+++ on live view manual focusing. I've been using it extensively. The digital zoom feature for focusing is fantastic. I'll do that before trying to use the focusing screen any day. Happy shooting, Freddy
Etadam wrote:
I'm surprised by the Image Quality remarks, being better on the 5D.
My guess is that people are talking about Jpegs straight from the camera (ie, not Raw).
The D700 raw pixel color (channel) depth is 14 bits - vs 12 bits for the 5D. That is an awesome difference (4 times).
In my opinion, while I don't own either of the cameras, the Raw files from the D700 must be able to render images like the 5D - if one want to. Jpegs straight from the camera are probably more neutral.
The camera is still hot from the oven... 3rd party software are not all up-to-date, and firmware updates are to be expected. But IQ shouldn't be a criteria from Jpegs ; at least at this time.
Edited by Etadam on Aug 03, 2008 at 06:02 AM GMT...Show more →
Prove it then or show evidence the 14 bit has delivered very much at all in terms of IQ. I'm not saying it doesn't help, but it's subtle if it does.
I find it funny that it took the D700/D3 for Nikon to best a camera Canon made 3 years ago. Hehe, love it! I hope the 5D MKII sets a new bench mark, I think both camps should keep coming up with better and better cameras how about that?
I don't really see the D700/D3/D300 as a big deal, if Nikon didn't come up with a solution for poor ISO noise and one up Canon it wouldn't a competition anymore. Now Canon is releasing the 50D and soon the 5D replacement and that'll even out a lot of things. To me the 50D has more features and power then the D300 in several areas and is cheaper.
In one of the earlier post there was talk about 2 more bits, and HDR Imaging. I think that terms HDRI is misleading in photography. I was rendering HDRI in Maya via mental ray several years back and an HDRI is comprised of several images at different exposurers.
No single image can have true high dynamic range. You can come close by using a ND Grad. filter to darken the sky and keep the ground properly lit or even better take 2 or 3 images and Photoshop it to create a sort of HDR image.
Anyway, still using my old cameras and they take pictures just fine. If you NEED a D700/D300 to take good pictures then man you've spent a lot of years taking crappy pictures hahahaha.
Ciao. People down play the EOS 5D because for years it terrorized their pride. :P
molson wrote:
You obviously haven't owned as many defective Canon products as I have... the only thing worse than their quality control is their apathetic "pro" service (speaking as a 10+ year CPS member...)
It was that bad! For me as well.
But at a time you have to let it go, look to the future and stop looking back.
mark harvey wrote:
IQ aside, i would have switched to the D700 had Nikon made a precision focus screen for it...
Whoa!. I didn't know that. I like AF and Liveview and all, but I don't buy a camera without its matt manual focus screen. Manual focus is the most reliable method of focussing off centre subjects. With Liveview you have to magnify to focus accurately so it's hard to watch composition at the same time. With a matt screen you can compose a moving subject, e.g. a person, while focussing accurately at the same time. No matt focussing screen, no purchase.
