in this price range consider a beat up used d3

lol? Nikon files suck bro

This post was edited by onepagememory on Nov 30 2011 05:59pm

Canon files from its cameras are more heavily processed. They usually look sharper than Nikon files, but they also more often have sharpening haloes around edges and differential texture smoothing, meaning that fine textures are screwed with.

Big prints from the Canon 5D and 5D Mark II look great, but still have these digital processing artifacts which are visible to skilled eyes.

The files from Nikon cameras may not be as sharp, but have few if any of these digital defects which scream "DIGITAL CAPTURE" to trained eyes in big prints.



^ i agree with ken lol

but pretty much 98% of photography jobs are for people who do not have these "trained eyes," all they care about is the sharpness of the big prints usually lol.

this. no one cares about artifacts unless you're a nature photographer, and I wouldn't shoot canon or nikon with nature

Canon files capture colour and tone more naturally than nikon.

I work on 5dII, 1ds III, D3 and D3s files all day and I always dread seeing NEFS...

dat orange