dunedin
newbie
Reged: 14/11/2008
Posts: 46
Loc: Edinburgh
|
|
Hi all,
I am aiming to take pictures of (in order of frequency):
1) Landscapes that I want to blow up to at least a metre wide (I know this will involve pixellation but I don't want to go medium format)
2) People shots, some in fairly low light
3) Architecture shots in good light
I know both the D700 and 5d get rave reviews but I'm having such a hard time deciding between them!
(BTW my current camera is a D40x and I've got a fair few lenses with it but most are DX apart from a 50mm prime).
Any thoughts?
--------------------
Please read the forum guidelines regarding links before adding URLs here. Thank you. Admin.
|
TheFatControlleR
Hoograh!
Reged: 24/04/2001
Posts: 16538
Loc: The Disenchanted Forest
|
|
In terms of ability across your innerests I suspect they're much of a muchness.
If I had the body/system/lenses you already have I'd stick with the brand, unless you're willing to totally reinvest.
Failing that I'd offer the oft doled advice of; handle the two and see which feels the best for you.
--------------------
TheFatControlleR
'Everybody is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.' - Winston Churchill
Tolerance makes everything boring, we need more conflict! - Slavoj Žižek
'Live fat, die young, and leave a self-basting corpse for the burn up...' - TFC
|
Benchista
Which Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 42213
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
I would think that your requirements are better served by the more pixels but higher noise of the Canon - it copes fine in fairly low light, but the D700 beats it in really low light. But for those print sizes, the extra pixels will tell. I would normally agree with Myk about not changing systems, but as most of your lenses would be of limited use to you anyway, that's much less of an issue.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
PeteRob
Reged: 30/03/2004
Posts: 70
|
|
A metre wide. Sure you don't want to try medium format? it will do a) and c)- you have capability for b). For static subjects you don't need much kit - waist level finder and a simple hand held meter. Digital is now amazingly good but printed to A4 a 6x6 neg is just better than a 5D so that would be the break point for a 5D mkII probably! I am sure lots will disagree.
|
dunedin
newbie
Reged: 14/11/2008
Posts: 46
Loc: Edinburgh
|
|
Quote:
A metre wide. Sure you don't want to try medium format? it will do a) and c)- you have capability for b). For static subjects you don't need much kit - waist level finder and a simple hand held meter. Digital is now amazingly good but printed to A4 a 6x6 neg is just better than a 5D so that would be the break point for a 5D mkII probably! I am sure lots will disagree.
I agree that Medium Format is better definitely for the kind of size I'm looking for but I'm working in a fast moving environment and I don't have the time to develop or send away negatives and then scan them. I also need to see my results instantly...so it kind of has to be digital.
--------------------
Please read the forum guidelines regarding links before adding URLs here. Thank you. Admin.
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 4360
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
You need whichever digital camera delivers the most pixels.
There is a professional comparison here between a Sony Alpha 900, a Hasselblad H3 and a Mamiya AFDIII. The Sony came first (just) and the Mamiya last.
It seems digital cameras, 35mm full frame and with sufficient pixels, can now equal or even exceed the best 6x6 film cameras.
--------------------
Rog
|
alanS
The Flameproof Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 4737
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
Why not add the Sony A900 as a possibility? It's the only FF digital with in body IS.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Benchista
Which Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 42213
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Why not add the Sony A900 as a possibility? It's the only FF digital with in body IS.
There, you've answered your own question. 
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
Edited by Benchista (30/06/2009 00:13)
|
alanS
The Flameproof Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 4737
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
It is a beautiful thing though...
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Zou
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/2007
Posts: 3038
Loc: Edinburgh
|
|
It certainly is. By the by, I was working on a 6x6 scan last night and noticed it was roughly 25MP, despite being a fairly lo-res scan (2400 if I recall correctly). So I expect a great lens on a Hassie 500 with good film well scanned could provide huge amounts of detail. Certainly better than the Holga pic I was working on. 
--------------------
Zou's Flickr Page
|
LargeFormat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1908
Loc: Cumbria and Buckinghamshire
|
|
Quote:
There is a professional comparison here between a Sony Alpha 900, a Hasselblad H3 and a Mamiya AFDIII. The Sony came first (just) and the Mamiya last.
Thanks Rog, That's what I call a comfort read. shame I don't read Polish.
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 4360
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is a professional comparison here between a Sony Alpha 900, a Hasselblad H3 and a Mamiya AFDIII. The Sony came first (just) and the Mamiya last.
Thanks Rog, That's what I call a comfort read. shame I don't read Polish.
.... Google (translate) is your friend
--------------------
Rog
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
