Nikon Vs. Canon, the gloves are off

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 27, 2007.

  1. DBLEXPOSURE

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 27, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. DBLEXPOSURE

    UC Guest

    UC, Aug 27, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. DBLEXPOSURE

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    Evidently not you, but then again I have never read anything positive come
    from you on any subject. Perhaps the next question should be, "Who cares
    what you think?"
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 27, 2007
    #3
  4. DBLEXPOSURE

    No One Guest

    No One, Aug 28, 2007
    #4
  5. DBLEXPOSURE

    ray Guest

    ray, Aug 28, 2007
    #5
  6. DBLEXPOSURE

    MC Guest

    MC, Aug 28, 2007
    #6
  7. DBLEXPOSURE

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    Not that I am reaching for my credit-card, but it is nice to see a 20+MP rig
    that works with all my lenses. Of course I am sure that if I do every make
    to purchase they will come out with the new 40MP rig shortly there after.

    I can hear the, "All you need is 6MP" comments coming in the wind...
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 28, 2007
    #7
  8. DBLEXPOSURE

    Chuckabutty Guest

    You want a pretty camera? Try some lipstick around the lens.
     
    Chuckabutty, Aug 28, 2007
    #8
  9. DBLEXPOSURE

    ray Guest

    IMHO - Once we passed 4mp, for the vast majority of shots the equipment is
    not the limiting factor.
     
    ray, Aug 28, 2007
    #9
  10. DBLEXPOSURE

    No One Guest

    How does these sensor compare to the likes of what Fuji has in their S3
    and S5 with their split sensors?
     
    No One, Aug 29, 2007
    #10
  11. DBLEXPOSURE

    No One Guest

    Yep. It is definitly the monkey behind the view finder.
     
    No One, Aug 29, 2007
    #11
  12. DBLEXPOSURE

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    But what if the monkey want to display in a large way? He dosen't need the
    pixels?
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 29, 2007
    #12
  13. DBLEXPOSURE

    ray Guest

    Ah - so you are suggesting that mucho mega-pixels are for monkeys?
     
    ray, Aug 29, 2007
    #13
  14. DBLEXPOSURE

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    Not at all, Mr. No One, started the monkey reference. I like mucho
    MegaPixels. I think it is a shame if the, "Monkey" behind the viewfinder
    makes a great composition but can only print, tiny-weenie because of a lack
    of pixels. Not to say that all great images need to be printed large, but
    it is nice to have the option.
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 29, 2007
    #14
  15. DBLEXPOSURE

    ray Guest

    Don't really want to get into the argument over resolution/print size
    again, but I really think that requirement has been overstated. 100 dpi
    output seems to me to be very near 'photographic quality'.
     
    ray, Aug 29, 2007
    #15
  16. DBLEXPOSURE

    MC Guest

    Well, everywhere I have read and everyone I seem to speak to concerning this
    matter (including print houses) seem to consider an abosolute minimum of 140
    dpi. In fact, I have recently printed a cropped image at 120 dpi and the
    print was visibly far inferior to anything I have printed previously. I
    normally use 200+ dpi and use 300 dpi wherever I can.

    With regards to the amount of megapixels, my dSLR "only" does 8 megapixels.
    However this allows me half decent A3 prints so mustn't grumble. However, I
    have taken a few photos where I wish I had a camera that would alow me to
    print a high quality poster size print (A1/A0) at 300dpi.

    MC
     
    MC, Aug 29, 2007
    #16
  17. DBLEXPOSURE

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    My thinking about why it is such over-debated and contested issue is because
    it is image dependant and subjective in the eye of the viewer/artist. To
    put it another way, If the subject/composition has little detail to start
    with, you can probably get away with allot less print dpi than you would
    with a subject/composition which has a great deal of detail.

    My favorite analogy to use is the smooth-white-wall scenario, I don't need
    any pixels at all to reproduce the image. Just a blank sheet of
    smooth-white paper.

    Now if I am going to do a macro of a tarantula at 48X72 I'm gonna need some
    pixels if I want to make out every hail on the spider in tac sharp detail.

    There really can be no debate, 8MP Vs. 20MP, almost the three times the
    print area at the same print resolution, You can't debate the math.

    Is it worth it? That is where the individual has to make up his own mind.

    I'll do it, someday, and I hope it will mean larger prints and more $$
    coming in. It will have to be justified.
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 29, 2007
    #17
  18. DBLEXPOSURE

    ray Guest

    For that, it would seem to me you'd be better off with a medium or large
    format film camera.
     
    ray, Aug 30, 2007
    #18
  19. DBLEXPOSURE

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest


    I love film, And I can't say I don't feel a bit envious when I see someone
    using a rig like your referring to but, breaking into that world is more
    than an investment in a camera body. It is whole other art with it's own
    world of lenses, accessories and other misc. tools of the trade. $$$$

    Canon's new camera takes advantage all the gear I have already invested in.

    I won't get into a debate about what format is better. I think we are
    getting closer to a level plying field though...

    Don't forget, there are 20 and 40MP medium format digital backs and
    dedicated camera bodies from the lead medium and large format camera
    manufacturers

    PZ

    www.imagequest.ifp3.com
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 30, 2007
    #19
  20. DBLEXPOSURE

    Dave Cohen Guest

    My calculator tells me going from 8mp to 20mp is more like 1.58 gain in
    print area.
    Dave Cohen
     
    Dave Cohen, Aug 30, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.