D810 versus D750 and is 36MP too much...My Results

[dwswager]

Bottom Line Up Front: For those evaluating the D810 versus the D750 and are concerned about the additional 12 MPs of the D810, I want to let you know not to let it worry you, I did.  And there are some benefits from the extra MPs.  Base your decision on price, features, weight, etc.  Had the D810 been 48MP, I probably would have waived off and settled for the D750.

I went through this process myself knowing that I probably wouldn’t need 36MP images for most of what I do and even when printing very large, I have learned to tease good quality from less pixels than I would like.  I finally settled on the D810, however, for a number of reasons including the omission of the OLPF like by D7100 and the button interface.

I shoot the D7100 with 32GB Sandisk Extreme Pro 95 SD Cards.  The D810 produces file proportionally bigger, but still use 32GB Lexar Professional 1066X CF and Lexar Professional 600x SD cards.  While I get less images per card with the D810, I have not found it an impediment.I transfer using a $12 Trancend USB3 cardreader.  It is plenty fast.  I don’t keep every frame I shoot like some people.  I edit down first for technical issues and then select the best frame(s) from an artistic standpoint.  I find neither the storage nor processing overhead a big issue.  I use an i7 desktop, but a power miser SU7300 dual core laptop.  The biggest issue I have is WIFI speed when viewing from my server to the laptop, but it was already an issue with the D7100 24 MP files.

And there are some benefits to 36MP:

1.   I’ve shot the D810 in 1.2x (24MP) and 1.5x (15.6MP) crop modes for sports.  At 1.5x it shoots 6fps w/o the external battery grip.  While it took a little to get used to the crop viewfinder, I find myself seriously considering selling the D7100 as unnecessary.  At 1.5x the D750 gives about 9MP which I find too little.  So for times when I need the reach and/or the additional DOF the D810 still gives me enough pixels to work with.

2.   When shooting multi-shot, single row images, I find I am seriously tempted to just use the camera in landscape and significantly cut the number of images I would have normally had to shoot.  I now evaluate each situation, and determine if I need to go portrait and shoot more images.  This is a nice benefit if you are working in quickly changing light.

3.   I like the fill the frame.  However, I have been caught out a number of times by not being able to repurpose an image to a different aspect or use because of this.  With 36MP in hand, I am much more willing to allow for some slack in the frame.

4.   There are times when shooting at higher resolution and down sampling provides more detail than a lower resolution camera provided.  This is especially true with the slightly sharper per pixel images with no OLPF than a camera with one.  And I have yet to have a moiré issue.  Don’t know what they algorithm Nikon is using but I give them thumbs up so far.

UPDATE

I've attached a screen grab of ACR.  This is not an under exposure, but the -2 stop exposure of a 3F 2 stop bracket set.  Even with 2 stops underexposure and all of the data at the left side of the histogram, you can still pull a pretty great result (the subject matter is weak in this example) out of the file with very little shadow noise.  This was shot at base ISO 64.

[dwswager]

Just show the 1st day of an indoor Futsal Soccer Tournament.  The D810 performed excellent.  While it has the same frame rate as my D7100, it functions overall much faster.  This reconfirms to me that the D810 makes a great general purpose camera.

A couple photos added (cropped from original) shot on Auto ISO allowed to float to 6400.  Most shots were at 1/400th and f/3.5-5.

[kirktuck]

I have been shooting with a D7100 and a D610 but decided to go ahead and buy a D810 for a number of reasons. The first was for the video performance which seems to be much improved over previous generations of Nikons. I might have bought the D750 if video was my only consideration but I also wanted to see just what the difference in rendering skin tone would be between the two full frame cameras. I am testing to see if the gradations are more subtle. I've just had the D810 for a short time but my first impression is about how much I like the sound of the shutter. Crazy, huh?

[Paul2660]

Its a tough call.  The 36MP output with good optics will get me by 80% of the time for prints, and I can always stitch the D810.  I do love the ability to go to DX mode and have the 1.5 crop when needed and still get 15MP output. 

However I hate the non-tilting LCD screen and total lack of wifi on the D810, which were both huge oversights by Nikon IMO.  I know, to each his own. The Cam Ranger solution is OK, but still not as clean as the wifi solution for the 750 ( or any modern DSLR)

The 24MP, output of the 750 is fine, albeit it has an AA filter. 

Rumor is that Nikon will be giving the 750 the electronic first curtain soon with a firmware update, so that makes it even more appealing.

I will say, that it's a bit disconcerting that both of Nikon's recent cameras have had problems, the D810 (white dots) and now the 750 with flare issues (that Nikon seems to be fixing also but more behind the scenes.).

Paul

[kers]

.... I've just had the D810 for a short time but my first impression is about how much I like the sound of the shutter. Crazy, huh?..

The sound of the D810 shutter is indeed very silent and oh so important... i am able to make photos far less intruding than before in situations like- sitting in an audience or even casual photos of my friends and family.
I always hated the loud shutter sound of the d2x, d3, d3x and d800e so...at last...!
But the Sony 7 II seems to be the real stealth camera at the moment.

[Paul2660]

The 750 also seems to have the same quiet shutter, at least to my ears.

Paul

[PhotoEcosse]

....
I went through this process myself knowing that I probably wouldn’t need 36MP images for most of what I do and even when printing very large, I have learned to tease good quality from less pixels than I would like. .......

I am always slightly surprised and slightly amused when I see folk using "print size" as their main justification (or not) for a high megapixel count.

I rarely print larger than A3+ and, of course, in the "olden days", I could get superb prints of that size from the 12Mp of my old D300 and D3s.

So print size certainly would not be my main reason for having progressed from those cameras up to the D800E and D810 that I now use.

No, for me, it is the sheer quantity of additional data that I get from the D8** raw files that justifies the megapixel count. However we dress it up, digital photo-processing is data processing pure and simple. The more data I have at my disposal, the greater my processing options.

Of course, there are other advances in camera design and technology if I compare, say, my D810 to the old D3s - and many of those advances are welcome and useful. But, at the end of the day, it is the amount of data in the raw file that is the real reason I like 36Mp (and would like 72Mp even more - but that may have to wait until next year )

[dwswager]

I am always slightly surprised and slightly amused when I see folk using "print size" as their main justification (or not) for a high megapixel count.

I rarely print larger than A3+ and, of course, in the "olden days", I could get superb prints of that size from the 12Mp of my old D300 and D3s.

So print size certainly would not be my main reason for having progressed from those cameras up to the D800E and D810 that I now use.

I think print size is a catch all that means a lot of things.   I know having the extra pixels means you can crop a little more and still get to the print size you want without having to work really hard.  I shoot my D810 in 1.5X 15.6MP crop  mode from time to time.  I've printed decent 11x14 inch prints from a 2.1MP camera!

And extra pixels have both benefits and drawbacks.  While it can help with resolution, it might hurt with high ISO performance due to the smaller senor wells.  It also means diffraction blur starts earlier and offsets DoF earlier than the D750.

[kers]

...
I rarely print larger than A3+ and, of course, in the "olden days", I could get superb prints of that size from the 12Mp of my old D300 and D3s.
So print size certainly would not be my main reason for having progressed from those cameras up to the D800E and D810 that I now use.
No, for me, it is the sheer quantity of additional data that I get from the D8** raw files that justifies the megapixel count....

Just calculated that an A3+ @300 dpi is 28MP; My printer really seems to print 600dpi so there is still some room left for sensor innovation even at A3+...   
Must say that i like already the 150dpi@ 124cm wide... but it depends on the type of photograph.

[Hulyss]

12 MP are good for almost every thing, even printing. Better time to spend money on awesome lenses.

[Hulyss]

...or buying the time and means to make images.

Amen !

[PhotoEcosse]

Just calculated that an A3+ @300 dpi is 28MP;

I'd love to know how you did this "apples and oranges" calculation as there is no direct relationship between the ppi of an image file and the dpi of a print (or between megapixels and printer resolution).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Actually there is. Now, printer resolition is PPI, not DPI. But, all printers have a native resolution, 360/720 PPI on Epson and 300/600 PPI on Canon. This is not the same as the DPI of the printer.

According to Jeff Schewe the image sent to the printer should always be scaled to native PPI, as scaling in the printer driver is not very sophisticated.

Some regard that 180 PPI is sufficient for an excellent print.

Best regards
Erik

I'd love to know how you did this "apples and oranges" calculation as there is no direct relationship between the ppi of an image file and the dpi of a print (or between megapixels and printer resolution).

[spidermike]

Some regard that 180 PPI is sufficient for an excellent print.

Best regards
Erik

Where did the oft-quoted '300dpi' come from because I have seen many examples where 240 or even 180 was used.

[shadowblade]

300 dpi is industry standard for press.

Press is designed to be printed small and viewed and read at less than arm's length.

If you're printing a 40x120" panorama, you have a bit more leeway.

[chez]

I am always slightly surprised and slightly amused when I see folk using "print size" as their main justification (or not) for a high megapixel count.

I rarely print larger than A3+ and, of course, in the "olden days", I could get superb prints of that size from the 12Mp of my old D300 and D3s.

So print size certainly would not be my main reason for having progressed from those cameras up to the D800E and D810 that I now use.

No, for me, it is the sheer quantity of additional data that I get from the D8** raw files that justifies the megapixel count. However we dress it up, digital photo-processing is data processing pure and simple. The more data I have at my disposal, the greater my processing options.

Of course, there are other advances in camera design and technology if I compare, say, my D810 to the old D3s - and many of those advances are welcome and useful. But, at the end of the day, it is the amount of data in the raw file that is the real reason I like 36Mp (and would like 72Mp even more - but that may have to wait until next year )

Why are you so amused that maybe others might produce large photos...just because you don't does not really mean others don't. I just finished printing a 36x48 print on the weekend and have printed up to 7' long. If you print small, then YOU don't need the extra pixels...but please keep your amusing to yourself as others just might print differently than you.

I am amused at people wanting better high ISO images...I never shoot higher than 400. I am amused people wanting better AF, I shoot manual focus off a tripod. I'm amused people wanting more fps and AF tracking, I shoot in one shot mode.

Get the gist?

[chez]

...or rather less if you are one of those anal folk who insist on depositing their nose grease on large prints.

Funny you would call your clients anal. I've had exhibits with large prints and guess what...a bunch of anal people came up close for detailed looks.

Now I wonder who really is anal...potential customers or maybe ....

[dwswager]

I am amused at people wanting better high ISO images...I never shoot higher than 400. I am amused people wanting better AF, I shoot manual focus off a tripod. I'm amused people wanting more fps and AF tracking, I shoot in one shot mode.

Get the gist?

I am amused people want video in a still camera, but since a lot do...

I started this post to disabuse people that 36MP was too much for a general purpose camera.  Either that the camera handling would be too slow and cumbersome for general use or that the file in post processing would.  Since this was to be a general use camera, I wanted high resolution/no OLPF and high DR for landscape while I needed good high ISO performance and decent speed for sports.  The D810 balances those better than most other cameras.  This weekend I was able to shoot in a snow storm in the Great Smokey Mountain National Park AND at an indoor soccer tournament with a single camera.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=96775.0;attach=117212;image

[PhotoEcosse]

Why are you so amused that maybe others might produce large photos...just because you don't does not really mean others don't. I just finished printing a 36x48 print on the weekend and have printed up to 7' long. If you print small, then YOU don't need the extra pixels...but please keep your amusing to yourself as others just might print differently than you.

I am amused at people wanting better high ISO images...I never shoot higher than 400. I am amused people wanting better AF, I shoot manual focus off a tripod. I'm amused people wanting more fps and AF tracking, I shoot in one shot mode.

Get the gist?

I am also amused by people like you who really should learn to read before they attempt to write.

I apologise if English is not your first language but, if that is the case, you really should master the nuances of our language before you resort to the type of gross insult you seem to like throwing around. This forum tends to be a civilised place where folk can express personal opinions without being insulted by ignorant individuals like you.

[Jim Kasson]

300 dpi is industry standard for press.

Right. It produces slightly more than two pixel widths per halftone dot for a 133 line screen. It's sort of a Nyquist thing.

As Erik pointed out, it's also the native resolution of Canon printers.

Jim