"Which body, D3 or 5D, produces sharper images? When using comparable lenses. I'm talking about per pixel sharpness. "Funny how the topic turned to a comparison of zoom lenses.
I really don't care which brand makes a better zoom. They are not what I use. Lens comparison does not answer which camera produces the sharpest pixels.
Well im not sure what your looking for.
Seems like a very odd comparison. 5D has a higher mp count, other then that the D3 slaps it on the fingers in every aspect.
Canons default sharpening is higher, so if you want the sharpest image out of the camera in default mode, the 5D will be your choice.
The 5D has a great sensor, body .. no never had. D300 beats in most areas apart from highiso performance.I certainly doesnt "slap it on the fingers" for ISO performance... up to 800 its negligible and at 1600-3200 pretty darn close... Not bad for an old camera...
Again, I would sincerely hope the flagship Nikon model can beat out the third ranking Canon (behind the 1dsMk3, and 1dMk3) which just so happens to be almost 3 years old... The fact that its even compared to that is a testament to just how great the 5D is.
The 5D has a great sensor, body .. no never had. D300 beats in most areas apart from highiso performance.
If you like your 5D thats great, no need to convince me, cause it aint gonna work. Iv used one and the highiso performance is what its good at(and the VF compared to cameras like D200/D300). The rest is subpar, and this is compared to the D300.
And yes the D3 outperforms it in the highiso performance area, and to me that is "slaps it on the fingers" your definition might be diffrent.
Your offcourse entitled to disagree with my opinion. :wink:
No need to get your panties in a twist, i suggest you re-read my post.Its unfortunate that I'd even need to have to try and convince you, because its pretty obvious the 5D wipes the floor with the D300 at ISO 800 and ISO 1600... Take a look at the detail you're losing on that overrated D300 at 1600 and compare it to the detail retained on a 5D... Again, its a no brainer- advantage: 5D. The noise processing on the D300 smears out so much detail its sad given the price point on that camera. View finder as you said beats the D300. If you're concerned about little bells and whistles, you're entitled to that... The ONLY thing I'd give a nod to on the D300 is the frames per second. Ergonomically (which is subjective) I prefer my 5D. Build quality and weather sealing are a little over scrutinized. I've shot my 5D in the rain with no problems and have banged it and dropped it before with no problems... I guess if I were shooting in a monsoon or sand storm it might come in handy... A D300 is better served being compared to an EOS 40D.
As for the D3 vs. 5D comparison, again, the fact you're comparing a nearly 3 year old camera to Nikons flagship model is testament to the 5D's great performance. Making the argument "well, they're both FF" is pretty lame IMO... Why aren't we comparing D100's and EOS 10D's, and Rebel XT's to D300s, 40D's, and XSi's??? What, they have the same image sensor (assuming 1.6 and 1.5 are equal)????
Im curious, what progress do you wait for in the MF market ?It was an interesting discussion, but I have decided to push on and wait for the larger formats to make some more progress. I think we can all take a step back from the N vs C battle line. :smile: Nobody needs to convince anyone of anything. The question was specific and I have my answer. Honestly, neither has sharp pixels
I might buy an old Kodak SLR/n just to play with for now. :wink:
It's far from lame. People who have used a range of DX cameras will compare them over time.As for the D3 vs. 5D comparison, again, the fact you're comparing a nearly 3 year old camera to Nikons flagship model is testament to the 5D's great performance. Making the argument "well, they're both FF" is pretty lame IMO... Why aren't we comparing D100's and EOS 10D's, and Rebel XT's to D300s, 40D's, and XSi's??? What, they have the same image sensor (assuming 1.6 and 1.5 are equal)????
Better color.Im curious, what progress do you wait for in the MF market ?
I'm doing some landscape work. The d2x detail is ok but lacks range and color. The S5 has the range and color but lacks the pixel sharpness.Also curious to know what kind of pixelsharpness your looking for, and for what purpose ?
I'm doing some landscape work. The d2x detail is ok but lacks range and color. The S5 has the range and color but lacks the pixel sharpness.
The D3 and 5D would offer more range but they both lack in other areas.Thanx.
The D3 wont give you much more over the D2X for landscapes imo, neither will the 5D.
D3X (or whatever it will be called) might though.
I never heard that the colors is a problem with MF, the size and weight has been the biggest downsides for scenery shooters.
yes depending on what digital back you use that is true. But once you got your profile, i think you'd be more then happy with the DR and color.The D3 and 5D would offer more range but they both lack in other areas.
From what I have seen behind the scenes the MF's require custom profiles.
I never claimed to be the only one who's used a 5D... But again, comparing older technology to new technology is my point.... I certainly would hope, all other major things being equaly, the new technology should win out.It's far from lame. People who have used a range of DX cameras will compare them over time.
You're not the only one here who's used a 5D.