My 40D can do more then I can - except focus accurately. The only feature of interest is the AF microadjustment - don't want to buy 16GB cards and a new computer to handle 21 mp files, AF is still 12 years behind (compared to EOS 3), video is not my thing, 3.9 fps is a bit slow for HDR or wildlife. The D300 is a much better path but there is no 300mm F4 VR(IS) on the dark side, which is my work horse lens. Nikon is also a bit overpriced through-out the line-up, but still considering jumping ship for the better AF, flash control, viewfinder, and body toughness.
shirozina wrote:
If my 24mm TS-E has soft edges and corners (but is sharp in the center) I can't see the edges becoming any better with nearly double the pixels.
You are right there, but somehow you seem to need this lens and wish to have better resolution, so why not get the Oly shift 24mm and the 5dII?
shirozina wrote:
BTW where did the 25% figure come from - I thought it was 50% resolution increase with a doubling of the pixels?
shirozina wrote:
Thanks for the advice on the ZF 50 but if I shoot wide open how do 9 aperture blades make a difference and with my CZ50 the bokeh is hugley better at F2.8 when the mere 6 aperture blades are in the optical path than at 1.7 when the optical pathis perfectly circular.
Bokeh is a question of taste, I only can say that the 1.4 Contax is different than the 1.7 and that Zeiss got rid of the 6 blade aperture of the old times with the Z line. I use the ZF 50mm because I like the bokeh and because I know how to use it. Maybe the 50mm L would be the lens to have, however if I have the choice between a Canon and a Zeiss I take the latter.
The biggest con in my head when it comes to getting a d700 instead of a 5d mkII is not being able to use my CZJ 135 and other sexy alternative lenses. But I can't really use my beloved rokkor on a 5d without modifying the mirror either, so that makes me kind of think "meh" about both alternatives :P
Anyone know how the 55 1.2 AI (S?) hold up compared to the rokkor 58 1.2?
ulrikft wrote:
The biggest con in my head when it comes to getting a d700 instead of a 5d mkII is not being able to use my CZJ 135 and other sexy alternative lenses. But I can't really use my beloved rokkor on a 5d without modifying the mirror either, so that makes me kind of think "meh" about both alternatives :P
Anyone know how the 55 1.2 AI (S?) hold up compared to the rokkor 58 1.2?
The new Nikkor 50mm 1.4G is probably going to be a very good lens with a new 8 element design and a circular aperture.
My issue(for my uses) with the d700 is that it is "tuned" for low noise/high ISO performance and sacrifices sharpness/resolution at the base ISO to achieve that. As such, it's not quite as sharp as even the original 5D. The next round of FF Nikon's are probably going to be the deal.
I preordered mine I am supposedly 15th on the list, but no gaurantee I'll be in the first batch. I just hope that when the camera comes in that my new lens orders 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar, Nikon 105mm DC and 9-16s G adapter come in prior to the camera I would love to try each of these on the 5D MKII along with my Zeiss ZF's and Coastal Optics UV-IR lens, and the 200-400 F4.0. on it. I had thought of the Zeiss ZE's but since I have the D700, Fujifilm UV/IR, and Fujifilm s5 bodies it makes no sense to buy a ZE that can't be used on the F mount bodies. I'm just better off to continue down the ZF path so I can use on all the bodies.
My issue(for my uses) with the d700 is that it is "tuned" for low noise/high ISO performance and sacrifices sharpness/resolution at the base ISO to achieve that. As such, it's not quite as sharp as even the original 5D. The next round of FF Nikon's are probably going to be the deal.
I am not sure how revealing those crops are. They don't show dynamic range characteristics, and black text on a white background can sometimes be more of a test of whether the sensor is good enough to resolve the text, rather than how it fares with detail on a range of scales (frequencies, in the Fourier sense), which is what most normal pictures are made from. Here's a more informative pair of crops made with the same lens (Nikkor 35 f2) and D700 v 1Ds3. The D700 image has been uprezzed to 21 megapixels to make comparison fair (equal magnification).
Is that a 100% crop? Beacause if it is, the difference (while quite obvious) is within what I can live with I think. It is that difference versus handling, af, fps, spot-metering at af-points, af-assist lamp, flash-commander, built-in-flash.. Well, the works :/
ulrikft wrote:
Is that a 100% crop? Beacause if it is, the difference (while quite obvious) is within what I can live with I think. It is that difference versus handling, af, fps, spot-metering at af-points, af-assist lamp, flash-commander, built-in-flash.. Well, the works :/
Yes, 21 megapixel files viewed at 100%. Technically it is a 29% increase in resolution. I can understand any photographer settling for 12 megapixels rather than 21. Having said that, if you often crop, or just care a lot about making big prints, then every little improvement in detail helps, especially if you plan to take many thousands of images with the camera. Both are great tools.
Well, I seldom print 20x30, never lager than that, most often I print a3-ish sizes. I saw a guy printing upressed 5000x5000 cropped d3 images that were happy with those.
Other things are no alternative glass for nikon (other than legacy nikon stuff, but those are sexy though :P ) and no rokkors for 5d mkII...
We are certainly spoiled for choice these days. One thing I would say: once you get used to 21 megapixels, it is hard to be satisfied with 12. I even found it hard to go to 1D3 from 5D. I just missed the detail. Detail can make pictures come alive. It may be a struggle to make use of it, but when it works, it rocks. I have just done a 40" print of the image below for my wall and it looks great. It's not just the detail either. If you look at the highlights in the boat crops, the Canon has some tonal magic too. http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/easyjet.jpg
brainiac wrote:
Yes, 21 megapixel files viewed at 100%. Technically it is a 29% increase in resolution. I can understand any photographer settling for 12 megapixels rather than 21. Having said that, if you often crop, or just care a lot about making big prints, then every little improvement in detail helps, especially if you plan to take many thousands of images with the camera. Both are great tools.
I think there is something else at play besides megapixels in that photo! Great image.
brainiac wrote:
We are certainly spoiled for choice these days. One thing I would say: once you get used to 21 megapixels, it is hard to be satisfied with 12. I even found it hard to go to 1D3 from 5D. I just missed the detail. Detail can make pictures come alive. It may be a struggle to make use of it, but when it works, it rocks. I have just done a 40" print of the image below for my wall and it looks great. It's not just the detail either. If you look at the highlights in the boat crops, the Canon has some tonal magic too. http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/easyjet.jpg ...Show more →
I have to admit that I got discouraged by the 5d mkII and got a d700 today (i still have my 30d though :P ).
I tried both the 5d mkII and d700 quite extensively (for 2 hours) in the store, and the 5d mkII outer points are innacurate and slow. It was consequently oof when using low dof-apertures and the outer points. The d700 was conseqently in focus on the outer points. I used the nikon 50 1.4 and canon 50 1.4 on the test, using a dress-up-dummy with a uniform, helmet etc. The image quality of the canon 5d mkII from iso 400 (did not use a tripod) up to 26500 is quite similar to the d700. I have a lot of similar crops if anyone are interested.
