Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: David Watson on May 16, 2012, 05:17:26 pm
-
Having read many threads extolling the virtues of the D800 (E or otherwise) I can confirm that it is exactly what they all say it is - a fine precision instrument. Yes it requires careful and precise technique to get the benefit from all those photo sites and yes it is very unforgiving of any shortfall in that technique.
I sold my M9 to buy this camera and I am regretting it. I have a 60MP MF system that only works well on a tripod in good light. I now have a 35mm system that only works well on a tripod but additionally in not such good light. What I don't have is a camera that I can hand hold and take images that utilise all the capabilities of the camera. What I don't need is a smaller version of my MFD system.
I ordered this camera months ago without really being aware of the constraints placed on the usability of the camera by the multiplicity of megapixels. I am beginning to think that Canon might be right in concentrating on other more user friendly features? Doesn't seem to be helping their sales though and I worry about being completely wrong in the face of an avalanche of praise for the D800. I just wonder whether all of those users switching from D3S or D700 bodies might actually be wondering if they have done the wrong thing? Is this heresy? Am I wrong? Feel free to comment.
-
Having read many threads extolling the virtues of the D800 (E or otherwise) I can confirm that it is exactly what they all say it is - a fine precision instrument. Yes it requires careful and precise technique to get the benefit from all those photo sites and yes it is very unforgiving of any shortfall in that technique.
I sold my M9 to buy this camera and I am regretting it. I have a 60MP MF system that only works well on a tripod in good light. I now have a 35mm system that only works well on a tripod but additionally in not such good light. What I don't have is a camera that I can hand hold and take images that utilise all the capabilities of the camera. What I don't need is a smaller version of my MFD system.
I ordered this camera months ago without really being aware of the constraints placed on the usability of the camera by the multiplicity of megapixels. I am beginning to think that Canon might be right in concentrating on other more user friendly features? Doesn't seem to be helping their sales though and I worry about being completely wrong in the face of an avalanche of praise for the D800. I just wonder whether all of those users switching from D3S or D700 bodies might actually be wondering if they have done the wrong thing? Is this heresy? Am I wrong? Feel free to comment.
Why not snap up a Sony NEX-7 or Olympus OM-D E-M5 with a kit lens for your handheld, carry everywhere camera? If you still have your leica glass the Sony will let you use with some pretty snazzy focus peaking action too.
-
........... I just wonder whether all of those users switching from D3S or D700 bodies might actually be wondering if they have done the wrong thing? Is this heresy? Am I wrong? Feel free to comment.
I think you're right for your situation; however, not everyone has a 60MP back as another option, for them the D800 seems an obvious path to more resolution. Will someone get all the resolution of the D800 without a tripod? Likely not, but will it be any worse than D700?
-
I think you're right for your situation; however, not everyone has a 60MP back as another option, for them the D800 seems an obvious path to more resolution. Will someone get all the resolution of the D800 without a tripod? Likely not, but will it be any worse than D700?
Yes I think it might well be worse. People will want to use all of that real estate and will be disappointed that the images do not exhibit the apparent sharpness that they were getting with their D700. Lloyd Chambers suggests downsampling to 18MP to get a better end result? ???
-
You might want to check this thread on DPReveiw:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=41483528
The guy shoots hand-held, at high ISO, wide open or at diffraction-inducing f/stops, and it still looks very sharp.
-
You might want to check this thread on DPReveiw:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=41483528
The guy shoots hand-held, at high ISO, wide open or at diffraction-inducing f/stops, and it still looks very sharp.
Slobodan,
These images would tend to confirm my previous claim that a shutter speed of 1/FL, when used with a lens which has VR, should be sufficient for a sharp image with the D800, just as it should be with the DX D7000, using 1/FL 35mm equivalent.
The shot of the Lyre bird in the undergrowth, at ISO 6400, 200mm, F4 and 1/60th handheld, seems ridiculously good considering the conditions, although one could argue that the maximum potential resolution of the D800, when used at ISO 6400, is going to be compromised, and therefore a fast shutter speed is not so critical. Nevertheless, a sharp image at 1/60th with a 200mm lens hand-held is remarkable. But let's not forget the lens is a VRII which Nikon claim has up to a 4 stop advantage. Increase 1/60th by 4 stops and we get 1/1000th. Call 4 stops an exaggeration, and 3 stops more realistic, we've still got the equivalent of 1/500th with that shot.
This shot of the Lyrebird is an excellent demonstration of the value of optical image stabilisation.
-
David,
At a given print size the images of the D800 will never look worse than those of lower pixel count cameras.
The issue comes from expecting perfect sharpness when looking at images at 100% on screen.
This being said, I have plenty of very sharp handheld images with the D800. I have been configuring auto iso to use a shutter speed one stop faster than the inverse of the focal lenght. I shoot street images in A mode at the widest possible aperture of the lens at hand delivering the quality I need for the shot.
In fact I have never had as many tack sharp hand held images with another camera until now.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
so far I have seen some amazing photos that were taken hand held and not 1/8000 sec,, sure it is not a P&S camera but is very capable of delivering high quality photos,,
as one fellow on FM said, with the ability to crop it is like having a big telephoto now available with outstanding results,,
Derry
-
I have plenty of very sharp handheld images with the D800. I have been configuring auto iso to use a shutter speed one stop faster than the inverse of the focal lenght. I shoot street images in A mode at the widest possible aperture of the lens at hand delivering the quality I need for the shot.
Bernard,
Do those lenses you use at a shutter speed which is one stop faster than 1/FL, have VR? I get the impression you use mostly high quality primes without VR.
Regards, Ray
-
If you use a D800 or D800e with the same care as you'd use with a tripod mounted large format view camera you will get outstandingly detailed results. As a handheld camera you'll get more camera resolution (data) than you will out of any other DSLR of roughly the same resolution or lower. Whether you also get the better resolution of real world detail depends an awful lot on your handheld technique.
If you are using autofocus and do not bother to tune your specific individual body to your individual lenses you'll be disappointed either way ( with the exception of tripod mounted and using the camera's Live view autofocus modes.
-
Bernard,
Do those lenses you use at a shutter speed which is one stop faster than 1/FL, have VR? I get the impression you use mostly high quality primes without VR.
Regards, Ray
Hi Ray,
Correct, none of these have VR. Frankly, I have not done rigorous comparisons between the amount of sharp images when using a shutter speed equal to 1/focal lenght vs 1 stop faster than that. The damping of the D800 mirror seems really excellent, so 1/FL might in fact be enough.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The linear resolution of the D800 is only a bit over twice as much as for low speed color negative film (which is matched by about 8MP from what I have seen), so doubling the traditional 1/FL guideline does not seem out of line even with non-stabilized lenses. (Unfortunately for this comparison, I have not shot my roughly D800-sized pixels without stabilization for some years, they being on a stabilized sensor.)
Pixel counts exaggerate the difference of course. I would prefer if the marketing people had never invented pixel counts as a resolution measure: for me a linear resolution indication like "5000 pixels per picture height" is more understandable.
Back on topic: worrying about not using all the available resolution is like worrying that being very fit obliges you to run everywhere instead of ever walking.
-
Back on topic: worrying about not using all the available resolution is like worrying that being very fit obliges you to run everywhere instead of ever walking.
Perfect!
Marc
-
Back on topic: worrying about not using all the available resolution is like worrying that being very fit obliges you to run everywhere instead of ever walking.
On the other hand, it may be the case that the reason why one is fit is because one runs everywhere instead of walking. ;D
However, I agree there does seem to be some basic confusion out there about the significance of increased pixel count. It can never result in images being worse, whether due to diffraction or inadequate technique. The worst that can happen, assuming equal technique and equal f stop and shutter speed etc is used, is that there is no advantage compared with a lower pixel-count camera of the same format.
-
I sold my M9 to buy this camera and I am regretting it. I have a 60MP MF system that only works well on a tripod in good light. I now have a 35mm system that only works well on a tripod but additionally in not such good light. What I don't have is a camera that I can hand hold and take images that utilise all the capabilities of the camera. What I don't need is a smaller version of my MFD system.
It sounds to me, it might have been better to sell the 60MP MF system?
-
I do not think there is any reason for concern. The shots you made with M9 were also not perfectly sharp and shake free, you just did not notice it even at 100%. Do not look at the D800 shots bigger than 50%...
Certainly you could get some cheap P&S for those shots which are not meant to be taken seriously, they will look so-so, but at least there is an excuse.
-
It sounds to me, it might have been better to sell the 60MP MF system?
That is not an option. There is no comparison between the 60MP Hasselblad and its lenses and a 35mm DSLR even as good as the D800E. Amateur Photographer magazine did a recent comparison test between the H4D31 and the D800E which found that the Hasselblad had superior colour and tonality but similar resolution. They would have made a different conclusion if they had compared the Nikon to a 60MP Hasselblad or Phase.
What I want from a DSLR are the features and utility that the Hasselblad cannot offer - live view and longer lenses - plus the capability to use it without a tripod.
-
David,
At a given print size the images of the D800 will never look worse than those of lower pixel count cameras.
The issue comes from expecting perfect sharpness when looking at images at 100% on screen.
This being said, I have plenty of very sharp handheld images with the D800. I have been configuring auto iso to use a shutter speed one stop faster than the inverse of the focal lenght. I shoot street images in A mode at the widest possible aperture of the lens at hand delivering the quality I need for the shot.
In fact I have never had as many tack sharp hand held images with another camera until now.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thank you Bernard. I had configured the auto iso feature but perhaps not aggressively enough. What about a minimum shutter speed of 1/250 and a max iso of 1600? At the moment I have it set for 1/125 which may not be fast enough given my shaky hands. ;D
-
Slobodan -
Photographs of haystacks prove nothing: by definition they are made up of any number of uneven and conflicting lines, spikes and angles of which very few can ever lie in exactly the same plane, so how can any camera focus properly, especially if in one of those silly autofocus modes? I believe that the photographs shown prove this, at least to my satisfaction.
As for using images of birds! I ask you, who has the slightest idea how sharp or otherwise a bird might really be? Think of it, seriously: where are its edges?
It's not by accident that the best photographs in photography are of unadorned, unplastered brick walls.
Rob C
-
Thank you Bernard. I had configured the auto iso feature but perhaps not aggressively enough. What about a minimum shutter speed of 1/250 and a max iso of 1600? At the moment I have it set for 1/125 which may not be fast enough given my shaky hands. ;D
David,
I don't you whether you aware, but it is possible with the D800 to automatically set the auto iso minimum shuttet speed to be 1/focal lenght.
You can also add on top of this a +/- 1 stop bias depending on how shaky you feel your hands are.
If you use this, you can pretty much leave auto iso on all the time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd try to just enjoy your new camera. Figure out how to exploit its intrinsic qualities best in different situations. The D800 & D800e are great cameras, but wetware is still more important than any hardware.
-
That is not an option. There is no comparison between the 60MP Hasselblad and its lenses and a 35mm DSLR even as good as the D800E. Amateur Photographer magazine did a recent comparison test between the H4D31 and the D800E which found that the Hasselblad had superior colour and tonality but similar resolution. They would have made a different conclusion if they had compared the Nikon to a 60MP Hasselblad or Phase.
What I want from a DSLR are the features and utility that the Hasselblad cannot offer - live view and longer lenses - plus the capability to use it without a tripod.
That being the case, David, I'd say you have the best camera for the objective. I have no experience with the M9, but I have been tempted to try one. If it were not for the NEX-7, I'd still be tempted. I'd seriously consider Matthew's suggestion and get the NEX-7. It is a fun camera, and with Leica glass, it ought to deliver better than the M9, or at least that is my understanding.
More to the point of this thread, I don't think the M9 was a keeper if you desire live view. I am one of those many D700 users upgrading to the D800. We have been waiting for the D800 for two years! Nikon answered our request as well as ever before if not better, albeit in a much delayed fashion. That said, I'd be fine without video, Nikon does pack a ton of user options, and the D800 is no exception. I'm very early in my landscape photography career and don't have the knowledge or experience of many others. I more or less "grew up" using live view, and I will not upgrade beyond a D800 without the live-view option. However, I don't find live view useful handheld. Another critical objective is the total weight of any given system. I can only carry so much while on backcountry backpacking excursions. One of the things I found surprising is the D800 weighing less than the D700.
I don't like having a closet full of unused equipment. I'll sell whatever is collecting dust. It has as much to do with my personality as is has to do with money. I'm something of a minimalist, a necessary trait when living out of a backpack. Best of luck with the D800, I'll look forward to hearing more on this subject.
Greg
-
They would have made a different conclusion if they had compared the Nikon to a 60MP Hasselblad or Phase.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/792%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/746%7C0/(brand2)/Phase%20One/(appareil3)/585%7C0/(brand3)/Hasselblad
See for yourself, resolution aside ...
-
With all due respect to everyones opinions, I just don't get it.
I use a Leica M9 and a D800. I have prime lenses for both and don't own a zoom other than the Nikon 70-200.
I have been shooting handheld since I was given my first camera as a little guy. Anytime one shoots handheld, technique becomes paramount. I see absolutely no difference when shooting my cameras hand help. I suppose that if I zoomed in close enough in Photoshop I could see some mirror vibration, but I am just not that compulsive.
I recently was on a trip and took my D800 with only a 24/1.4 and 50/1.4. I intentionally left the tripod at home as I wanted to be free and unencumbered. My images look great. Are they as sharp as if they were tripod mounted? Nope, but I was able to be free, got images that I probably wouldn't have gotten with the tripod and ALL are acceptably shape in my mind.
Is the D800 a handheld camera? In my mind, absolutely.
-
Having read many threads extolling the virtues of the D800 (E or otherwise) I can confirm that it is exactly what they all say it is - a fine precision instrument. Yes it requires careful and precise technique to get the benefit from all those photo sites and yes it is very unforgiving of any shortfall in that technique.
I sold my M9 to buy this camera and I am regretting it. I have a 60MP MF system that only works well on a tripod in good light. I now have a 35mm system that only works well on a tripod but additionally in not such good light. What I don't have is a camera that I can hand hold and take images that utilise all the capabilities of the camera. What I don't need is a smaller version of my MFD system.
I ordered this camera months ago without really being aware of the constraints placed on the usability of the camera by the multiplicity of megapixels. I am beginning to think that Canon might be right in concentrating on other more user friendly features? Doesn't seem to be helping their sales though and I worry about being completely wrong in the face of an avalanche of praise for the D800. I just wonder whether all of those users switching from D3S or D700 bodies might actually be wondering if they have done the wrong thing? Is this heresy? Am I wrong? Feel free to comment.
Are you saying the D800 is softer handheld than an M9? You are still getting the same sharpness out of both cameras--having more pixels does not change that. You will still get the benefit of the additional resolving power. I handhold my Pentax 645D all the time and produce sharp images without a problem. Perhaps it is your technique. Perhaps you are only evaluating your images at 100% which will give a very skewed view of a D800 file, especially compared to an M9. But the D800 is no more a "tripod" camera than an M9, unless you are having issues with mirror/shutter vibration. I find improving technique can mitigate mirror vibration.
There is a skill to handholding cameras. So in regards to the D800, it could just be showing you some of your weaknesses. However, that does not mean that your images are softer than a camera with fewer pixels. Perhaps you just need to live and shoot with the camera longer. I found going to my 645D, I had to spend some time ironing out my technique to get good results when handholding--I can't imagine a D800 is going to be more difficult. I also notice that I can follow the reciprocal focal length/shutter speed rule for normal to wider lenses quite well. However, when longer than normal, that rule falls apart for me and I have to shoot a stop or two faster or really focus on what I am doing. Before that I was handholding 6x6 and 6x12 cameras without any issues, but they did not have a mirror nor a focal plane shutter. It took me a few months of shooting to come to terms with the new camera and now I am really happy with it. I am even doing a lot of handheld stitching--I have a gridded screen in my viewfinder which has made that easier.
I say stick with it for a while.
-
Thanks for all your comments and help. I will continue to continue (as a 60's duo suggested.
-
You might want to check this thread on DPReveiw:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=41483528
The guy shoots hand-held, at high ISO, wide open or at diffraction-inducing f/stops, and it still looks very sharp.
The guy is obviously made of stone.
-
David, both the H4D60 and the D800 are fine cameras but I wouldn't choose either for hand held shooting.
Oh no...the D800 is as good for handheld shooting as any other camera. Its resolution will never be less. It can only be better. At 1/(2f) shutter speeds, it is a simple matter to get pixel level sharpness.
-
Oh no...the D800 is as good for handheld shooting as any other camera. Its resolution will never be less. It can only be better. At 1/(2f) shutter speeds, it is a simple matter to get pixel level sharpness.
Except you are not taking into account:
1) Built in image stabilization on certain cameras like all the Sony Alphas, for example, versus a Nikon lens which may not have VR.
2) No mirror slap on mirrorless and SLT cameras.
3) Electronic first curtain shutter for some Canon and Sony cameras.
4) Any other issues around the grip, shutter and camera size that may make the D800 harder for certain individuals to hold still (for whatever reason).
-
I chose my words carefully.
...
David, both the H4D60 and the D800 are fine cameras but I wouldn't choose either for hand held shooting.
I know why I wouldn't use the H4D for handheld shooting, but that has more to do with its bulk. But the D800 is packaged in a traditional handheld form factor. It isn't in that way different from most DSLRs. So that leaves me puzzled about the distinction you were trying to make. Presumably its on the matter of resolution alone. Perhaps you feel that you should be maximizing the use of those pixels in order to justify the file and storage handling. Whatever your reason, I wasn't clear on it.
-
Except you are not taking into account:
1) Built in image stabilization on certain cameras like all the Sony Alphas, for example, versus a Nikon lens which may not have VR.
2) No mirror slap on mirrorless and SLT cameras.
3) Electronic first curtain shutter for some Canon and Sony cameras.
4) Any other issues around the grip, shutter and camera size that may make the D800 harder for certain individuals to hold still (for whatever reason).
Well, I would like to get a FF camera with an electronic global shutter. In the meantime, I still consider a traditional SLR to be suitable for handheld photography. But since you mentioned:
On (1), I don't know of anyone who has deployed sensor IS in a FF sensor so far. It would seem to be a bit harder to move that much more mass that quickly.
On (2), I realize there is no mirror slap, but there is also the trade of light loss and attendant increase in noise.
On (3), we welcome any advances of course.
On (4), I have big hands and don't have any problem with the D800 grip. You can actually palm it by putting the heel of the camera on the right side into the palm.
-
Well, I would like to get a FF camera with an electronic global shutter. In the meantime, I still consider a traditional SLR to be suitable for handheld photography. But since you mentioned:
On (1), I don't know of anyone who has deployed sensor IS in a FF sensor so far. It would seem to be a bit harder to move that much more mass that quickly.
Sony Alpha 850 and Alpha 900.
On (2), I realize there is no mirror slap, but there is also the trade of light loss and attendant increase in noise.
1/2 stop, close to undetectable in blind testing. Also you get a lot more than 1/2 stop more stability from the lack of shudder judder and mirror slap.
-
It must be very stressful for people moving up from a low resolution camera to a high resolution camera. As we all know, there is nothing worse than a fuzzy image from a sharp camera.
A fuzzy image from a fuzzy camera is to be expected. But a fuzzy image from a sharp camera reveals all the ineptitude of the photographer, his lack of skill, his lack of experience, his lack of appropriate technique.
I would strongly advise all novices to hone their technique before moving up to 'big boy' territory. ;D ;D ;D
-
Sony Alpha 850 and Alpha 900.
I did not know that. Thanks for the correction.
-
I don't think there ever will be a problem with too many MP. Unless the camera is slow because of big files or you need better low light performance.
Personally I would like to have one high MP body and another faster body (more fps and better ISO performance), preferably both in 5D/D800 body size.
With that being said, right now I don't think anyone with the most current Nikon's or Canon's has anything to complain about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now the quality/performance to price ration has never been better.
-
I don't think there ever will be a problem with too many MP. Unless the camera is slow because of big files or you need better low light performance.
Personally I would like to have one high MP body and another faster body (more fps and better ISO performance), preferably both in 5D/D800 body size.
With that being said, right now I don't think anyone with the most current Nikon's or Canon's has anything to complain about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now the quality/performance to price ration has never been better.
There isn't a complaint as such about the technicalities or value for money of the latest round of DSLR's but whether they suit a particular style of shooting or actual need of the photographer. I have a belief which seems to be supported by many others that there are several different photographic situations which require several different solutions - and this excludes the taste, ability and preference of the photographer. In my case I need a high resolution high quality camera system which will be used exclusively on a tripod and a similarly high quality system which will be used often without a tripod. The original point was and remains "are a large number of pixels an asset or a liability in respect of this second requirement". In my case I have more work to do and it seems again others feel the same way - at present the jury is out.
-
The original point was and remains "are a large number of pixels an asset or a liability in respect of this second requirement". In my case I have more work to do and it seems again others feel the same way - at present the jury is out.
Hi David,
I don't see how the simple act of downsampling an image could be seen as a liability. Having more pixels available than needed for the output size/medium one uses is quite common, so I don't consider it an extra step in the workflow either. Having more pixels than needed also offers some capability to compensate for sub-par technique, such as camera shake.
So where's the down-side? I'd say the jury is in, for quite a while already.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi David,
I don't see how the simple act of downsampling an image could be seen as a liability. Having more pixels available than needed for the output size/medium one uses is quite common, so I don't consider it an extra step in the workflow either. Having more pixels than needed also offers some capability to compensate for sub-par technique, such as camera shake.
So where's the down-side? I'd say the jury is in, for quite a while already.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart
I guess as a Scot who cannot abide waste it seems silly to buy a camera with 36MP when one only needs 12 or 18. If one only needs 12 or so then surely it is better to go with bigger photo sites with the attendant benefits of lower noise and better high ISO performance. Someone said that a D800 with a D4 sensor would have been a nice product.
I started this thread because I thought it was an interesting question and one I personally did not know the answer to - yet.
Best wishes
David
-
Hi Bart
I guess as a Scot who cannot abide waste it seems silly to buy a camera with 36MP when one only needs 12 or 18.
Hi David,
But 12-18 is already overkill for the majority of users. A full 1600x1200 display only has 1.92 megapixels, and a common output print size of 10x15cm requires 2.09 MP (at 300 PPI, say on a common Frontier printer).
If one only needs 12 or so then surely it is better to go with bigger photo sites with the attendant benefits of lower noise and better high ISO performance.
That is not necessarily so. Although the per pixel dynamic range may be impacted negatively (apparently not the case with the Nikon D800 models), the number of photons collected per unit area is almost the same. The additional/denser samples will improve the resolution from any given lens, and as I said there is more data to allow restoration of quality with deconvolution sharpening, which will produce even sharper downsamples.
I started this thread because I thought it was an interesting question and one I personally did not know the answer to - yet.
No problem with that, it's just that the answer turns out to be in favor of the larger number of pixels, provided that their individual quality is good to begin with.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If one only needs 12 or so then surely it is better to go with bigger photo sites with the attendant benefits of lower noise and better high ISO performance.
Unfortunately (???!!!) the sharpest sensor seems to be also the one with lowest noise, best DR and best high ISO performance. it ain't fair!
-
How about the impact of too many pixels on the ozone layer and Greek economy?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How about the impact of too many pixels on the ozone layer and Greek economy?
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, Bernard, I'm sure some of the Greeks already think that they are paying for your pixels; it's the voice of that bloody man in the street! Trouble with him is, he keeps on changing his stance: one moment he's for something and the next he's against it. I think he has close relatives here, too.
Rob C
-
"are a large number of pixels an asset or a liability in respect of this second requirement".
Is shooting Tmax 100 better than shooting Tmax 400? The look is different, but one is not better than the other.
So where does the pixel resolution become superfluous? That is a hard question to answer. I have made 24" prints from my 12MP E-P1 and Pentax 645D. Both prints are fine. Obviously there is a difference with a comparison, but the quality of one does not make the quality of the other "bad." As far as handheld sharpness, both cameras are the same--the Pentax just has more pixels.
Personally, the most important factor for me is sensor size, rather than pixel resolution. I find that influences the feel/look of the image more. The human visual system has a limited ability to resolve details and cameras today already surpass that ability--and print size ain't going to change that (and I print from 44" printers). If I were to pick up a 35mm camera, the ergonomics would be more important than the pixel resolution.
Maybe you should go back to the M9 just for the way it handles. Unless ISO is an important consideration.
-
Maybe you should go back to the M9 just for the way it handles. Unless ISO is an important consideration.
That's a revealing point, though: isn't the rangefinder-style of camera supposed to be made in heaven for 'street' guys and, consequently, isn't great high ISO quality pretty much paramount?
I can understand using a less than 100% frame-finder for street, where I suppose you have less than wonderful opportunities for exact framing and leaving a bit of extra space around the shot isn't the end of the world, but to condemn the M9 to static landscape-style work, tripod-bound as it would be for maximum quality (applicable to all formats/cameras anyway) strikes me as a little perverse, to say the least. If you are going to use a tripd, then it makes sense to be able to frame exactly as you want to frame, so other cameras would come higher up the list, even if the M9 kills most of them on high price rights... So where, exactly, does the M9 score best? It is starting to read like a less than best for anything sort of tool. Which is a pity, even if for me it remains a theoretical purchase only.
Rob C
-
That's a revealing point, though: isn't the rangefinder-style of camera supposed to be made in heaven for 'street' guys and, consequently, isn't great high ISO quality pretty much paramount?
I can understand using a less than 100% frame-finder for street, where I suppose you have less than wonderful opprtunities for exact framing and leaving a bit of extra space around the shot isn't the end of the world, but to condemn the M9 to static landscape-style work, tripod-bound as it would be for maximum quality (applicable to all formats/cameras anyway) strikes me as a little perverse, to say the least. If you are going to use a tripd, then it makes sense to be able to frame exactly as you want to frame, so other cameras would come higher up the list, even if the M9 kills most of them on high price rights... So where, exactly, does the M9 score best? It is starting to read like a less than best for anything sort of tool. Which is a pity, even if for me it remains a theoretical purchase only.
Rob C
Rob
I actually liked the M9 a lot as an object and as a street photography camera. I hated it for everything else. On a tripod? forget it. Telephoto lens? forget it. Wide angle focussing accuracy? Forget it.
-
David, how about an M10 with CMOS sensor, liveview and high res screen/EVF?
Will you accept my D800E outfit in part exchange? I'll have one. BTW how much is it - forget that I don't care I'll have it anyway. ;D ;D
-
Hi Bart
I guess as a Scot who cannot abide waste it seems silly to buy a camera with 36MP when one only needs 12 or 18. If one only needs 12 or so then surely it is better to go with bigger photo sites with the attendant benefits of lower noise and better high ISO performance. Someone said that a D800 with a D4 sensor would have been a nice product.
If only these things were so:
1) The native 36MP capture, after downsampling to 18MP, will transmit more high frequency detail than a native 18MP capture. There is a difference in the total MTF, partly due to the AA filter on the 18MP sensor, partly due to bayer demosaicking artifacts. The differences carry through even at web size.
2) Sensitivity and noise of a sensor are measured /per unit area of the sensor/, and by this measure, the D800 has as good a low light response as the D4. The major difference between the D800 and D4 sensor in practical terms is the presence of thermal noise in the D800 sensor at very high sensitivity settings and handheld speeds. But a simple dark-frame subtraction can solve that.
-
David,
At a given print size the images of the D800 will never look worse than those of lower pixel count cameras.
The issue comes from expecting perfect sharpness when looking at images at 100% on screen.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bingo! +1.
You may not always be at an advantage with more megapixels, but you'll never be at a disadvantage, except for file size issues like using more storage space and have a slower throughput in the camera.
-
Will you accept my D800E outfit in part exchange? I'll have one. BTW how much is it - forget that I don't care I'll have it anyway. ;D ;D
David, since the D800E remains unattainable for mere mortals, I've already blown off the idea of getting one, and instead have turned my attention into acquiring something that really lights up my photographic chimes - an M Monochrom. Chances are I'll have one before Nikon production ever catches up.
-
David, since the D800E remains unattainable for mere mortals, I've already blown off the idea of getting one, and instead have turned my attention into acquiring something that really lights up my photographic chimes - an M Monochrom. Chances are I'll have one before Nikon production ever catches up.
I would wait until there are real side by side comparisons between M9m and B&W conversions form D800E. I place my bets on D800(E) to provide sharper B&W images with bigger DR, better high ISO performance, and the possibility of manipulating the color mapping into grayscale AFTER the shot is taken. Not to mention $5000 savings. (and several other usability things in favor of the Nikon)
-
I would wait until there are real side by side comparisons between M9m and B&W conversions form D800E. I place my bets on D800(E) to provide sharper B&W images with bigger DR, better high ISO performance, and the possibility of manipulating the color mapping into grayscale AFTER the shot is taken. Not to mention $5000 savings. (and several other usability things in favor of the Nikon)
Well, the M cameras and lenses are about size, so that's the big plus with them. Either way, I'm not sure how big all of you print, but I'd imagine it'd take pretty large prints to see much difference in resolution.
-
David, how about an M10 with CMOS sensor, liveview and high res screen/EVF?
Hello, its called the NEX-7. And it cost a helluvalot less.
-
I would wait until there are real side by side comparisons between M9m and B&W conversions form D800E. I place my bets on D800(E) to provide sharper B&W images with bigger DR, better high ISO performance, and the possibility of manipulating the color mapping into grayscale AFTER the shot is taken. Not to mention $5000 savings. (and several other usability things in favor of the Nikon)
I'm yet to be convinced that B&W is about sharpness. If a mono image is heavily dependent on merely being super sharp to be considered good then there is probably something wrong with the picture as a whole.
-
Hello, I call it the most uninspiring camera I've ever used.
Wow, I've gotta disagree there. I've sold all of my DSLR gear for that little camera, and I think having a separate dial for shutter, aperture and ISO is pretty fantastic.
-
Hello, I call it the most uninspiring camera I've ever used.
I'm glad you wrote that, Keith.
Cameras really do have their own contribution to how you feel and work. They become an extension of your personality and never more so than when you are a pro: you simply don't even think about which camera to use on a job - you just pick it up and go with it.
That can have its funny side. I was doing a shoot for the IWS at some stately home in England and, as usual, I'd brough along a double-up set of tools because I wasn't sure what I was gong to be facing down there. Anyway, I'd decided it was 500 Series time, and was into the shoot when the lady for whom I was working came over to me and said that she preferred it when I used the 35mm because it was much more exciting to watch... oy veh, already!
Never underestimate the value of appearances, of people or of cameras!
Rob C
-
Wow, I've gotta disagree there. I've sold all of my DSLR gear for that little camera, and I think having a separate dial for shutter, aperture and ISO is pretty fantastic.
I sold one of my two D700s to make budgeting room for the NEX-7. I'm not sure why one would give the Leica's M series the nod over the NEX-7. I'd love to have some Leica glass and maybe now that I have the NEX-7, I'll go for it one of these days. For a walking-around lens, I got the Sony 18-200. It is not much of a lens in terms of quality glass, but it is solidly built and has taken me back to my old shutterbug days. It is the perfect setup for family vacations. I also got the Sony Zeiss T* 24mm f/1.8. When backpacking, the NEX-7/Zeiss 24mm combo replaced the D700/Zeiss 35 f/2 as a backup system providing a net weight savings of over 2.2 pounds. I'm happy if I can reduce backpack weight by ounces, yet alone pounds. Up until the NEX-7 release, the M9 was on my dream list for a backup camera, but I could not get past the range finder issues, nor the substantial expense.
To each his own. I guess it is a matter of taste and personality in addition to the technology when it comes to camera systems. I would be interested in the details behind Keith's assessment of the NEX-7.
-
... I'm not sure why one would give the Leica's M series the nod over the NEX-7...
Because one looks like a real camera, with rich history, the other like a third-place kindergarten design contest, where somebody glued a half-used roll of toilet paper (lens) to a deck of cards (body) as a proof of concept?
-
I can tell you the 24 mp of the NEX-7 is more than enough. I am finding my computer handles the files just fine with no upgrading.
Greg, I'm using "cheap" Leica Summarits on my NEX-7 - the combo of Leica glass and 24 mp is quite incredible. In a pinch I can use my Nikon glass with the Novoflex adapter, but then the package becomes quite noticeable - large and a bit weird. The first time I mounted a 180 2.8 on it I burst out laughing. A NEX-7 with a 50 Summarit is quite pocketable and very, very discreet. Would of been nicer with simple M9 controls, though. If I want WA I have to shoot with ZF.2 Zeiss 21 or Nikon 24 2.8 Ais and with a crop sensor it's still not all that wide. All that said, though, I spent all day yesterday with my D700 and the Zeiss 21 - shooting with old friends makes photography fun and intuitive.
-
Because one looks like a real camera, with rich history, the other like a third-place kindergarten design contest, where somebody glued a half-used roll of toilet paper (lens) to a deck of cards (body) as a proof of concept?
I find this post hilarious, considering the author uses Canon aps-c DSLRs, which are a far cry from the beautiful cameras of the past. Of course Leicas are beautiful and traditional, but I find the NEX-7 to be among the most beautiful digital camera designs in recent memory. In fact, when the first prototype images were leaked of the NEX-7 last year, I assumed they were fake, because it seemed too good to be true. Getting such high IQ in such a small package is a revelation for many of us, and I find the handling superb...outside of accidentally hitting the video button, occasionally.
(http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7197/6878413774_08a576c267.jpg)
:photo by LuisPictor on flickr:
-
Because one looks like a real camera, with rich history, the other like a third-place kindergarten design contest, where somebody glued a half-used roll of toilet paper (lens) to a deck of cards (body) as a proof of concept?
Heh! That's quite an ironic comment given your signature "tagline", Slobodan..!
When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
-
I can tell you the 24 mp of the NEX-7 is more than enough. If I got a D800E I would shoot it at 5:4 ratio which is only 30 mp. All those mp's create a real mess in PP if you stitch. I am finding my computer handles the files just fine with no upgrading.
John, I'm thinking of doing the same once the D800E delivers. I often find a 5:4 ratio more pleasing than a 3:2. I figure a 5:4 ratio will also encourage more vertical formats in composition with or without stitching. With the D700, I hardly ever cropped images, trying to squeeze the most out of a 12MP sensor. With the NEX-7, I frequently start with a 5:4 crop in Lightroom. Another advantage of going to 5:4 with a D800 is the extra latitude provided when using a T/S lens.
As for the computer, I am going to upgrade to a USB 3.0 UDMA Reader (RAW Steel). It requires installing a USB 3.0 PCIe (RocketU USB 3.0 for Mac), but it is well worth the 5Gb/s in transfer speed.
Cheers!
Greg
-
I can tell you the 24 mp of the NEX-7 is more than enough. If I got a D800E I would shoot it at 5:4 ratio which is only 30 mp. All those mp's create a real mess in PP if you stitch. I am finding my computer handles the files just fine with no upgrading.
Please tell me another one because really that is one of the funniest blanket statements I've read so far this year and I'll need another good laugh tomorrow. (Says the man who has been shooting single and multi-row (up to dozens of frames per) stitched composite panoramics with a D800 and before that with a PhaseOne P45+. And no I am not using a super computer, just an off the shelf i5 iMac stuffed with RAM running PTGui Pro.)
-
I have had my D800 about 3 weeks. Have used it for landscapes (on a tripod) and the images are stunning, as expected. But I just got done shooting 2 of my grandson's baseball games, an area the camera is not supposed to excel at. I was shooting off a tripod using a gimbal-type head, and again the results were stunning. The only weakness I have seen so far is lack of depth of field, caused by me shooting relatively wide open. I am looking forward to pushing the diffraction issue and using it hand held to see what it can do. So far the camera has exceeded my wildest hopes. At least at this point, there is no such thing as too many pixels!
-
I can tell you the 24 mp of the NEX-7 is more than enough. If I got a D800E I would shoot it at 5:4 ratio which is only 30 mp. All those mp's create a real mess in PP if you stitch. I am finding my computer handles the files just fine with no upgrading.
Please tell me another one because really that is one of the funniest blanket statements I've read so far this year and I'll need another good laugh tomorrow. (Says the man who has been shooting single and multi-row (up to dozens of frames per) stitched composite panoramics with a D800 and before that with a PhaseOne P45+. And no I am not using a super computer, just an off the shelf i5 iMac stuffed with RAM running PTGui Pro.)
I'll join you here. My 5 years old Mac Pro is still able to deal without issues with the 400-600 megapixel panos I have been creating with it! ;) The bottle neck is the speed of the attached storage, that's it.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7239/7144748437_12498694fa_o.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8023/6998420846_e647b5a5bf_o.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8024/6978047106_4fefe21c57_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
if computation power and memory technology contitnue to develop, I think more is better, as long as technology and software supports it. The largest issues of very high megapixels may eventually limit the useful range of f stops and then depth of field so I thibnk the next in-camera automation on camera after HDR will be the focusing stack to blend different focus into larger depth of field at wish. Of course, the photography the way we knew it from past, know it presently may also have newer application make use of innovative features to come. Certainly there will always people rather to take photographs they way they prefer, but there will be new generations wish to take the art they way they want.
Pingang
Shanghai
-
Hi,
My take is that the D800 certainly does not have to many megapixels. The Canon 5DII, Sony Alpha 900 and the D3X were all a bit above 20 MP. Going to 36 MP is a minor improvement, like 20-25%. It is far less than going from say A2 to A1 print size. But, more megapixels help with Moiré, AA-filterig will be less, the images will interpoalte and sharpen better. In no case will a higher resolving sensor give a worse result than a low resolving sensor. Making best use of the high resolution may be demanding, on the other hand.
Best regards
Erik
Having read many threads extolling the virtues of the D800 (E or otherwise) I can confirm that it is exactly what they all say it is - a fine precision instrument. Yes it requires careful and precise technique to get the benefit from all those photo sites and yes it is very unforgiving of any shortfall in that technique.
I sold my M9 to buy this camera and I am regretting it. I have a 60MP MF system that only works well on a tripod in good light. I now have a 35mm system that only works well on a tripod but additionally in not such good light. What I don't have is a camera that I can hand hold and take images that utilise all the capabilities of the camera. What I don't need is a smaller version of my MFD system.
I ordered this camera months ago without really being aware of the constraints placed on the usability of the camera by the multiplicity of megapixels. I am beginning to think that Canon might be right in concentrating on other more user friendly features? Doesn't seem to be helping their sales though and I worry about being completely wrong in the face of an avalanche of praise for the D800. I just wonder whether all of those users switching from D3S or D700 bodies might actually be wondering if they have done the wrong thing? Is this heresy? Am I wrong? Feel free to comment.
-
Making best use of the high resolution may be demanding, on the other hand.
No more than 25% more demanding.
I have not found this to be a problem at all. I believe that if you have the basic technique to get consistently sharp results with 20+ class cameras, then your technique is likely to be good enough for 36mp too.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The bottle neck is the speed of the attached storage, that's it.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, that must be my problem - speed of storage. A situation I'll be rectifying today or tomorrow.
Ellis, no need to lord it over everyone that you are handling giant files. 24 mp is enough FOR ME since my printer only goes to 17" wide, obviously your situation is different.
-
I don't really understand the megapixel hate, any shots with D800 will never produce worse results than a D3/D700 all being equal. It's not like if you don't shoot the best glass at f/4 locked down on a block of granite with MLU you will get worse results, even stopped down to diffraction inducing apertures there is still a big gain: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d-resolution-tests Even in absolute worst case scenario you only get the same resolution as 12MP, blurry 36MP is still better than manufacturing blurry 12MP to 36MP. Why spend thousands on lenses and handicap them making sure you will never see the best of what they can produce?
-
As for the computer, I am going to upgrade to a USB 3.0 UDMA Reader (RAW Steel). It requires installing a USB 3.0 PCIe (RocketU USB 3.0 for Mac), but it is well worth the 5Gb/s in transfer speed.
Update: Turns out the RocketU USB 3.0 pci cards are only good for "external hard drives". They can't see card readers! I returned mine and ordered a Sonnet Allegro USB 3.0. Sonnet tested five different card readers, and only one did not read with their PCI card. The RAW Steel reader I'm using was not on their list, so I'm going for it and keeping my fingers crossed.
-
Hi,
Yes, I agree. If you have proper technique the images will be nearly optimal.
On the other hand many D800 users come from the D700 camp, and now have three times the pixels, or 73% more linear resolution. So did they not use proper technique on the D700 it will show 73% more on the D800.
Interestingly, I went trough something similar. I got a Sony Alpha 77, with 24MP APS-C sensor. I suddenly found my 70-300/3.5-4.5G lens lacking in performance. It may have been so and so with lesser sensors.
But whatever technique is used the D800 mages will not be worse than D700 images if scaled to same size.
Best regards
Erik
No more than 25% more demanding.
I have not found this to be a problem at all. I believe that if you have the basic technique to get consistently sharp results with 20+ class cameras, then your technique is likely to be good enough for 36mp too.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But whatever technique is used the D800 mages will not be worse than D700 images if scaled to same size.
Of course true, but don't underestimate the pixel-peep angst! :-)
I know Nikon users that chose a D700 rather than D800 because they don't really like to see that the sensor makes the lens limitations much more visible. And there's also camera shake, if you have a relaxed hand-held shooting style how fun is it to see that most of those 30+ megabyte raws is kind of blurry at 100%? I think that Nikon not introducing a reduced-resolution raw format (like Canon has) with the D800 was a mistake. Not everyone shoots landscapes from a tripod or portraits with studio lighting.
-
Update: Turns out the RocketU USB 3.0 pci cards are only good for "external hard drives". They can't see card readers! I returned mine and ordered a Sonnet Allegro USB 3.0. Sonnet tested five different card readers, and only one did not read with their PCI card. The RAW Steel reader I'm using was not on their list, so I'm going for it and keeping my fingers crossed.
Although it doesn't seem to have been widely discussed there are numerous compatibility problems associated with USB 3 implementation.
In my own experience with the one computer I use regularly that has a USB 3 equipped motherboard (using Win 7/64) I've noticed that powering up an external drive after the computer is already running usually results in a problem. The drive isn't recognised and if I use Disk Management to rescan the drives the USB external drive, once recognised, reports as requiring formatting. The first time I saw this I was somewhat alarmed. Booting the same PC when the drive is already powered up results in it being recognised correctly.
I believe that this sort of thing is quite common. I have no such problems with eSata.
Roy
-
Of course true, but don't underestimate the pixel-peep angst! :-)
I know Nikon users that chose a D700 rather than D800 because they don't really like to see that the sensor makes the lens limitations much more visible. And there's also camera shake, if you have a relaxed hand-held shooting style how fun is it to see that most of those 30+ megabyte raws is kind of blurry at 100%? I think that Nikon not introducing a reduced-resolution raw format (like Canon has) with the D800 was a mistake. Not everyone shoots landscapes from a tripod or portraits with studio lighting.
The only thing that needs to be done to tap into the potential of the D800 hand held is to set up correctly its fantastic auto-iso capability.
That function alone should justify the price of the upgrade because of how much it increases the amount of sharp images. For hand held shooters working with zoom lenses, changing lens frequently or working with several bodies equipped with different lenses (wedding, events,...), this may be the most important feature of the camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The only thing that needs to be done to tap into the potential of the D800 hand held is to set up correctly its fantastic auto-iso capability.
That function alone should justify the price of the upgrade because of how much it increases the amount of sharp images. For hand held shooters working with zoom lenses, changing lens frequently or working with several bodies equipped with different lenses (wedding, events,...), this may be the most important feature of the camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard
I totally agree. I shot my first wedding with the D800E last Saturday. All hand held, no flash using auto iso set at max 1600 min shutter speed 1/250 and one lens inside and out (85mm 1.4). No problems and a very high hit rate. Thanks for your advice.
david