Direct image comparisons of D810 and Canon top of the line body?

[DeanChriss]

We like to fuss over our current favorites, but forget what the old days were like.

+1, but more often than not I'd use the word "obsess" instead of "fuss". I do it too, but it's good to back up once in a while and realize that for the most part it doesn't matter. No one is going to make or lose a sale because they used a Canon, Nikon, Schneider, or Zeiss lens. In fact the person using the equipment is likely to be the only one who will ever care about this sort of thing. If it was otherwise old works made with equipment that is now substandard, like those of Galen Rowell, Jay Maisel, Jerry Uelsman, and countless others, would be worthless today.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What I would suggest is that print sizes got larger. Personally I mostly print A2, sometimes larger. I would say that the digital workflow we have today may be more demanding than the analogue workflow of yore.

That said, I also find that the lenses of yore keep rather well up with today's print sizes.

Best regards
Erik

+1, but more often than not I'd use the word "obsess" instead of "fuss". I do it too, but it's good to back up once in a while and realize that for the most part it doesn't matter. No one is going to make or lose a sale because they used a Canon, Nikon, Schneider, or Zeiss lens. In fact the person using the equipment is likely to be the only one who will ever care about this sort of thing. If it was otherwise old works made with equipment that is now substandard, like those of Galen Rowell, Jay Maisel, Jerry Uelsman, and countless others, would be worthless today.

[MarkL]

"It would be nice if Nikon would up their lens game a bit."

Can you be more specific as to which lenses whereyou think Nikon is weaker than Canon?   Can where you thin the Nikons are weak, are those lenses yo actually use/ Granted Nikon currently doesn't a 17mm Tilt/Shift (I'd settle for Shift only), an 11-24mm zoom, or an 8-16mm fisheye zoom, but other than that I think the two companies are pretty much neck and neck across the range - with one very real exception for me: there is no current 135mm f/2 Nikkor.   

Nikon's TS lenses are woeful. Otherwise: 24-70, 24, 35, probably 50, 135. The 2.8 versions of 70-200s is a wash but Nikon's turns into a 135mm at close focus. I don't shoot with 200 and up so don't know about those.

I shoot Nikon and the only Nikon brand lens I have left is the 70-200.

[dwswager]

Hi,

What I would suggest is that print sizes got larger. Personally I mostly print A2, sometimes larger. I would say that the digital workflow we have today may be more demanding than the analogue workflow of yore.

That said, I also find that the lenses of yore keep rather well up with today's print sizes.

Yes, the digital workflow has made it easier and cheaper to print large and so we get a lot of large prints.  Oddly enough, it also has led to less small printing.  Most people don't generate the steady stream of 4x6 prints they used to get from the drugstore.

In the old days, lenses outperformed the film.  Now the sensors are starting to outperform lenses in some cases.  But overall, we are blessed with better overall quality.

SOME older lenses have held up well.  But on average, lenses have gotten better over the years, especially at the high end and low ends.  This is especially true for zooms.  The original 24-120mm Nikkor sucked, but the current one is pretty good.  On the side, the 3rd gen 80-200mm f/2.8 lacks AF-S (does not focus quite as fast or track as well), but is optically very good compared to the 5th gen 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII.

[DeanChriss]

Hi,

What I would suggest is that print sizes got larger. Personally I mostly print A2, sometimes larger. I would say that the digital workflow we have today may be more demanding than the analogue workflow of yore.

That said, I also find that the lenses of yore keep rather well up with today's print sizes.

Best regards
Erik

Yes, but I'd go a step further and say the challenge has come from getting larger print sizes from smaller formats. In days of yore if you wanted larger prints you'd use larger film. For instance, Adams made incredibly sharp and detailed 30x40 inch prints in the 1960s from 8x10 inch film. They hold up well to current standards. That's amazing since in those days there was no software sharpening so sharpness could only decrease from the original in the analog printing process. Using larger formats had (and still has) some distinct advantages. For one, there is less enlargement to print at a given size so every system defect is also enlarged less. You can get away with a lot when you enlarge the image by 15 times for 8"x10" film versus 895 times to get the same area from a 24x36mm image sensor.

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard, I don't know why you would think I'm arguing with anything or anybody?

Great then, apologies for the misunderstanding.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Doug Peterson]

Yes, but I'd go a step further and say the challenge has come from getting larger print sizes from smaller formats. In days of yore if you wanted larger prints you'd use larger film. For instance, Adams made incredibly sharp and detailed 30x40 inch prints in the 1960s from 8x10 inch film. They hold up well to current standards. That's amazing since in those days there was no software sharpening so sharpness could only decrease from the original in the analog printing process. Using larger formats had (and still has) some distinct advantages. For one, there is less enlargement to print at a given size so every system defect is also enlarged less. You can get away with a lot when you enlarge the image by 15 times for 8"x10" film versus 895 times to get the same area from a 24x36mm image sensor.

You don't need software to sharpen an image. The name "unsharp mask" comes from a darkroom technique which is, in fact, the foundation of the software technique.

[eronald]

You don't need software to sharpen an image. The name "unsharp mask" comes from a darkroom technique which is, in fact, the foundation of the software technique.

It gets worse: I think some chemical developers are edge-enhancing.

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

See Velvia example below (from Norman Koren's site):



Best regards
Erik

It gets worse: I think some chemical developers are edge-enhancing.

Edmund