I post this as someone who recently bought a D700. I like the camera, takes great photos. So far I have a Nikon 50mm and 24mm lens. I like primarily shooting landscapes. I checked and it's not too late for me to return this and get the 5dM2 when it comes out. Outside of the fact that a lot of people say Canon's are better for landscape, the big reason I like this camera is the high 21MP resolution. I want to be able to get BIG prints. Really, I could care less about the video mode on the Canon, so all things considered, the higher resolution is the only reason I'd be getting it. So, I'd like to hear some opinions as to why I should or should not swap the D700 for the 5dM2, considering what I want to do with it. I'm fairly new to photography, was into for a while in the 90's with film, but I now live in a place surrounded by fantastic landscapes, so I'm getting back into it. All opinions are appreciated.

Welcome to Nikonians!

To be honest, if what you want is a camera specifically for making large prints of landscape shots, the 5D Mk II will probably be the best "affordable" solution. The D700 is a great all-round camera, but landscape work on a tripod is not it's main strength.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

I shoot a lot of landscapes with my D700 and kicked myself for not waiting for the 5DmkII when it was announced with 21MP - for big prints 21MP is going to help with the fine detail. The higher frame rate, high iso performance, auto iso and much better autofocus which are the are selling points for the D700 over 5DmkII are a non-issue for landscape.

That said, 21MP is going to very serious tax any lens and canon's wides have a poor reputation so you may not end up with as much extra resolution as the pixel count might suggest, especially if you are shooting at smaller apertures and well into diffraction terriory. The other issue is cost of lenses. For landscapes you don't need AF so you can buy all the AIS lenses for peanuts and use them with full functionality.

For very high quality large prints stitching multiple frames together is the solution and I'm pretty sure you would have to do this with the 5DmkII anyway given the points above. This is how I have been using my D700 and it makes the pixel count almost moot when you can get to print sizes 24x20 @ 300dpi with no interpolation. I was sceptical at first but it works very well and still possible under fast changing light. Dof problems in near/far shots are also solved since you can adjust the focus for different frames and the software still deals OK with it.

So overall I'm happy with the less pixel count and the better camera espcially since I also shoot weddings where the D700 shines.

In the mean time to help make a decision you might want to check out D3 vs 1DsmkIII comparisons that are around, this should be pretty close to D700 vs 5DmkII image quality-wise. The difference between them is not huge.

you should move into large format photography - cameras like these: Ebony

>you should move into large format photography - cameras like
>these: Ebony

I have an Ebony RSW45 and it is a lovely landscape camera - it also weighs less than the D700. I have never shot a single sheet of colour with it though due to the crippling cost Processing b&w sheet film is also very time consuming and acros 100 is the only b&w film left in quickload/readyload at £50 for 20 sheets.

I have to admit ever since I got stitching sorted out with my D700 it has got less use. Getting comparable quality using this is certainly possible.

I've looked into a number of medium and large format digital cameras, but it seems like you have to continually spend a lot more money on them. I mean, digital is so much easier to deal with, edit, etc.
From what I'm reading the 5dMk2 might not be available for a while due to a lot of people pre-ordering. I'm tempted to keep the D700, I'd have to get rid of a nikon 24mm lens to switch to Canon, which isn't much; but I'm sick of all the camera research, just want to start taking pics. 21 megapixels just seems like so much more for landscapes....

>I want to be able to get BIG prints.

Define "Big". You can get excellent quality 16x24 and 24x36 prints out of a D700.

""

I want to be able to go 40-60" wide. After reading some about stitching I'm thinking I might stick with the D700. I'm also getting into HDR a bit, and 21MP files will tax the hell out of my computer, not to mention file size. The way I see it, if I don't care about video, all Canon has is higher megapixels (and a different sensor). Whether or not Canon's sensor is better I don't know. From what I'm reading the D700's weather sealing is probably better, and the focusing system is too. I think I'm trying to find a reason to keep it It's just that for $3000 plus lenses, I want to get the best thing I can..

If you are not deep into the Nikon system, 5D2 may be a better camera. Stitching two or more pictures together works, but to a limited degree and you can often see the difference between the real thing and the stitched one -- slightly different exposures between shots for example don't come out too nicely and often times you can see it. pictures with water reflections, for example, may not come out too nicely (not too natural) if you stitch pictures together and if the background/forground have slightly different exposures. Get the real thing if you can.

BTW, you can stitch pictures from 5D2, too. I had used a 5D and liked it a lot, and I'm waiting for a 5D2 myself.

>I want to be able to go 40-60" wide.

Well, here's the deal. For a print that large, one must stand back at least 10 feet or so to view and the additional detail is really not going to be there between a 12 mpixel and 21 mpixel camera at the size you are talking about. In fact, to double the resolution of the D700, you need a 48 mpixel camera.

""

What are you going to print this on?

We've got a 42" roll printer, and the largest we ever printed was 42 inch by 30 foot.

I do not recommend this! Just think for a moment about the logistics of hanging it up (actual experience of this is why we never did it again).

We recently printed a display which was 3 panels of 1m x 2m, all shot on a D2X. Absolutely no issues about resolution - the eye just does not expect more than you can take in in one eye-full. More to the point, we generally downsample our pictures before they go to the roll-printer, because we design at 0.25 size and let the BestColor XXL RIP upscale it again. I was very sceptical of this in the beginning, but it works absolutely fine.

I was looking at a 10 foot x 20 foot trailer today, and the rep explained to me that our billboard size images would print fine on it. The reason is that Stochastic Rendering, which is what they used for it, requires only half the resolution of CMYK halftone for the same apparent resolution.

Either way, don't believe the megapixel myths. Load up a picture on your screen and view it at 100%. Then see how many screenfuls wide and high it is. That is the 'true' resolution of your picture. 300 dpi is only required because halftone CMYK loses so much resolution implicitly. If you're printing on Contone or Stochastic, 150 dpi is fine, and if you are displaying on RGB monitors, 72 dpi will be enough.

M A R T I N • T U R N E R
http://art.martinturner.org.uk
http://www.martinturner.org.uk

Nikonians membership: my most important photographic investment, after the camera

My Nikonians blog, Learning from the Portrait Masters, http://blog.nikonians.org/martin_turner/

>Really, I could care less about the video mode on
>the Canon, so all things considered, the higher resolution is
>the only reason I'd be getting it. So, I'd like to hear some
>opinions as to why I should or should not swap the D700 for
>the 5dM2, considering what I want to do with it. I'm fairly
>new to photography, was into for a while in the 90's with
>film, but I now live in a place surrounded by fantastic
>landscapes, so I'm getting back into it. All opinions are
>appreciated.

The 5D MKII image size is larger than the D3 or D700 - 21mp vs. 12mp. But the image resolution is almost identical in each camera at around 2300-2400 lines of resolution per millimeter I believe. To actually achieve that 2400 lpm resolution in a 21mp 5D MKII image, you need the absolute best glass that Canon offers. You should be able to get superb 24" wide prints out of the D700 or D3 and superb 36" wide prints out of the 5D MKII (all optimized for 300 dpi output). If you want even larger prints, you need to go medium format - Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad, etc. - and say goodbye to the best part of $40K. It's either that or just buy a used Bronica medium format set up for $500, pay for film & development, and scan the negs at any size you want.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Obviously, you must dump the Nikon and buy the Canon.

My 35mm slides only print to 24x30" so I say why mess with a D700 except maybe for the odd picnic snaps. If you were really serious about landscape photography and big prints you would get a large format film outfit for all of $1k.

Scanned 4x5 or 5x7 films easily exceed 40Mb and easily produce prints which will meet your standard and incidentally cannot be bettered by any current digital system and be cheaper in the long run.

Then again, if you must have instant gratification and dislike equipment weighing over a few pounds, opt for a 39Mb Hasselblad. Both options put the Canon to shame in resolution.

But since you are just trolling, get the Canon and some Canon glass. Use this forum to sell your D700. See ya.

>If you are not deep into the Nikon system, 5D2 may be a
>better camera. Stitching two or more pictures together works,
>but to a limited degree and you can often see the difference
>between the real thing and the stitched one -- slightly
>different exposures between shots for example don't come out
>too nicely and often times you can see it. pictures with
>water reflections, for example, may not come out too nicely
>(not too natural) if you stitch pictures together and if the
>background/forground have slightly different exposures. Get
>the real thing if you can.

I've taken shots with up to 4 stops difference in exposure and it is impossible to tell where the frames overlap in the stitched result after properly processing the raw files - the blending in up to date stitching software is very impressive. I've even set the camera on aperture priority and martix metering to see what happened and the result was fine.

Water or anything else that moves is an issue and parallax can be too.

>I want to be able to go 40-60" wide.

You are going to be stitching a LOT of frames to get to this print size. Literally hours of post processing and serious hassle in the field. This size is the domain of drum scanned large format film (6x7 can’t cut it), and even for 4x5 60” is a 12x enlargement – 8x10 would preferable. A large format camera will seriously be less hassle and will definitely be quicker to use in the field especially if you use quickload and a non-folding camera.

If you really want lots of megapixels and are torn between a D700 / D3 and a Ca**n, why not look at the new Leica S2 with a larger format and 37.5 mega pixels. Could be the answer.

For me, the D 700 is just perfect

GH

>If you really want lots of megapixels and are torn between a
>D700 / D3 and a Ca**n, why not look at the new Leica S2 with a
>larger format and 37.5 mega pixels. Could be the answer.



Well, $3000 for the body at the most, is my price range, unless I want to go in debt for a while. I don't know how much that Leica is, but I'm sure it's WAY over $3000. After getting back into photography, I find it kind of ironic, it's got some of the same issues as music recording. You can get good recordings on digital equipment, but nothing sounds quite like 2" tape. Seems to be the same with film and digital. With small pics it's not an issue though, but the bigger the prints you want, film is better. Unfortunately, like tape, film is more of a pain in the ass to work with.
There seems to be mixed opinions about 'amount of megapixels' out there, and I am trying to research whether or not having the 21mp in the Canon will make almost double the difference from the D700. Lots of people seem to think not, but some think yes.

>having the 21mp in the Canon will make almost double the difference from the D700.

It will NOT double your resolution. Here's the math, it is not a matter of opinion.

Figure 300 dots, (IE, pixels), per inch, native sensor resolution. So the D700 is 4256 pixels on the wide side. Divided by 300 gives you 14.2 inches before you have to start resizing. The Canon is 5616 pixels which yields 18.7 inches.

To double the resolution, you'd need at least 4256 x 2/300 - You are still only at a native, unresized resolution of 28.4 inches, no where near your 60 inch wide side desire. However, that 48 megapixels would certainly provide a great deal more fine detail, even resized. Get your wallet out, cause the Hasselblad and even the new Leica is going to be a quick $35k or so.

In the end, you have around a 32% increase in resolution between D700 and 5D II. That's it.

""

>I am trying to research whether or not having
>the 21mp in the Canon will make almost double the difference
>from the D700. Lots of people seem to think not, but some
>think yes.

For the mathematically inclined, doubling pixels absolutely does not double your resolution. Sorry to be blunt, but those that think "yes" probably think Pi was a good movie, and know about as much about movies as they do about math.

"Megapixels" is a linear (1-dimensional) measurement, but pictures are 2-dimensional. When you increase the pixel count, that increase is applied partially to the x-axis and partially to the y-axis, such that the actual in area reslolution is the square root of the increase in total number of pixels. Therefore, to increase from 12MP to 21MP, the increase in resolution is sqrt(21/12) = 1.32.

If you don't believe or follow that logic, then consider the 21MP sensor delivers a picture resolution of 5616x3744 (source). The D700 delivers 4256x2832 (source). Print a non-interpolated image at 300dpi from each, the 5D delivers an image 18.7"x12.5", the D700 delivers 14.2"x9.4". That's not exactly what I'd call almost double the size (although it is almost double the area).

Those arguments aside, honestly I think your concerns lie intirely in the wrong area. In today's DSLR market, it's tempting to think a lot about equipment, but which $3000 camera you choose is the decision that will have the smallest impact on your landscape photography. You really need to get out there, learn to compose, and learn to read light, lean to get up before dawn, and stay out after sunset. And take a lot of pictures. After a year, the quality of your photos will have everything to do with your dedication to doing those things, and absolutely nothing to do with what body you choose at this moment.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Larry,

You read my mind! Anyway, with the new Sony 24 mpixel A900, manufacturers have finally double the resolution of my D70s!

""

>Those arguments aside, honestly I think your concerns lie
>intirely in the wrong area. In today's DSLR market, it's
>tempting to think a lot about equipment, but which $3000
>camera you choose is the decision that will have the smallest
>impact on your landscape photography. You really need to get
>out there, learn to compose, and learn to read light, lean to
>get up before dawn, and stay out after sunset. And take a lot
>of pictures. After a year, the quality of your photos will
>have everything to do with your dedication to doing those
>things, and absolutely nothing to do with what body you choose
>at this moment.


I understand all of that, and agree. I was fine with the D700. First DSLR I bought was the D40X, mostly because from researching found out that Nikon's kit lenses were better than Canon's. Now, the D700 makes the D40X seem like a toy to me. I should probably just quit reading online about equipment..
I saw that Canon release of the 5dmk2, and thought a full frame sensor with 21MP would be really nice for landscapes. Anyway, I have a feeling there won't be a whole lot of difference (except a few inches when printing) in picture quality, and the D700 is flat out awesome in low light. There always going to be 'the other guy' trumping a camera in megapixels or whatever. It's getting cooler here in the southwest now, and I'm dying to go shoot, and get better at this.

>There seems to be mixed opinions about 'amount of megapixels'
>out there, and I am trying to research whether or not having
>the 21mp in the Canon will make almost double the difference
>from the D700. Lots of people seem to think not, but some
>think yes.

Rent a 1DsmkIII for a day (going to be very close to the 5DmkII) and compare that to the D700 shot for shot.

Here is dpreview's D3 vs 1DsmkIII test http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page29.asp

- lots of things like in camera software, sharpening, and the lens, and the printing paper or monitor resolution can have more effect on resolution than MP.
Taking MP is isolation it takes 4 times the MP and a big increase in lens quality to increase resolution by about 50%
Doubling MP should increase sensor resolution by 42% (square root of 2) because inverse square law applies to sensors.
What often gets overlooked is if a sensor in isolation resolves 100 lpm and a lens in isolation resolves 100 lpm the output resolution (what you might get on a monitor or in a print) is 50 lpm.
It follows that a 42% increase in sensor resolution results in a 21% increase in output resolution - PROVIDED the lens resolution also goes up by 42%.
On a "middle of the road" lens the resolution increase could be 10% or less.
***
As far I know no printing paper resolves 9 lpm so unless you get to A3 and bigger print size extra output resolution may not show in a print.
Similarly a monitor designed for graphics (roughly 5 times more expensive) shows more sharpness and resolution than average priced monitors.
***
Whether or not extra resolution is desirable or necessary depends on the subject. For "smooth" skin tones high resolution may be best avoided, and shooting solid blocks of colour digitally is largely independent of resolution up to A2 print size with modern interpolation software.
***
Digressing to corner shading if you take 2 weeks free trial at www.bjp-online.com you can view the Sony A900 technical review.
The corner shading is much worse than Nikon (which is not perfect), worse than the EOS 1Ds II, and similar to the original 5D.
Until the II is tested "we" cannot form a view on corner shading and other important issues.
***
Re-enter Hasselblad - they have just reduced body prices world wide 40%!
The 39 MP H3DII body and lens far outperform an EOS 1Ds III - the suggested $ price should now be around $21,000 less discounts.
Because Hasselblad use a lens flange 1.5 times senor diagonal there is no more corner shading with Hasselblad than with a 24x36 lens on a DX body.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

>- lots of things like in camera software, sharpening, and the
>lens, and the printing paper or monitor resolution can have
>more effect on resolution than MP.
>Taking MP is isolation it takes 4 times the MP and a big
>increase in lens quality to increase resolution by about 50%
>
>Doubling MP should increase sensor resolution by 42% (square
>root of 2) because inverse square law applies to sensors.
>What often gets overlooked is if a sensor in isolation
>resolves 100 lpm and a lens in isolation resolves 100 lpm the
>output resolution (what you might get on a monitor or in a
>print) is 50 lpm.

Megapixels have nothing to do with resolution. All of these top-of-the-line DSLRs offer sensor resolutions of 2100+ lines per millimeter. Please let's not confuse technical terms. I think what you're saying is that doubling the number of megapixels of data a sensor can capture does not double the size of the maximum print at a given output resolution (usually still 300 dpi these days). If that's what you mean, you're absolutly correct.

The word "resolution" has crept slowly but surely into a lot of digital imaging conversations, but it's used inaccurately most of the time. Megapixels merely define the physical area of an image captured by a particular sensor with a particular density of photosites. Resolution, on the other hand, is a measure of the optical accuracy of a sensor. For example, the Canon 5D MKII and the Nikon D700 both offer sensors which can capture approximately 2400 lines of resolution per millimeter. But the 5D MKII images can be reproduced at larger print sizes (at 300 dpi) because more of the same composed image data is captured by a greater number of photosites. The resolution of the image data capture, however, is almost identical to the D700.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

You could also take multiple shots on the D700 and stitch them together than you can get more resolution essentially. There are a lot of stitching apps out there. A google search works for that.

5-7 images at 12mp each stitched together and you will get something like a 60+mp image.

Don't quote me on this but I used to do it with my 6mp D100 files back in the day.

-----------------------------------
Photography Workshops: www.inlightinworkshop.com

My Photography: www.ParamourPhoto.com
My Blog: www.ParamourPhoto.net

It's true. And this is what the camera was built to excel at. Yes it's arguable just how much or how little it will be better, but the point is, it will be better for this particular purpose. That's why I'm getting one myself.

Canon 5D MkII + Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (Canon mount) will be awesome.

>It's true. And this is what the camera was built to excel
>at. Yes it's arguable just how much or how little it will be
>better, but the point is, it will be better for this
>particular purpose. That's why I'm getting one myself.
>
>Canon 5D MkII + Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (Canon mount) will be
>awesome.

Does Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 auto focus?

>
>Does Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 auto focus?



Nope. But I'll take an outstanding manual focus lens like Zeiss (they're coming out with a canon mount by the way) over any of the other AF Canon primes in their current lineup. Canon doesn't make any excellent wide-angle anything. Primes or zooms. At least not anything that can go toe to toe with the Nikons or the Zeiss.