MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Funny how the Canon fanboys always have to make up excuses for their shortcomings, it just never will end. Sad really.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

OMG! SharpShooter may not sleep tonight! :)

christofras Loc: Gold Coast Australia

Large format I would say !.......More pixles!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You might want to take a look at this:

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

At normal viewing distances - which would be slightly less than 90" for a 40x80, the required resolution would be about 38 ppi.

The 5D MkIII has 5760 × 3840, which would make for a 72ppi image with a longest dimension of 80 inches, well within the capability of the camera. The D800 would be better.

However, at normal viewing distances, you would not be able to tell much of a difference in an 80" print. Move in close, and you definitely will be able to tell.

If these images are going in homes that do not house photographers, I suspect either camera will be fine. If the house has Canon cameras, even point and shoots, then you know what you need to do. Same thing for Nikon. :)

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

While both cameras would be be very good, wouldn't the 36 megapixels give the 800 the edge with very large prints?

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Just tossing this out there, as I've printed 40x60" prints with a D-200 that people (non photographers) swoon over. I've also seen huge prints made from a D-40, and even had one of my photos used as a billboard advertisement that was taken years ago with a D-70 (6 mp) Good technique, excellent glass, and a super sharp image, combined with a printer that has the best upsizing software is also very important. Don't just throw megapixels at it, or you'd be buying a point and shoot with a bunch of MP but very small sensor.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I have a number of prints that size hanging, done with an 800E. Everyone marvels at the resolution, even standing right next to them. At that size you have to think carefully about lenses, because every flaw will be visible (focus, chromatic aberration, corner resolution) at several feet, just like pixel peeping at 100%. I doubt that you would see any difference between the 800 and the 800E except using the very finest lenses below f5.6.

I shoot also with a Canon 5D3. The Nikon has, perhaps, a tiny touch more resolution, but it is not a major difference, easily obscured by the smallest focusing error. But more than resolution, the reason for going with the Nikon is the much higher dynamic range of the sensor. This is not so obvious if you are working in lighting situations in which a normal exposure will include the whole dynamic range of the scene and you will not be doing any lifting of shadows, but the minute you start post processing the difference becomes quite apparent.

I've posted this before, but it is worth posting again. I shot the building across the way with both the 800E and the 5D3, and made a test of underexposure. I shot frames with both cameras at 100 and 800 ISO, underexposed three stops, then used PS to bring the images back to a normal-looking level. Both were shot with similar excellent lenses (Nikon 14-24 and Canon 16-35) at f5.6, mid-frame, so the resolution is roughly comparable. Nikon files were down-rezzed to match the Canon output.

You'll see that the Canon has hugely noisy shadows compared to the Nikon. In fact, overall, the Nikon looks as good at ISO 800 as the Canon at 100.

Of course in this situation there was no need to underexpose by three stops, but there are plenty of situations where an extra 3 EV of dynamic range are plenty important. Clean shadows such as the Nikon gives will allow fairly radical underexposure to retain highlight detail while raising the shadows. To demonstrate, I'm posting a couple of examples shot at my local beach to show how that works. Underexposed by ~2 EV to retain at least some highlight detail, and then brought up in PS. That would not have been possible with the 5D3. If you don't see that as something that might enter your experience, then either camera should be fine.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Not necessarily at average viewing distances.

The link has a very interesting demonstration. It shows a low res and high res image, and invites you to be able to tell the difference between the two at a distance. I can't. The eye's ability to resolve fine detail at a given distance has a limit, and even if you include more detail (resolution), you will not see the difference. Billboards are routinely printed at 20, 36 ppi, but at 50 ft they look really crisp and detailed. But if you print a 4"x6"image at 72 ppi it would look terrible.

I used to do art fairs, and I could always tell the photographer from the buying public - the buyers would usually take a step back to appreciate the composition, subject matter, framing, colors etc. The photogs would step to within inches of the art and examine it closely - pixel by pixel.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I've got large prints side by side shot with 12 MP (D700) and 36 MP (D800E). There is a difference, although not as much as some people might imagine. It's in the fine detail, the high-frequency stuff, something like the difference between an unsharpened file and one that has been well sharpened. There is definitely (with a good lens) another level of detail, however. Still, viewed at six feet--maybe even three feet--you would never see it.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

OviedoPhotos

The d800 would do the size needed. However, shoot raw IMO.

Also, the glass used will matter a LOT in this case. Nikon has lots of awesome lenses.

thelazya Loc: Wendell, MN

Nokia Lumia 1020: the 41-megapixel Windows Phone
should do just as well then with the 41MP right??
MP isn't the answer to anything, glass, focus is everything

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Suggest checking with your printer first. Surely they will have some insight on this topic. Would love to hear what they say.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

The question that 36 megapixels might give the 800 an edge for high resolution in large prints was asked given all others factors (the best glass, knowledge, etc) would be equal. We all understand that high megapixels do not necessarily result in the best quality images. So, the 41 megapixel phone would not do just as well--to respond to your question.

PHW Loc: Madison, WI

The newspapers in Milwaukee and Madison use Canon but only because they already have the lenses so they bought Mark IIIs to get full frame bodies. They like Nikon too.