D800E vs. 5D3: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

Started Jul 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,679
Wow, easy Rick...
In reply to Rick Knepper, Jul 21, 2013

You can play the 'fanboy' card any way you like but I'd have more respect for you if you could gracefully handle some criticism.

Below I compared an ISO 100 shot of the 12MP D90 (still available new) to the 36MP D800E both resized to 1800 pixels wide:

The price difference between the shots is €2849-€459=€2390. Waste of money IMO.

Rick Knepper wrote:

You and the rest of the Nikon forum fanbois are making no sense to me. You have the RAWs at your fingertips to do whatever testing you deem necessary in whatever manner you desire and yet, you insist on "proving" I did something wrong - because - this reaction is an exercise in discrediting the source. To what end? People have eyes.

So, you belong to the brigade senselessly attacking the un-processed pair while others take the flank and attack the processed pair. Nice.

I wonder if anyone is wondering by now why any of the detractors haven't pulled the RAWs to show me how it is done.

Flashlight wrote:

In the final crops I notice the following (see my 200% crop):

- In the top left the 5D3 has moire; This is of course not a 'fault' of the camera, the sensor just happened to match the frequency.

- The images have massive CA (see right bottom of the 200% crop); If that doesn't bother you why start these kind of comparisons in the first place? Both CaptureNX2 and Photoshop have a solution for this.

I am going to repeat something for you.

...you belong to the brigade senselessly attacking the un-processed pair while others take the flank and attack the processed pair. Nice.

So if I remove the CA, I am criticized by some, if I leave the CA, I am criticized by some.

- The contrast (and overall processing) is totally different between the two images which makes the impression of 'sharpness/detail' different.

Not if one knows what they are doing and seeing.

In a more common scope, logic and experience dictate that if you start with more information and downsample you end up with more acuity in the image. Trying to prove the opposite with sloppy PP is a waste of time and will convince no one.

This is a ridiculous statement devoid of foundation and particulars. Even if someone wants to be a Nikon fanboi, they'll recognize the vast emptiness of this assertion.

But thank you for pumping a whole lot of unnecessary money into the R&D funds of both Canon and Nikon ( as you could just as well have used an old 10MP camera for these shots and your end use). We respect you for that.

You have got a lot education ahead of you in digital imaging if you think a FF 10 MP camera can produce this kind of detail of either camera.

Rick Knepper wrote:

5D3 cropped & downsized to 1800x1200

View: original size

D800E cropped & downsized to 1800x1200

View: original size

-- hide signature --


-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

-- hide signature --


Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow