Nikon D700 vs Canon 5D mkII

RTPVid wrote in post #12244724
Which was, partially, my point. Chances are the users of FF DSLRs are doing considerably more with their images than merely printing them, which makes the comment kind of narrow, IMO, considering the cameras being discussed in this thread. Your response about the general public, while correct, responds to a comment that seems invalid to me.

Chances are that those users that are printing, are probably printing more than 1% of their images > 8x10s, thus my point, regardless of whichever DSLR they are using. In any case, there are great uses for resolutions > 12mpx, not just around printing.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12244369
Our local printers, like at Sams Club, I see large format prints on the top stand quite a bit. I and others print larger than 8x10s all the time. I think your assessment of the general population hardly printing larger than 8x10s is very flawed.

I still stand by my comment that the vast majority of people do not print large. There was a pole on FM which indicated the vast majority don't even make any prints.

It's good that you and a few others might print large, but you definitely are in the minority.

People that don't print large won't see any difference between 12mp and 21mp.

Minority yes, but I am not in the 1% percentile that prints larger than 8x10s (because that tier is > 1%). There are several polls out there already on different photo forums that show people that print > 10" on the long side.

Also, you must consider the fact that it is the client ultimately that dictates the print size, whether it is from your online gallery that allows print orders, your employer, etc. That statistic is the most meaningful, since the client <> the photographer in many situations.

Finally there are articles that describe why more resolution is indeed better for noise and detail management, not to mention cropability, and multiple resulting images/compositions from the same image.

Resolution is useful for vastly more than just printing. Higher resolutions also provide "possibilities" to the photographer that may not be available to those that shoot with lower res cameras. Having had a 21 mpx and 18mpx was great, I can crop out nearly 1/2 that image and still produce an 8x10 (the other 99% of the vast majority of the world's population that own DSLRS ). I can take an image where there are 2 or 3 different activities or people in them, and crop out 3 different photos from the same frame, and still having something I can print 5x7s and even 8x10s with a bit of PP. More resolution is a good thing, as long as the manufacturer mitigates the other factors that might get worse. Is there a limit to when resolution is enough? I expect so, but I cannot put a number to that really.

If Canon made a 30mpx FF that had a great AF engine, etc, that would be a killer camera. Crop out an APS-C image from that and still have enough to print large prints > 8x10, yeah! The 5D2 is close, I tried it a few times, but it needs a bit more resolution yet, it is not quite there for what I shoot, and add enhanced AF and more points, and I will go back.

Hogloff wrote in post #12244758
...People that don't print large won't see any difference between 12mp and 21mp.

Which must completely bum out those engineers who worked so hard on the D3X.

Most of the work it's product shots.
With MF Zeiss 50/100 Makro Planar.
That going to be printed in 26" X 39".
Will it be a big difference between two ?
Regards

isaacimage wrote in post #12244938
Most of the work it's product shots.
With MF Zeiss 50/100 Makro Planar.
That going to be printed in 26" X 39".
Will it be a big difference between two ?
Regards

Hey, you and I are in the same 1% global ranking, congrats, we are a rare breed!

As to the IQ difference between the two cameras using that lens, that might be a tough thing for any one person to answer, but if somebody had both with very comparable lenses, maybe a quick 75% crop test would be in order? (hint K6...)

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12244969
Hey, you and I are in the same 1% global ranking, congrats, we are a rare breed!

As to the IQ difference between the two cameras using that lens, that might be a tough thing for any one person to answer, but if somebody had both with very comparable lenses, maybe a quick 75% crop test would be in order?

Tanx Man !!! I hope we are really "Rare breed"

I'm just waiting for my Nikon to Canon adapter..... and than.... believe me I'll make some samples

The last time I was looking to do those large sized prints, it was in the food industry. The prices some of the fast food places get charged by their "suppliers" for large poster prints is ridiculous.

Hogloff wrote in post #12244758
I still stand by my comment that the vast majority of people do not print large. There was a pole on FM which indicated the vast majority don't even make any prints.

It's good that you and a few others might print large, but you definitely are in the minority.

People that don't print large won't see any difference between 12mp and 21mp.

what about cropping? your logic is flawed...its better to have the option of higher megapixel when you want to crop, hard drive are so big and cheap these days that storage won't be a problem anymore...

I think as far as pure image quality goes, the 5DII takes the cake. That being said, I own a D700.

Hmmm...difficult to say b/c I see these 2 cameras as totally different cameras, simply because the D700 has the much superior AF system, can do 8fps, cleaner lower ISO files, and similar high ISO performance. The 5D2 obviously takes the cake when it comes to resolution and video. Personally I like having 21MP at my disposal whether it be printing larger or cropping A LOT and still retaining very good details.

I think they both have something unique to offer. I think the D700 was a very revolutionary camera. The 5D2 was more evolutionary and built on the revolutionary 5D.

Hogloff wrote in post #12244266
Ditto for you implying 12mp is so outdated and you need more in order to make great images.

By the way, keep away from that kool-aid, it's not good for your health or your wallet.

Really? 12MP sensors have been around for over five years. That IS dated in DC terms.

Aren't you the same one who is constantly posting links to fanboy sites that claim the D7000 is superior to the 5D2?

Wow, Ive never seen the two in a picture side by side like that. Ive just gotta say: WOW I hate the ergonomics of Nikon bodies! Maybe its just me, but the Canons have ALWAYS looked so much more sleek and comfortable to hold and easier on the eyes. All tech specs aside, I have just never liked Nikon bodies.

I do like the smaller, higher lens release button on the Nikon though...

ben_r_ wrote in post #12246050
Wow, Ive never seen the two in a picture side by side like that. Ive just gotta say: WOW I hate the ergonomics of Nikon bodies! Maybe its just me, but the Canons have ALWAYS looked so much more sleek and comfortable to hold and easier on the eyes. All tech specs aside, I have just never liked Nikon bodies.

When I moved over to Canon gear three years ago one of the determining factors was the control layout, I just like Canon's system better. Also, I had shot Nikon film gear for nearly 20 years before finally buying a DSLR (D70) in late 2004 and found Nikon's digital menu system was a nightmare and that included the D700. Submenus in submenus in submenus etc.