08-20-2010, 10:07 AM
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1282294801' post='1944']
Thank you brightcolours for your advice. No, I am not mixing FF and APS-C, but I permit myself to make some jokes on me, therefore hurting noone else. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> You say one needs to value the 21mp of the 5dMkII. Of course, I take my hat off, but after all, only the results count and it is not doing any better in any tests than the D700 and the 5d AF is rather old and technology exists to do better. I feel Canon is using high resolution as a marketing weapon. In reality, most of the lenses are far from able to use the possibilities of the sensor.
[/quote]
I do not say one needs to value 21mp, I say I, myself, value that.
It is a misconception though, to think that most lenses are far from able to make use of the extra sensor resolution. ALL lenses actually benefit.
To illustrate that fact, I would like to point you to the photozone measurements. The Canon EOS 350D 8mp model has the SAME pixel pitch the Canon 5D mk II has. The Canon EOS 50D has a higher pixel density, with its 15mp sensor.
Now, pick ANY lens that has been tested on both APS-C cameras. And look at the resolution measurements. Surprising, isn't it?
And of course, some lenses are less sharp o the 5D mk II than others, just like some lenses are less sharp on a 350D, 50D, D770, D90, D50, D3x than other lenses on the same body.
The 5D mk II OF COURSE does better than a D700 in resolution.
It is your choice, by all means get a Nikon D700. If you feel that more AF points is important to you, and you can live without for instance an EF 70-200 f4 L USM.
Like I said, it is personal.
Thank you brightcolours for your advice. No, I am not mixing FF and APS-C, but I permit myself to make some jokes on me, therefore hurting noone else. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> You say one needs to value the 21mp of the 5dMkII. Of course, I take my hat off, but after all, only the results count and it is not doing any better in any tests than the D700 and the 5d AF is rather old and technology exists to do better. I feel Canon is using high resolution as a marketing weapon. In reality, most of the lenses are far from able to use the possibilities of the sensor.[/quote]
I do not say one needs to value 21mp, I say I, myself, value that.
It is a misconception though, to think that most lenses are far from able to make use of the extra sensor resolution. ALL lenses actually benefit.
To illustrate that fact, I would like to point you to the photozone measurements. The Canon EOS 350D 8mp model has the SAME pixel pitch the Canon 5D mk II has. The Canon EOS 50D has a higher pixel density, with its 15mp sensor.
Now, pick ANY lens that has been tested on both APS-C cameras. And look at the resolution measurements. Surprising, isn't it?
And of course, some lenses are less sharp o the 5D mk II than others, just like some lenses are less sharp on a 350D, 50D, D770, D90, D50, D3x than other lenses on the same body.
The 5D mk II OF COURSE does better than a D700 in resolution.
It is your choice, by all means get a Nikon D700. If you feel that more AF points is important to you, and you can live without for instance an EF 70-200 f4 L USM.
Like I said, it is personal.