Hello,

I am seriously considering getting a full frame set up geared mainly towards landscape (occasional portrait).

As I considered cameras, I ruled out film in any format for convenience reasons and also the D3 and the like for economic reasons.

I am down to the Nikon D700 and Canon 5DmkII. I've done extensive research on both bodies and lenses, etc. All things being equal, it seems to come down to the following:

- resolution (ie 12 Mp vs 21Mp)

- noise

I've read a lot about large prints (60x100cm or 2'x3'). I haven't actually seen them myself, so it's hard to actually understand what people mean when they say "canon has an edge" at that print size, although at "normal" view distance they are pretty much the same.

My question to the D700 and 5D mkII users on this site is: have you printed your pictures that big? if so, what is your opinion on the quality? .

How would D700 users rate prints that size with the D700?

Any opinions from the outstanding users of both cameras on this site will be greatly appreciated

thanks

d

A 60x100 cm print is no problem for any of them. I've been printing much bigger than that from D200/D300. The files from D700/D3 have the edge in low light, in good conditions it is more down to the optics imo.
I'm not a D3/D700 user, but have tried them. I print large format prints, also for others. It is also very much depending on what kind of photography style. I just printed some early work for one working with more abstract style shooting. Some shots were made with a Casio compact. They did ok in the size you mentioned.

thanks a lot, Lars.

I've been following forums, reading tests and what not and the consensus seemed to be above that 60x100cm was pushing it for the 12 MP sensor.
I am personally leaning towards the D700, but it is a lot of money to spend without careful consideration on my needs.

Could you please tell me what you mean by "It is also very much depending on what kind of photography style"? As I said, I would mainly shoot Landscape and some portraits?

cheers

d

What I mean is that it is depending on the amount of fine detail you need to get out. Personally I have made 2 meters prints from 10 Mpix cam (D200), but the shot was taken with very good optics, which I consider just as important as number of pixels.
This was a landscape shot with quite a lot of detail.

thanks!

I've not printed that big yet but 50x75cm is not a problem for the D700 (and a 14-24mm or the 50mm 1.4). Both are very good cameras. Maybe you want to wait for the rumored D700X/D900 or whatever but, I'd say: buy one know and you won't regret it.

I can not tell you about that size print,But I can give this great advice,the 5dMII image (raw or jpg) right from the black box is better than that of Nikon,and need a very less post processing to pop .and it would certainly print larger than the D700.

this is exactly what I read in forums....people are pretty happy with either, I guess there's no way to go wrong.

Thanks Javier and Al Sheihk for your input!

I have a D700 and D300; some of my friends have 50D, 5D and 5D II. We've all printed to A3 and beyond. I sincerely doubt that anyone could (unless by a fluke) tell which image was taken by which camera in good light. Using a tripod and having good glass makes more of a difference. However, when it comes to low-light conditions, the Nikon D700 has an unquestionable advantage.

As with all high performance equipment (whether cars, cameras or whatever) it is how it performs at the extreme edge of its capabilities that makes the difference. Nikon has set its stall out to optimise low-light shooting - at the cost of fewer pixels on the sensor, as greater numbers of pixels tends to make for noisier images. Theoretically, at least, this gives Canon the edge on being able to print larger images - albeit noisier ones if taken in lower light (unless using a lower ISO). However, 60cm x 100cm isn't really going to stretch either brand's sensors.

The best advice I can give is choose a camera that feels right in your hands and which you could use whilst wearing mittens in freezing-cold conditions if you had to. For me, that is Nikon - though I would have no hesitation swapping to ANY other brand if the equipment handled better and provided better quality output.

All the marketing "noise" and Nikon -v- Canon debate in the world means precisely nothing, in my opinion. There isn't a bad camera out there - only ones that suit or don't suit your style of shooting, budget and/or ergonomic requirements.

Quite agree with these points Paul, when I bought my first camera about three years ago, I didn't have a clue about cameras and stood in the shop holding both an equivalent Canon and Nikon and I went for the Nikon D40 purely on ergonomics and how it felt in my hands and how comfortable I was with the controls. I've stayed with and am very happy to be using Nikons now but it could equally have been Canons if that first one I tried had suited.

I think the Canon has a huge advantage, you can crop almost half away and then still have a 10.5 MP image...!!

/Wulff

Thanks Paul & John. I agree with your statements also, as I love my Pentax equipment.

The reason I am looking to upgrade to FF is mainly because I was asked/offered the possibility to shoot for a hotel and decorate its rooms with poster size prints that they will later sell to the clients. I have no intentions to sell my Pentax gear!

They will also print other sizes, but the ones in display in the rooms need to be poster size.

@Wulff: you definitely have a point. Your photos need to be very well composed otherwise, if you start cropping, you find yourself in a strain when you want to print big.

Yes, but still only half the image.....and noisier ;-))

Yes maybe noisier, but not much!!

And for landscape photography, I see no need to have a camera that has low noise at high ISO. Since most of the shot will be made with ISO 100-400!!

/Wulff

This a point that most people don't think about. While I own a D700 and love it, everybody always points out Nikon's high ISO/low noise performance when comparing to the 5D Mark II. However, this point is meaningless for photographers who shoot landscape or studio since you will rarely, if ever, shoot above the camera's native ISO.

And once you realize that, you are left with only resolution to compare.

size of the prints depends on the number of pixels (photo-sites) on the sensor, the more pixels the larger 'native' print size... the 'quality' of recorded light depends on the size of each photo-site (which is dependent on the number of photo-sites and the size of the sensor), the larger the photo-site area the better quality of the recorded light... of course the quality of the image to be recoded depends on the quality of the lens... and finally the quality of the photo is probably dependent on the skills of the photographer, the light in the scene, subject matter, taste, luck, etc.

...besides, nowadays one can find so good up-sampling software that can increase the number of pixels up to 1000% with excellent results, say you can up-sample from 10 to 100 mega-pixels... still I would guess that the very best quality is obtained by printing in 'native' resolution...

One issue that sometimes is forgotten is the viewer distance. The number of DPI as relevance of course but not until you got the nose on it.
Quality of the lens has more impact than the Sensor size.

SONY Alpha850 is just about US$1800 ( Body Only) in my country,Indonesia
I believe it is cheaper outside..

SONY A850, 24.6 megapixel..
Flazh HVL-58 - $400
Sigma 24-70 f2,8 (alternative lens) about $700

Full frame and large prints..
It is all about file size(bits) and quality of the pixels you get. No noise, no soft areas due to poor optics etc. The noise you keep down by getting the exposure right if you have a reasonably good camera. The optics might be more important than full frame, numbers of pixels etc.
Today I mounted a picture 3.2x2m made with a D300 (not full frame). The up sizing was done in Genuine Fractals. Then printed from Photoshop. It looked fantastic!
Don't believe too much in the pixel race. The camera makers want you to, but it don't matter that much.
The main thing seems to me is to keep noise down by exposing right, and use good optics.

The main copy is an underwater landscape with kelp. We decided we wanted some more fish in it.. This is (advertising, not any kind of art), so I found some of the right kind of fish, and put it in. The main problem with that was that the fish came from an image made on film..
Nobody is going to get me to believe that 35mm film is even close to compete with what comes out of the D300!!!!!

Sorry believers, I'm quite in control of scanning, and scanning on Nikon LS4000 (not the best Nikon any more, and not competing with Imacon). The grain mess it up. Looks dirty compared to D300 files... Did I start off somebody here??