Canon or Nikon for Full Frame

twist

Distinguished Member
It's in the eye of the beholder when it comes to noise, you can analyse it scientifically but it's what you see that counts. My Kingfisher photos were shot at ISO 2000 (due to bad lighting conditions), however I printed one of the images at A3 size and the noise doesn't look that bad. For me judging ISO requires prints and a magnifying glass. I tend to think a lot of people get hung up on specifications and don't get on with shooting pictures and printing them.

As with any Camera the choice always boils down to Ergonomics and a control layout you can get on with. Then you look at other factors like ISO, sensors, AF etc.
As for Sigma's super telephoto lenses, you only need to be strong enough to carry them in a bag (I'm considering a roller type bag to save my poor neck and lashing a tripod to a little stack truck thing). Once you put them on a tripod or monopod the weight issue disappears mostly.

Do you think the 5d3 noise looks cleaner or more appealing than the D750 in the comparison posted? Not everyone prints these days.

Agreed re controls, it is pretty important.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
Do you think the 5d3 noise looks cleaner or more appealing than the D750 in the comparison posted? Not everyone prints these days.

I have looked at the high ISO performance comparisons and tbh there isn't a lot of difference between the manufacturers. By that I mean the technology has yet to mature enough to give you relatively clean files in difficult lighting conditions. It's an area of sensor development and imaging processing that's probably going to become more important than Dynamic Range (which is developing at a quick pace thanks to Sony). As being able to shoot in really low light will open up a whole new avenue for photographers without having to resort to long exposures spanning seconds or minutes.

As for Printing ? It's a forgotten part of the process. Nothing beats seeing a photograph printed out and hanging on a wall. I think too many people pixel peep and worry about noise and DR (guilty of it myself at times). Before you get your knickers in a twist I have seen prints from various camera brands via the Oxford Flickr Group. For our exhibition this year we have the choice of printing at A0.

Agreed re controls, it is pretty important.

I prefer the Canon layout and others probably hate it. But it's a personal preference and not one worth fighting about. I'm sure I'd get the hang of Nikon's control layout if I ever get around to buying one of the budget Nikon DSLR's.
 

twist

Distinguished Member
I have looked at the high ISO performance comparisons and tbh there isn't a lot of difference between the manufacturers. By that I mean the technology has yet to mature enough to give you relatively clean files in difficult lighting conditions. It's an area of sensor development and imaging processing that's probably going to become more important than Dynamic Range (which is developing at a quick pace thanks to Sony). As being able to shoot in really low light will open up a whole new avenue for photographers without having to resort to long exposures spanning seconds or minutes.

As for Printing ? It's a forgotten part of the process. Nothing beats seeing a photograph printed out and hanging on a wall. I think too many people pixel peep and worry about noise and DR (guilty of it myself at times). Before you get your knickers in a twist I have seen prints from various camera brands via the Oxford Flickr Group. For our exhibition this year we have the choice of printing at A0.

I prefer the Canon layout and others probably hate it. But it's a personal preference and not one worth fighting about. I'm sure I'd get the hang of Nikon's control layout if I ever get around to buying one of the budget Nikon DSLR's.

Okay, I see the examples posted and one is clearly better than the other. Obviously its less noticeable in print. I also like printing, a lot dont bother though.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
Okay, I see the examples posted and one is clearly better than the other. Obviously its less noticeable in print. I also like printing, a lot dont bother though.

Prints are part of the art of Photography, it's something that's been lost a bit since digital cameras took off. Printing is a good way of seeing an image properly, as long as everything is calibrated correctly. You lose something when all you do is look at an image on monitor. Good quality prints are not cheap but worth it for photos you personally love.
 

snerkler

Member
Prints are part of the art of Photography for the oldies, they've been a bit lost and left behind since digital cameras took off
FTFY :devil: :p

Joking aside I too print, but I don't necessarily agree that prints are somehow better than looking on a monitor/display. A lot of it is preference, and some things can actually look better on a backlit screen as it helps to highlight/enhance things that aren't always possible with print.
 

shotokan101

Banned
...then you're not processing/proofing them properly for printing :devil:
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
FTFY :devil: :p

Joking aside I too print, but I don't necessarily agree that prints are somehow better than looking on a monitor/display. A lot of it is preference, and some things can actually look better on a backlit screen as it helps to highlight/enhance things that aren't always possible with print.

Again it's a personal preference but prints have always been a major part of photography. I like to compare prints with the screen to spot the differences. With a monitor, noise can be more pronounced when you print it's less noticeable.

...then you're not processing/proofing them properly for printing :devil:

Canon's Pixma Pro printers make that really easy to do. You can either do it manually with calibration tools or let the printer manage the colour calibration along with selecting the correct paper profile and size.
 

snerkler

Member
...then you're not processing/proofing them properly for printing :devil:
There's certain looks that you can't get from paper. Lights for ex)mple on a screen look, well,..... lit up ;) I've not seen any standard photographic paper that lights up :p
 

snerkler

Member
Canon's Pixma Pro printers make that really easy to do. You can either do it manually with calibration tools or let the printer manage the colour calibration along with selecting the correct paper profile and size.

In theory yes, but if you want to get the print looking EXACTLY the same it's a real ballache. The profiles are OK, but I find I have to them tweak the images a lot in some situations to get the softproof to look like the original pic.
 

shotokan101

Banned
There's certain looks that you can't get from paper. Lights for ex)mple on a screen look, well,..... lit up ;) I've not seen any standard photographic paper that lights up :p

Then you're not calibrating your screen properly :devil:
 

snerkler

Member

shotokan101

Banned
@twist sent me a sample pack :p
 

twist

Distinguished Member
@twist sent me a sample pack :p

Yup I sent this to Jim to wipe his mouth with after he's done talking.

Toiletpapier_(Gobran111).jpg
 

shotokan101

Banned
Oh - I didn't know you said Mouth - as it was embossed with the Nikon Logo I just did what came naturally....:devil:
 

shotokan101

Banned

The latest video from AVForums

AVForums Movies Podcast: We review Dune and ask which is the best decade for horror movies?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom