The new Nikons have really opened up a world of low light imaging. I can foresee studios where flash is not used.
We live in heady times, gear wise.
While on the subject of full frame and Canon/Nikon etc.,
I had the opportunity to directly compare a Nikon D2X with a new Canon 1dS MkIII which I was intending to buy.
The D2x is a 12 MP and the 1ds is a 20MP which, in the real world, means that in a given size print where the 1ds gives me 300dpi, the D2x will only give me 240dpi (Real resolution neutralizes the squared difference in numbers you get by using megapixel count)
This means that the individual photosite size on the 1ds is about the same as the D2X (around 0.007mm square)
I was shooting large fine JPEGS because I had not yet downloaded the new PS RAW plugin.
I was amazed & horrified to see that the Nikon pics looked better. Less noisy, cleaner and better tonality.
But they were also sharper/clearer with the subject the same size on the screen.
At high magnification, the Canon images looked like they'd been slightly over sharpened and had lost edge integrity...
Should I order myself a D3??? Or, God forbid, a digital MamiyaRZ plus lenses?
]I had ordered a D3 but cancelled in favor of a new 1Ds because I have some good Canon lenses and I thought it would take me to where I didn't need to buy medium format. (I am competing against some top pros in Dubai who are shooting MF digital. I still use film on 6X7 and it's a hassle scanning whereas I take a 24" Mac on the shoot and give the art director the images right away… finished.
With film there's scanning and Photoshopping etc.,
Any logical reason why the Canon pics should be degraded compared to D2X?
Herschel
--
Alex Georgiadis
