5dMKIII.....taking the picture....Post Processing.....PRINT

[jrw]

One thing that has stuck with me from the summary (pg3) of the linked comparison is that the reviewer did not see a difference in prints at 17x22 unless it was of crops where the resolution difference became evident. Others who have converted to the Nikon lineup have cited that there is a noticeable difference in anything larger than 8x10 prints. This is a huge discrepancy and I wonder if there is some difference in the method, or even just the distance, of viewing the prints that might account for this as the methodology of comparing prints was not listed and I am not aware of any established standards for reviewing prints.

[jks_photo]

@ jrw can it be that the reason they were able to dsicern discrepancies in 8x10 prints is because they had their prints made of HD mini labs. ???? there are new minilabs printing at 720DPI whereas the "old" ones print only at 300 DPI. I am talking of RA4 process prints......

[HDNitehawk]

@jrw; you said others that have converted to Nikon, are you saying others that have switched to the D800 or just to Nikon in general, that they see imporvement in 8x10's

[jrw]

It would be the D800 in specific.

Should clarify that the reason I ask is my background in scientific research. Any time that similar tests are conducted with such differences in the results, I can spend days backtracking through the material batch specs provided by manufacturers, every detail of specimen preparation, checking and verifying sensor calibrations, testing data acquisition systems, and poring over the data processing methods and software all in an attempt to discover any reason that the results could be so different.

[DavidEccleston]

Canon software has a custom way to talk to Canon printers. If you printed from DPP or other included Canon software you might see a difference compared to printing from other applications. I first heard of it somewhere here on TDP last year. I have no idea what sort of impact it may or may not have on image quality.

[jrw]

It could be from many different things I am sure. I know some photographers use magnifying glasses when inspecting prints while others will stand back several feet to try to take in more of the print to better evaluate the created impression. I am rapidly becoming of the opinion that it would be a matter of nicety to those who read the reviews if the methods used in arriving at their conclusions could be included with the results to better allow readers to conclude if it is something that could be important to them. Yes, there is a good deal of room for subjectivity in comparisons when there is nothing to weigh or measure. We do rely on objectivity from the observer. If the methods of comparison were also included it would mean that the testing ought to be reproducible by others with similar results. I'd expect some variation due to differences in keenness of sight, lighting condition, original exposure, gamut range of printer, etc but I wouldn't expect a factor of four.