Nikon D800 vs Canon 5D MarkIII: large format (Page 4): Yes, I agree - I question their methodology and how it relates to real world conditions - and that they do not always agree with...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Tony B wrote:

DxOMark ratings are suspect. A guide maybe but not gospel.

Yes, I agree - I question their methodology and how it relates to real world conditions - and that they do not always agree with other highly regarded reviews. - MHO. ......All ratings are suspect as a single criteria for judgement.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

DxO results may be accurate insofar as they go, but they do not address real-world concerns such as aberrations, distortions, flare resistance, etc. I much prefer hands-on tests such as those provided by photozone, lenstip and slrgear. That being said, I can see major differences in performance between lenses such as the Nikon 18-200 and my 80-200 f2.8. Good technique is certainly uppermost, but it can be heavily compromised by poor gear.

Tony B Loc: Perth, Western Australia

kymarto wrote:

DxO results may be accurate insofar as they go, but they do not address real-world concerns such as aberrations, distortions, flare resistance, etc. I much prefer hands-on tests such as those provided by photozone, lenstip and slrgear. That being said, I can see major differences in performance between lenses such as the Nikon 18-200 and my 80-200 f2.8. Good technique is certainly uppermost, but it can be heavily compromised by poor gear.

I agree. Not sure if you read this but that is the point the writer
of the following is making.

http://photofocus.com/2013/08/01/why-i-couldnt-care-less-what-dxomark-says-about-my-lens-...
Interesting read & point of view.

If I were not heavily invested in Canon L lenses then the D800E would certainly be of interest over other manufacturers' offerings.
However if I really wanted MPs I would look further afield & have to lighten the bank balance considerably. As always compromise is the name of the game.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Fernanda wrote:

I print large formats (around 80''x 40").

Here are the numbers that actually do make a difference, listed
by camera in order of least preferred to most:

Camera    Resolution in lp/mm
 D3S             59 
 D4              68 
 5D3             80 
 D3X             84 
 D800(E)        102 

If everything else is equal, the D800 wins hands down going away. Everything is never equal, and there will be great images printed from all of those cameras. But the simple fact is that day in and day out the D800 will be the most effective camera for 80x40 prints.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Fernanda wrote:

Cdouthitt wrote:

Are you currently using programs to resize to that scale (like perfect resize?)

Photoshop, but I don't like the result very much... It depends on the photograph, if it is abstract or landscape.

I would suggest downloading the ImageMagick tool set, and after some significant research to get a better idea of the significance than I'm going to provide in just one article, use the convert program to re-sample images prior to final sharpening and printing.

Two specific reasons are that you can change the gamma prior to and then following resizing, and the filter used for the resizing algorithm can be selected as appropriate, from a list of 30 different filters.

For example, I use a script to automate resizing to some degree. It allows me to add options as desired, but the defaults shown below.

When the specified size is smaller than the original, the default is:

convert input_image_file -depth 16 -gamma 0.454545 -filter Lanczos \
  -sampling-factor 1x1 -resize hxv -quality 89 -gamma 2.2 -depth 8 \
  -density 360 -units PixelsPerInch output_image_file

When the re-sample is to a larger size than the original, the default filter changes from "Lanczos" to "Mitchell".

The "-resize hxv" option determines the final size, and "hxv" can be specified as something like 2880x3600, 2800, or as x3600 (an 8x10 in landscape mode on a 360 PPI Epson printer).

Note that gamma is converted to a straight line linear encoding before resizing and returned to the standard 2.2 gamma after. That eliminates certain artifacts.

For up sizing I use a Mitchell filter that is slightly soft, and for down sizing I use a Lanczos filter that provides a slight amount of sharpening. In either case the image needs to be sharpened by inspections after it has been resampled.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Apaflo wrote:

I would suggest downloading the ImageMagick tool s... (show quote)

Ampaflo, so what does all of this gibberish mean??

Since a camera shoots in digital, but we actually print in analogue.

I take it that what you are saying, is that if you have twice as many pixels, that with your method, your prints will come out TWICE as good?!

Or are you saying that one MIGHT be able to see a difference?

I will say, that since MOST digital shooters are ONLY ever going to view their files from computer to computer, so it may be important to them to have bigger files, because when you pixel peep digital, you WILL see a difference.
When you pixel peep analogue prints, not so much(according to custom printers I have spoken with). ;-)
SS

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I have a number of prints hanging that are 2 meters wide, and an exhibition that has traveled with 24 prints 80 cm on the long side. You can be sure that megapixels matter to some of us. And yes, you can see a difference if the prints are done well.

Reddog Loc: Southern Calif

SharpShooter wrote:

I guess you'll never own a professional body then will you?!
Paying twice as much, to get half as much! What a rip-off.

Why is it that pros are only concerned with camera performance, but amateurs are only concerned with megapixels?! Hmmmmm, funny how that works.

There is so much more to a camera than just a sensor, no matter how big you print. :lol:

SS

Well Stated! :thumbup:

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Maybe some of the Nikon and Canon fanboys should read this - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/sony-a7r-a-rising-tide-lifts-all-the-boats - for a new perspective ! Granted, the AF lens selection is somewhat crippling - but we seem to be zeroing in on camera body/sensor qualities now in this thread ......

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

imagemeister wrote:

Maybe some of the Nikon and Canon fanboys should read this - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/sony-a7r-a-rising-tide-lifts-all-the-boats - for a new perspective ! Granted, the AF lens selection is somewhat crippling - but we seem to be zeroing in on camera body/sensor qualities now in this thread ......

That's a great link. Thank you!

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Great info. Thanks. Sony is making its mark.