# Nikon D800 Canon 5D MkII comparison



## Flake (Feb 16, 2012)

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 (Feb 16, 2012)

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 (Feb 16, 2012)

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 (Feb 16, 2012)

vbi said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2012)

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 (Feb 16, 2012)

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 (Feb 16, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2012)

As much as I like digitalrev, I have to say this article is terrible (not because of the nature of the comparison)


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Feb 19, 2012)

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 (Feb 19, 2012)

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 (Feb 19, 2012)

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?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> ... 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 (Feb 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > ... why have 36MP to start with? Yes the detail would be nice, but how far does that go?
> ...


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 (Feb 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > ... why have 36MP to start with? Yes the detail would be nice, but how far does that go?
> ...



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 (Feb 19, 2012)

psolberg said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Kernuak said:
> ...



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 (Feb 20, 2012)

psolberg said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Kernuak said:
> ...


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 (Feb 20, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Viggo (Feb 20, 2012)

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.


----------



## mkln (Feb 20, 2012)

Viggo said:


> 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.



yes and no.
I mean, it's true that with 36mp you will not get perfect pics every time you got perfect pics with 21mp
but it's also true that with 36mp it is still possible to get better pics than with 21mp, in some situations.

it's a trade-off: are you willing to store very large files, be slower in PP, take a chance with not-always-perfect pixel-to-pixel pics, or do you prefer better looking images (at 100% only) that weight less but that will sometimes be inferior to the 36mp counterpart?
personally, I don't care for the 36mp. I don't have such a powerful pc or that much storage for it. but I wouldn't complain if I had it.
pics are just going to be at least as good as 21mp, when compared at the same size (and not at 100%!)


----------



## psolberg (Feb 21, 2012)

dilbert said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > , 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.
> ...



that's not the point I was making. yes I know you can even buy a 30K medium format camera and do whatever you want with it. But if you're spending 3K on landscapes and that's your budget, the D800 looks defitively to be the winner because of the sheer value of those 36million pixies. 

and no need to get insulting with your comments. although I doubt you can 



> yes and no.
> I mean, it's true that with 36mp you will not get perfect pics every time you got perfect pics with 21mp
> but it's also true that with 36mp it is still possible to get better pics than with 21mp, in some situations.



absolutely agree. sorry but I hate to break it to everybody here but at low ISO, you can't beat that extra detail. Studio and Landscape shooters will benefit more. Just get over it. even at mid ISO, resampling down will help a lot as it does with the 5DII, which is is not as good as the D700 noise wise, downsampling helps.....and at high ISO, well yeah, lower MP wins. But thinking about what you need to do if you were to shoot action at high ISO with the D800 is like thinking about what you need to do to go off roading with a sports car...

personaly if I had a D800 (which won't happen) I'd use it in such a way to maximize its purpose. shooting sports ain't it.


LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



exactly my thoughts. while it is true that you will see that your lenses are indeed better at the center, you'll still RESOLVE more in both the center and the edges even if edge detail is behind center detail compared to low MP counts. you're still resolving more! Besides, 36MP isn't all that high for full frame. there are much denser sensors out there. IMO if you spend all these thousands on lenses...why would you NOT want to push them? Kind of defeats the purpose.



> 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.



you clearly missunderstand my figure of speech. yeah I know perfect never comes. That's not my point. I'm refering to the tons of work and expenses that go into a shot. why settle for less than you can get? and yes I know there are better cameras. but let's keep it in perspective. 3K for a D800 is really sweet compared to a hasselblad and if you can't afford that hassleblad or mamiya, who cares? You're just not going to shoot? The point being, if you're going to shoot at that price point, may as well get all that detail because it only happens once. Once you captured it that's it. That's what I meant by dream camera because it has a really good bang for the buck.

if you're Peter Lik, ok well, then not so much of a dream camera. 8)



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



that's higly debateable. looks at the canon 7D. higher pixel density than the D800. lenses not ok? bogus. they are just fine. this isn't 50MP we're talking about. Their glass is not only up to the task but quite ok actually. Looking at the 14-24 vs 14mm L, 24-70 and 70-200 vs canon equivalents, I can tell you that skill will hold more peopel back than glass when they switch to either system.


----------

