D700 vs 5DII vs A900

Started Nov 4, 2008 | Discussions thread
headofdestiny Veteran Member • Posts: 9,226
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900 -- Don't underestimate the power of downsizing/cropping

Hans Kruse wrote:

The Nikon and Canon also look better using RAW. In terms of Canon
which I use I have compared DPP, Capture One Pro and Lightroom (ACR)
and every time I have found that only marginal differences were
between them and not worth the extra effort of using a RAW converter
that is not Lightroom. I some cases I have preferred Capture One and
have exported 16 bit TIFF files with no adjustments and imported into
Lightroom and done the adjustments there. Since the new camera
profiles became available for Lightroom 2 I have much less of a
reason to use anything else than Lightroom.

I agree. Most RAW converters don't cause drastic, but rather subtle differences with RAW for Canon. With Sony, it's relatively drastic, as I'm sure Adobe isn't spending quite the resources to optimize Lightroom for Sony. In fact, in order to even shoot my A700 with lightroom, I have to drastically change the import exposure and black point settings from the beginning. That being said, all of this is an advantage of Canon and it's broader user base.

At lower ISO's I think the Sony really gives great IQ, but at higher
ISO's it does not live up to either the Nikon or the Canon. I'm
expecting the 5D mk2 will be the new king of the hill at high ISO
values given a look at both noise and details.

I agree with this for sure. At ISO 800 or less, A900 is the best in the business, with 1dsIII being very close. I think at high ISO, the D700/1Dsiii do beat the A900, but we're talking about maybe a half stop after comparing at like viewing/printing size.

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