Upsizing w/ great lens vs. Higher Rez w/ good lens.

[hipslap]

Hello all,

Thanks for this website. I find much useful information on here!

I currently have an opportunity to shoot wide angle, high detail (ie. thousands of people) shots of large concert venues. These shots will be blown up to 11x14 and 16x20 and will be printed at 300 dpi. I am currently putting together a business and I am torn as to what equipment will best suit my needs.

I have narrowed things down to 2 cameras; the Canon EOS 5D Mark II (21mp)with the 16-35mm and the Nikon D700 (12mp) with the 14-24mm.

I've researched both lenses and am impressed by how well the 14-24mm renders edges of photos compared to the 16-35mm canon. It's a better lens, and its wider which is appreciated for my needs.

On the other hand the Canon body fits my needs better. The extra resolution means I will not need to upsize at all at 11x14 and do minimal upsizing at 16x20, while with the D700 I will need to do substantial upsizing in both cases or sacrafice dpi.

So my question is, am i better off with the lower resolution camera with the best lens or the higher resolution camera with a good lens?

Thanks for any help! I've been pulling my hair out!

BTW, I have ruled out medium and large format systems because I plan on doing a lot of post processing digitally and drum-scanning slides will be to expensive.

 

[thebeginning]

blowing up to 11x14 and 16x20 is really not that much at all. If you were blowing up to 40x60, then that would be more of an issue.

I will say that the shot with the 5d II and 16-35, with no upsizing, is going to look fantastic in print. The d700 will also, but considering you would have to upsize it a little bit, I think the 5d II print would look better.

It's nitpicking though, as both would work great. Because of this, I wouldn't choose the camera based on this opportunity alone.

 

[hipslap]

Thanks!

Well, I think I am leaning more towards the Canon because the extra resolution does provide more flexibility and more longterm viability. Who knows maybe someday I'll want a 40x60.

 

[hipslap]

As of right now though I shoot Nikon so it's hard for me to dismiss my comfort level with those cameras. and my equipment too.

 

[JerryPH]

Both will do 16 X 20 wonderfully without strain. I've had a couple 16 X 20 pictures blown up from my D200 (10MP), and the quality was incredible (pixel peeping from 6 inches away or looking from across the room).

Both cameras have very different target audiences. Where one is based on maximum low ISO resolution, the other is focused on more than acceptable low ISO quality, but industry leading incredible high ISO low noise performance.

The FPS, if it is an issue for you, is in the Nikon's favor and (though it is a personal thing), after having held and played with both, I feel the Nikon's ergonomics are superior. It's nice to have everything within reach of a thumb or finger without a need to go through menus.

In SOOC picture comparisons, low ISO pictures come out looking noticeably sharper and warmer from the Canon. The Nikon can be made to be DAMN close if you learn to use it right... and even if you don't, you can warm and sharpen in post processing just as easily. At anything above ISO 800 and up, the Nikon wins the reduced digital noise comparison. . A small but visible difference at ISO 800, by ISO 1600, the Nikon is WAY far ahead and it can give you VERY usable pictures at levels as high as ISO 6400. The Canon's noise levels at these ISOs are not even comparable.

If you are a Nikon guy and have a few lenses in your arsenal, and unless you find some EXTREMELY specific need that only the Canon can fill, there is no real reason to go to the Canon camp at this time for you based on your needs noted above.

 

[thebeginning]

Both will do 16 X 20 wonderfully without strain. I've had a couple 16 X 20 pictures blown up from my D200 (10MP), and the quality was incredible (pixel peeping from 6 inches away or looking from across the room).

Both cameras have very different target audiences. Where one is based on maximum low ISO resolution, the other is focused on more than acceptable low ISO quality, but industry leading incredible high ISO low noise performance.

The FPS, if it is an issue for you, is in the Nikon's favor and (though it is a personal thing), after having held and played with both, I feel the Nikon's ergonomics are superior. It's nice to have everything within reach of a thumb or finger without a need to go through menus.

In SOOC picture comparisons, low ISO pictures come out looking noticeably sharper and warmer from the Canon. The Nikon can be made to be DAMN close if you learn to use it right... and even if you don't, you can warm and sharpen in post processing just as easily. At anything above ISO 800 and up, the Nikon wins the reduced digital noise comparison. . A small but visible difference at ISO 800, by ISO 1600, the Nikon is WAY far ahead and it can give you VERY usable pictures at levels as high as ISO 6400. The Canon's noise levels at these ISOs are not even comparable.

If you are a Nikon guy and have a few lenses in your arsenal, and unless you find some EXTREMELY specific need that only the Canon can fill, there is no real reason to go to the Canon camp at this time for you based on your needs noted above.

I agree (at least partially). Knowing now that you (OP) are a nikon guy, it may be easiest just to continue with that bandwagon. If you're used to the ergonomics and such of Nikon, it may be worth it to avoid the 'big switch'.


I'm not sure if the high ISO difference is as much as you have hinted at, though. Particularly in the 5d II files (although I have not looked at them in detail yet).

 

[Do'Urden's Eyes]

i hope this thread doesnt get hijacked and turn into another canon vs nikon fight.

 

[thebeginning]

i hope this thread doesnt get hijacked and turn into another canon vs nikon fight.

Ditto...I totally hate those and definitely don't mean to start one.



Although, the OP's question was pretty much answered...

 

[benhasajeep]

Jerry makes a good point and I think something that needs to be considered. The Nikon is known to be a good low light camera. You will be in low light conditions. Just due to that I would give Nikon the edge. As the Canon will have more resolution (with possibly more artifacts), the Nikon will have better pixels.

It is a tough call. I am a 90% nikon / 10% canon guy. I couldn't decide so I have both.

 

[hipslap]

Thanks for the help guys.
ISO isn't too big of a deal for me as I will mostly be shooting a still crowd lit by the sun.

Low noise is important obviously but I will go out of my way to find angles with good lighting rather than raise the iso. A goal of mine is to get shots with the lowest iso possible. Post processing adds a lot of noise so I want my shots to be as clear as possible coming from the camera.

For a while I was looking at Nikon to Canon adapter rings so I can throw the 14-24mm on the 5D but there is no manual aperture on that lens so it wouldn't function.

Even though I am having trouble deciding its comforting to know that whatever I decide to do, I should be in good shape!

 

[benhasajeep]

BTW


Welcome to TPF

 

[hipslap]

Thanks ben!

good to be here.

 

[JerryPH]

i hope this thread doesnt get hijacked and turn into another canon vs nikon fight.

I do not think it will. I was clear to point out 2 good points on each side. In the end, the only opinion that matters is the OPs, and it is highly unwise to base such an opinion based on the likes/dislikes of unknown people over the net.

When it comes to making the ultimate choice, you may ask the opinions of others, but don't put the choice in their hands alone... do the homework and see what is best for your needs.

When it comes to the top of the line flagships from either Nikon or Canon, you cannot make a bad choice, but if you do your homework, you *can* make the better choice for you.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

I suppose this comes down to preference. To me, good high ISO performance and quality of pixels is the killer feature. I mean, sure you'll be shooting at the lowest ISO possible for great smooth images, but what if your camera's ISO800 looks just as good as another camera's ISO100? Wouldn't you then feel perfectly safe using it at 800 if you had to?

I dunno. I'm heavily biased towards ISO over megapixels. I honestly think that unlike Megapixels, it's the one attribute that is ALWAYS better the higher it is able to go. If I could own a camera that would allow me to take noiseless indoor wedding shots at 1/4000th and at f8 or smaller, I would be in heaven! ISO is the endgame for camera manufacturers.

 

[JerryPH]

I suppose this comes down to preference.

I'm heavily biased towards ISO over megapixels.

Me too, and my future choices in cameras reflect that heavily. I will choose a camera that can give me clean high ISO shots rather than uber high MP resolution shots at low ISO.

I have no need for 20 X 30 enlargements, and I do a TON of strobist shots. Even in places that ISO 100 can handle EASILY, I would prefer to have a super clean ISO 400 so that I could lower the power on all my strobes, increase battery life and have a greater range of abilities both with and without strobes in low light situation.

That, however, is me. The OP has specified a preference for larger prints (though a 12MPcamera is MORE than capable of 20 X 30 prints at professional level of quality).

For every person out there, there is a reason they made the choice they did. That's why I highly suggest that especially at this level... people do their own homework and depend less on the opinions of others.