Raw processing need better hardware and not just space, but first ask OP if he even shooting in Raw and doing lots of PP? I asked on Nikon forums how big is uncompressed Tiff extracted out of D800 raw file and didn't get clear response. I assume it is huge . Considering that Photoshop by nature (even very last version) leaks tons of memory it needs serious hardware for D800 raws. This upgrade might cost as another D800, so I would better stay with 5D3 mpx's



Feb 16, 2013 at 02:15 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Canon vs Nikon


I wish monitor technology would keep pace with camera megapixels.

1920x1080 monitor? Big deal!



Feb 16, 2013 at 02:27 PM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Canon vs Nikon


Paul Mo wrote:
I wish monitor technology would keep pace with camera megapixels.

1920x1080 monitor? Big deal!



ipad seem higher?
Yes I agree, but also not every video card could support larger resolution. Also even if I want I can't stick high end video card into my 3 month old Dell since no space or no port like I need ...



Feb 16, 2013 at 02:32 PM
Stoffer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Canon vs Nikon


Breitling65 wrote:
I asked on Nikon forums how big is uncompressed Tiff extracted out of D800 raw file and didn't get clear response. I assume it is huge . Considering that Photoshop by nature (even very last version) leaks tons of memory it needs serious hardware for D800 raws.


I have a couple of D800 raw-files and converted to tiff they are 206 MB as 16-bit and 103 as 8-bit (uncompressed). I has a fast pc and Lightroom 4.3 handles those D800 raw-files fairly easily, definitely nothing I would call painful. So what is a fast pc? I'm using a Intel Core i7-3770K processor running at 4,2 gHz ,16 GB Ram and SSD for OS, Applications and the LR database. The raw-files live on a normal old-school harddisk. A sweet setup takes the last drag out of dealing with Lightroom.



Feb 16, 2013 at 07:13 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Canon vs Nikon


Paul Mo wrote:
I wish monitor technology would keep pace with camera megapixels.

1920x1080 monitor? Big deal!


Both of mine are 2560 x 1440 Dell U2711. They're very nice.



Feb 16, 2013 at 08:39 PM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Canon vs Nikon


Stoffer wrote:
I have a couple of D800 raw-files and converted to tiff they are 206 MB as 16-bit and 103 as 8-bit (uncompressed). I has a fast pc and Lightroom 4.3 handles those D800 raw-files fairly easily, definitely nothing I would call painful. So what is a fast pc? I'm using a Intel Core i7-3770K processor running at 4,2 gHz ,16 GB Ram and SSD for OS, Applications and the LR database. The raw-files live on a normal old-school harddisk. A sweet setup takes the last drag out of dealing with Lightroom.



Try to export 10+ sized like you said uncompressed tifs out of Lightroom to the Photoshop. Don't close them one after another but preview all 10+ and let me know how much memory Photoshop.exe takes it your ram It is easy to check in task manager. PC with your configuration is pretty new, however I could survive with 5 years old using 5D3 raws same way if I need.



Feb 16, 2013 at 09:49 PM
Hulot
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Canon vs Nikon


Free your mind, a RAW file is more like a digital negative and you dont need to safe all your pictures at full size, 16bit.
With the d800 you could always say you do your family shots in crop mode, and safe them as small jpg before are after downloading on your computer, or you choose to have full resolution for your landscape shots. The D800 has remarkably better file quality, a finer, less digital looking grain and well we know it, better DR even if you choose to safe your files only at 5600px wide.



Feb 16, 2013 at 11:17 PM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Canon vs Nikon


Hulot wrote:
Free your mind, a RAW file is more like a digital negative and you dont need to safe all your pictures at full size, 16bit.
With the d800 you could always say you do your family shots in crop mode, and safe them as small jpg before are after downloading on your computer, or you choose to have full resolution for your landscape shots. The D800 has remarkably better file quality, a finer, less digital looking grain and well we know it, better DR even if you choose to safe your files only at 5600px wide.




Honestly I don't know with what you are comparing but I am sure mpx's are not main factor while trying to shot great images. Max size I ever print is 24 inch wide, shots for web sized 900x600 doesn't need this gigantic resolution and file sizes. I just see no needs in such camera as well as many more photographers. 5D3 is superb as it is and doesn't required new super fast computer to process files.



Feb 16, 2013 at 11:38 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Canon vs Nikon


Breitling65 wrote:
Honestly I don't know with what you are comparing but I am sure mpx's are not main factor while trying to shot great images. Max size I ever print is 24 inch wide, shots for web sized 900x600 doesn't need this gigantic resolution and file sizes. I just see no needs in such camera as well as many more photographers. 5D3 is superb as it is and doesn't required new super fast computer to process files.


You'll notice the extra pixels at 24x30 and up. Your image needs to have fine details in the first place. I shot D800 and 5d2 side by side using the same lens and there is a definite improvement in the larger D800 prints. Of course you would never see this improvement if you did not have anything to compare your existing prints against.

For web sized images today's P&S cameras are just fine. Looking at the images out of that new Sony is amazing...at least on the web.



Feb 16, 2013 at 11:49 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Canon vs Nikon


chez wrote:
For web sized images today's P&S cameras are just fine...


Ahh...



Feb 17, 2013 at 01:03 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



ggreene
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Canon vs Nikon


jcolwell wrote:
11 GB internal/external hard drives.


I salute your efficiency. That amount of storage demands a serious keeper rate.



Feb 17, 2013 at 02:39 AM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Canon vs Nikon


chez wrote:
You'll notice the extra pixels at 24x30 and up. Your image needs to have fine details in the first place. I shot D800 and 5d2 side by side using the same lens and there is a definite improvement in the larger D800 prints. Of course you would never see this improvement if you did not have anything to compare your existing prints against.

For web sized images today's P&S cameras are just fine. Looking at the images out of that new Sony is amazing...at least on the web.




On my walls I have large printouts (24 inch max) made starting with 5D classic, 1D3, 1D4, 5D2, 5D3 etc and I could compare. I could tell you that if shot is exposed well, no noise, not cropped much, PP fine etc -> all looks perfect. All from 8mpx and up to 23mpx.



Feb 17, 2013 at 03:47 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Canon vs Nikon


Breitling65 wrote:
On my walls I have large printouts (24 inch max) made starting with 5D classic, 1D3, 1D4, 5D2, 5D3 etc and I could compare. I could tell you that if shot is exposed well, no noise, not cropped much, PP fine etc -> all looks perfect. All from 8mpx and up to 23mpx.


Are you trying to say your prints don't show any difference in details whether you shot with an 8 mpix or a 23 mpix. Either your images don't posses fine details or your processing equalizes the details in all your images. I found a huge difference in details between my old 20d and 5d2 cameras. I've also see this difference, albeit to a lesser degree between a 5d2 and D800.

The higher mpix you shoot with, the better glass and technique you require. Being sloppy with technique or using poor glass are equalizing factors that could make a high mpix image look the same as a much lower mpix image.



Feb 17, 2013 at 04:09 PM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Canon vs Nikon


chez wrote:
Are you trying to say your prints don't show any difference in details whether you shot with an 8 mpix or a 23 mpix. Either your images don't posses fine details or your processing equalizes the details in all your images. I found a huge difference in details between my old 20d and 5d2 cameras. I've also see this difference, albeit to a lesser degree between a 5d2 and D800.

The higher mpix you shoot with, the better glass and technique you require. Being sloppy with technique or using poor glass are equalizing factors that could make a high mpix
...Show more


Best landscapes for example I have on my walls are made with 5D classic which is 12mpx I believe.
I am using L's and I don't print larger than 24 inch, on this size all details are excellent. I don't need to see pimples on girls face 5 miles away shooting landscapes with wide lens, just no need in this I shot airshow 3 years ago with 1D3 and all 24 inch prints are excellent too, 8 or 10mpx? How do we all survive before gigantic mpx of D800? Nobody printed large before?





Edited on Feb 17, 2013 at 07:10 PM · View previous versions



Feb 17, 2013 at 04:18 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Canon vs Nikon


Breitling65 wrote:
Best landscapes for example I have on my walls are made with 5D classic which is 12mpx I believe.
I am using L's and I don't print larger than 24 inch, on this size all details are excellent. I don't need to see pimples on girls face 5 miles away shooting landscapes with wide lens, just no need in this I shot airshow 3 years ago with 1D3 and all 24 inch prints are excellent too, 8mpx? How do we all survive before gigantic mpx of D800? Nobody printed large before?



Typically in the film days, people shot with either medium format or better yet large format if they wanted to make large prints. The same premise exists in digital...the more pixels, the larger you can print and still contain the fine details. Again, good lens and good techniques are required or you are just wasting pixels.

Many people make large prints and claim the details are fine...but their fire fine details in the image. From air show photos I have seen, they typically don't possess fine details like a rain forest image...so you can print it large and it will look fine. However, images containing minute details shot with a low mpix camera will start to deteriorate very quickly to mush when printed too large.

I guess we all have our own standards dictated by what we shoot, how large we print and just our own view of what is good enough.



Feb 17, 2013 at 04:38 PM
molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Canon vs Nikon


chez wrote:
Are you trying to say your prints don't show any difference in details whether you shot with an 8 mpix or a 23 mpix. Either your images don't posses fine details or your processing equalizes the details in all your images. I found a huge difference in details between my old 20d and 5d2 cameras. I've also see this difference, albeit to a lesser degree between a 5d2 and D800.

The higher mpix you shoot with, the better glass and technique you require. Being sloppy with technique or using poor glass are equalizing factors that could make a high mpix
...Show more


I've been printing my D800E and 5D Mark III images up to 24 x 36 inches, and I really struggle to see a difference in this print size - both cameras are capable of rendering the smallest details equally well. The only instance where I can discern a difference is in images shot with the Nikon 14-24 f2.8G - in this range, my Zeiss 21mm f2.8 is the limiting factor on the 5D Mark III.

With any other Nikon glass, I would say the comparable Canon images look better at that print size, and as a result I am now back in the Canon camp.



Feb 17, 2013 at 06:06 PM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Canon vs Nikon


molson wrote:
With any other Nikon glass, I would say the comparable Canon images look better at that print size, and as a result I am now back in the Canon camp.


Nice to see you back, Mortimer. How long were you gone for ?



Feb 17, 2013 at 06:37 PM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Canon vs Nikon


chez wrote:
Typically in the film days, people shot with either medium format or better yet large format if they wanted to make large prints. The same premise exists in digital...the more pixels, the larger you can print and still contain the fine details. Again, good lens and good techniques are required or you are just wasting pixels.

Many people make large prints and claim the details are fine...but their fire fine details in the image. From air show photos I have seen, they typically don't possess fine details like a rain forest image...so you can print it large and it will look
...Show more


I believe we should ask opinion of other 5D3/1Dx/6D owners, do they straggle with lower mpx or not. I don't. Besides as you said anyone could go and buy D800 and be happy, it doesn't have to be Canon. If you are driving Toyota, who is preventing you to get Honda as a second car?



Feb 17, 2013 at 07:16 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Canon vs Nikon


Im quite suprised someone finds 1DsMK3 "not-enough". Usually Im seeing ppl for which is 1DsMK3 "too much"..

36 mpix in D800 is sorta "gimmick", whats quite more important is DR. I wouldnt mind 21 mpix from Canon with that kind of DR.

Btw. for that theoretical 46 mpix, current Canon lens wont be enough.

I think that reasonable size/performance ratio is 1DsMK2 or current D4. You dont need super-perfect lens for that. You dont need to shoot only from tripod with MLU. And unless you want to print billboard, its fine (billboards are fine too..).

What Canon really does need is DR.



Feb 17, 2013 at 07:30 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Canon vs Nikon


Breitling65 wrote:
I believe we should ask opinion of other 5D3/1Dx/6D owners, do they straggle with lower mpx or not. I don't. Besides as you said anyone could go and buy D800 and be happy, it doesn't have to be Canon. If you are driving Toyota, who is preventing you to get Honda as a second car?


Don't understand your defensive comments here. I am just stating the facts as I see them from my own experience with both cameras. I'm not putting down one camera for another...in fact I shoot with a 5d2 right now and only had the D800 for a week on rental.

Just wondering, you seem to have quite an opinion...have you even shot with a D800?



Feb 17, 2013 at 08:12 PM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password