Nikon D700 and Canon comparisons?

[rgrebby]

I have been doing some photography with a friend and they have a Nikon D700 and some decent lenses, mainly using the 85mm , i think its the 1.4 but could be the 1.8 lens.

Anyway, im only using my Canon 400D and sigma 17-70 lens and as you can imagine there is a massive difference in image quality.

Now, is it the mainly the lens that is doing this massive difference.
Everything just looks so amazing on the nikon.
If I was to get the Canon 50D and some nice lenses would it still be a massive difference in quality?

I understand that the D700 is full frame and the body and lens are both very expensive but is there any way I can even compete with something like that but without an insane budget? The Nikon is just so smooth and clean and bright.

Maybe even a canon 5D MK1?

 

[joxby]

Probably a bit of both, but mostly its full frame.
I don't think crop cameras can compete with full frame, but I would imagine a 50D and some big time glass would improve on your current combo.

I just thought, were you viewing the images on the D700 screen, because that will also play a part in image perception.

 

[wack61]

You'd see an improvement with just your 400D if you bought better lenses, primes will always give better results than zooms, £80 will buy a 50mm f/1.8 which will give a similar field of view to a 85mm on a FF body why not give that a try before spending £100s

 

[rgrebby]

I have been using the canon 50mm 1.8 and it still doesnt compare.
You are right I was looking at the back of the Nikon, but after bringing my pics home and looking at the 400D's the colour just looks lame.

If I was to upgrade which is better the 50D or the 5D?

 

[fyonn]

If I was to upgrade which is better the 50D or the 5D?

well, the 5D is more expensive, so presumably better, and it's also full frame.

btw, why is full frame better? I appreciate you can get a wider field of view, and that lenses are back to being at their proper focal lengths as it's not a crop system anymore.

I can even see why you'd get much better high iso performance (as the pixels are much bigger and can soak in more light).

is the latter the reason why full frame is better? just the size of the pixels? then how does 24mp full frame compare to 16 cropped? might not the pixels be a very similar size there?

sorry, just waiting for the penny to drop

dave

 

[StewartR]

why is full frame better? I appreciate you can get a wider field of view, and that lenses are back to being at their proper focal lengths as it's not a crop system anymore.

I can even see why you'd get much better high iso performance (as the pixels are much bigger and can soak in more light).

is the latter the reason why full frame is better? just the size of the pixels? then how does 24mp full frame compare to 16 cropped? might not the pixels be a very similar size there?

That's basically it in a nutshell. The pixels are bigger on full frame.

If you want to compare cameras with similar sized pixels, 24MP full frame equates to about 10.7MP on a Nikon (1.5x) crop or 9.4MP on a Canon (1.6x) crop.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Canon were to put their state-of-the-art electronics into a 9MP crop sensor. They won't do it, of course. But I bet the results would be good.

EDIT - Another reason may be that you tend to get less depth of field on full frame cameras. But even mentioning that issue opens a real can of worms that is more likely to confuse the situation than enlighten. It can make the difference if you take two carefully controlled pictures and compare them. But most of the time it's probably not the reason for the "Wow" factor that so many people see with full frame sensors.

 

[fyonn]

If you want to compare cameras with similar sized pixels, 24MP full frame equates to about 10.7MP on a Nikon (1.5x) crop or 9.4MP on a Canon (1.6x) crop.

well, that's close to the D3x vs D300 ratio. 24mp against 12mp. so in that case, focal ration multiplier aside, why would a D3x produce "better" photo's than the D300?

dave