Is 22 MP better than 36 MP 5D2 vs D800?
- Thread starter teKno
- Start date
PistolPeteUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 290
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends what you mean by "better".
There is a lot more to it then just megapixels.
There is a lot more to it then just megapixels.
gadgeteer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,540
- Edit My Images
- No
You are not really comparing like for like.
The 5DMk2 was released in 2008, the D800 in 2012. The better model to compare would be the 5DMk3 and the D800. Or did you mean the Mk3?
If you mean the Mk3 then I think in reality you are better off handling both and deciding which feel better. I found that Nikon controls just felt very natural in my hand. I much prefer dual dials and well...it felt just right.
Canon's just felt weird. I didn't like the button/dial positions at all.
Other than that, my personal opinion is that 36MP is far too much. It'll eat disk space and depending on your PC spec, you may even need an upgrade.
Canon have the better range of lenses (IMO) but then Nikon have plenty and enough to suit most people.
Bottom line, have a play then decide.
The 5DMk2 was released in 2008, the D800 in 2012. The better model to compare would be the 5DMk3 and the D800. Or did you mean the Mk3?
If you mean the Mk3 then I think in reality you are better off handling both and deciding which feel better. I found that Nikon controls just felt very natural in my hand. I much prefer dual dials and well...it felt just right.
Canon's just felt weird. I didn't like the button/dial positions at all.
Other than that, my personal opinion is that 36MP is far too much. It'll eat disk space and depending on your PC spec, you may even need an upgrade.
Canon have the better range of lenses (IMO) but then Nikon have plenty and enough to suit most people.
Bottom line, have a play then decide.
- Messages
- 4,405
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Don;t get hooked on MP;s.
I used a 5d2 which was great, and a mk3 is supposed to be better.
Never tried a Nikon digi since the D100, but only hear great things about the d800.
Tell peeps what type of 'tography you like, may help. See if you can handle each and choose what feels right for you could be another thing to consider.
I used a 5d2 which was great, and a mk3 is supposed to be better.
Never tried a Nikon digi since the D100, but only hear great things about the d800.
Tell peeps what type of 'tography you like, may help. See if you can handle each and choose what feels right for you could be another thing to consider.
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What are you wanting to photograph ?
D800 has fantastic resolution at lower ISO settings but a lower pixel density camera may be your choice for noise at higher ISO settings ?
Loads of things to consider really.
If you're considering a D800 are you also considering the 5D mark 3 ?
D800 has fantastic resolution at lower ISO settings but a lower pixel density camera may be your choice for noise at higher ISO settings ?
Loads of things to consider really.
If you're considering a D800 are you also considering the 5D mark 3 ?
- Messages
- 4,405
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Shallow or deep?
- Messages
- 4,405
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Canon 135L f2 looks great, Check out pics by CUTHBERT
Gaz J
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,294
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- No
Depends also what you plan to use it for. The D800 has great resolution but only 4 FPS. The 5D has 6 so if you plan to use it for wildlife then the canon may be a better bet. They both have good focussing systems and control noise at higher ISO's well. The massive MP allows you to crop into the D800 files a long way.
In reality they are pretty similar. Flagship FF at not completely daft prices.
The files from the D800 are large and if you want instant loading into Lightroom and photoshop you need a computer with a fast processor and hard drives. Lightroom seems to be a bit fussy on it's computer spec.
My own 4 year old pc struggles to rum LR and photoshop together now I have the 5D.
I have seen a friends brand new iMac with the highest spec processor you can get take 5 seconds to open a D800 file. Loading a big card via USB takes ages as well.
Have a play with each and buy what you think will serve you best. They are both great cameras. Neither really better than the other just perhaps more suitable for certain requirements.
In reality they are pretty similar. Flagship FF at not completely daft prices.
The files from the D800 are large and if you want instant loading into Lightroom and photoshop you need a computer with a fast processor and hard drives. Lightroom seems to be a bit fussy on it's computer spec.
My own 4 year old pc struggles to rum LR and photoshop together now I have the 5D.
I have seen a friends brand new iMac with the highest spec processor you can get take 5 seconds to open a D800 file. Loading a big card via USB takes ages as well.
Have a play with each and buy what you think will serve you best. They are both great cameras. Neither really better than the other just perhaps more suitable for certain requirements.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Will you ever print? If so, how big?
If you never print, then it's a total irrelevance, as you're just going to be looking at stuff on a screen. Even 12MP will be fine, never mind 22... hell, 6MP will be fine.
Nawty
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,473
- Name
- Ned
- Edit My Images
- Yes
MP are irrelevant really (assuming your computer is up to scratch), the far more important thing is how the camera feels in your hand and only YOU can decide which feels better. Certainly if I was going to be spending over £2500 on my first camera I wouldn't do so without trying them out.
The other consideration is the lenses available for each camera so you need to do some work there to figure out if each brand has what you're after. Also, cameras like these need really good lenses to make use of all of that resolution so expect to spend a fair old chunk of cash here too.
The other consideration is the lenses available for each camera so you need to do some work there to figure out if each brand has what you're after. Also, cameras like these need really good lenses to make use of all of that resolution so expect to spend a fair old chunk of cash here too.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
In which case, choose your lenses first (eg fast primes?) and go with whichever brand suits.
One thing about the D800 that doesn't seem to have caught on is it's kind of two cameras in one. Stick the battery grip on and it'll run at 6fps in crop mode with 15mp - basically a D7000.
DuncanDisorderly
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,016
- Name
- Duncan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Agreed
I love my shallow DoF; but I've kinda grown into it and am glad Canon offer some cracking lenses at sensible(ish) prices.
The classic big aperture lenses in the Canon range that I suggest you start reading with are the 50mm f1.4 (or f1.2 if your budget is healthy), 85mm f1.2 (expensive but gorgeous results) and 135mm f2 (occasionally quoted as Lord Of The Red Rings and a real bargain).
I have the 50mm f1.4 and 135 f2 and love the results - here's a recent set produced with these two lenses.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its the sensor size which allows for shallow dof (with the right lens and apperture setting of course) not the number of MP on the sensor - so any FF sensored DSLR will meet your requirements
- Messages
- 3,097
- Edit My Images
- No
The number of megapixels only really comes into things when talking resolution and light gathering.
Its always a trade off between the two.
The Nikon sensor has greater resolution, thats without doubt and in good shooting conditions that can be a real plus point, the downside is that those pixels are a fair bit smaller than those on the canon sensor.
Larger pixels gather more light, they have a larger surface area so get hit by more photon's.
Think of a pixel as a bucket, the bigger the bucket, the more light it can gather, hence better low light performance and less noise in those conditions.
Given the kind of shooting conditions we face here I would rather have fewer large pixels than one with over half as many again crammed on the same size sensor.
For me its not so much about the make of camera as it is the sensor itself.
Its always a trade off between the two.
The Nikon sensor has greater resolution, thats without doubt and in good shooting conditions that can be a real plus point, the downside is that those pixels are a fair bit smaller than those on the canon sensor.
Larger pixels gather more light, they have a larger surface area so get hit by more photon's.
Think of a pixel as a bucket, the bigger the bucket, the more light it can gather, hence better low light performance and less noise in those conditions.
Given the kind of shooting conditions we face here I would rather have fewer large pixels than one with over half as many again crammed on the same size sensor.
For me its not so much about the make of camera as it is the sensor itself.
Digifrog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,069
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm unclear then. In the DigitalRev comparison Youtube video (and several other tests I've seen/read) it clearly shows that the Nikon was able to pick out detail in the shadows where the 5D3 could not? I think what can be different with the two is colour rendition.
Personally, I think whatever camera you choose you won't be disappointed. I was in an identical position 12 months ago and I made my choice, though it wasn't an easy one.
Personally, I think whatever camera you choose you won't be disappointed. I was in an identical position 12 months ago and I made my choice, though it wasn't an easy one.