Yes, Canyon weather sealing in a full frame body will cost you dearly;
much more than a 5D. I would not be concerned about the pixel count
difference between a D200 and 5D but I would be at least a little
concerned about Moose's 300D/5D demonstration that smaller numbers of
large pixels can resolve more detail than larger numbers of small
pixels. However he hasn't demonstrated that that is the case for a
D200/5D comparison and, even if it is, you may be right about there
being no disecernable difference at 16x20 or whatever is the relevant
print size for your sales.
Chuck Norcutt
Bob Whitmire wrote:
>>>I don't really know what's driving Bob but I thought it was the ability
>
> to make very large prints. If that's the motivating factor I'm surprised
> that his choice is not a 5D or some other full frame variant. <<
>
> Even Bob doesn't know what's driving Bob. <g> Quality, dependability,
> longevity, expandability, etc., all have their part to play. Large prints
> are important, and for that reason among others the 5D or its replacement is
> still under consideration.
>
> That said, the 5D in its present form is not weather sealed, or so I've been
> told, and weather sealing can be a real plus here on the coast of Maine,
> especially as I like to spend time outside when the weather is less than
> clement. The Nikon D200 is sealed, and much less expensive than the 5D, and
> compared extremely favorably in a number of reviews I've read.
>
> For example, one source pointed out that the D200 image, measured
> horizontally, is 3,872 pixels, The 5D's is 4,368 pixels, slightly more than
> 10 percent more. I'm told that's not enough to make a discernable difference
> eyeballing a 16x20 print, but I don't know.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|