D800 question, different from the others

[AJSJones]

DoF is proportional to format, not pixel pitch. Your images will not look softer compared to a lower resolution Nikon 35mm sensor--if your image is sharp, why is dividing the image into smaller pixels going to change that?

This idea of linking DoF and pixel pitch comes from pixel peeping. 100% monitor views are in no way a real world condition for viewing images and gives a exaggerated view of DoF and sharpness.

Agreed.  However, someone who likes to make large , e.g. landscape, prints will be tempted to use the extra MP to make bigger prints by keeping the ppi the same - why "throw away that expensive detail by keeping the size the same?"  Sort of like "printing at 100%", based on the printer display, not monitor pixel pitch.  This is the print version of keeping the monitor viewing at a fixed percent to compare low and high MP sensors. That's when the relationship arises in the print world.  Is that to be called "print peeping" when we fix ppi ?  

[jeremyrh]

DoF is proportional to format, not pixel pitch. Your images will not look softer compared to a lower resolution Nikon 35mm sensor--if your image is sharp, why is dividing the image into smaller pixels going to change that?

This idea of linking DoF and pixel pitch comes from pixel peeping. 100% monitor views are in no way a real world condition for viewing images and gives a exaggerated view of DoF and sharpness.

Phew!! I was beginning to think I was going mad! Surely the DOF is what it is. A D800 just allows you to see how shallow the DOF is, whereas a D700 covers it up with low resolution!

Also - much as I love my PCE lenses, I seriously doubt that they are a solution to this "problem". You would need to spend hours adjusting tilt and focus to improve the image, and with the help of live view on a screen the size of a cinema. On top of which, they change the plane of focus, so things off that plane are still out of focus, so you could get the tree trunks from here to infinity in focus, but the branches would still be blurred.

[Rob C]

I remember the darkroom.  Loading in the dark, waiting for film to dry, spotting, trying to get dust off everything.  Trying to not get chemicals on myself.  The smell. Trial and error with enlarging times, dodging and burning.  Not my cup of tea.

There was nothing inherently better about the mechanics of developing pictures in analog fashion versus digital in my book.  And digital created control over color film that analog photographers never dreamed of.

I'm sure that in many ways what you say is accurate; however, that's not my point: my point is that the mindset of the two cultures is different. I know as much as anyone here about professional darkrooms, both b/W and colour; I spent years of my life working in both media, thank you very much, and understand the problems that arise.

But as I said, that's not the point. The point is the feeling that the old one gives that's absolutely missing in the modern version of printing. It has pretty much nothing to do with which will give you the closest version to a hypothetical truth, whatever that might be; photography has always been about interpretation and it still is. I have yet to see or make the first digital b/w glossy print that comes near a WSG 2D one.

Rob C

[AJSJones]

Phew!! I was beginning to think I was going mad! Surely the DOF is what it is. A D800 just allows you to see how shallow the DOF is, whereas a D700 covers it up with low resolution!

Also - much as I love my PCE lenses, I seriously doubt that they are a solution to this "problem". You would need to spend hours adjusting tilt and focus to improve the image, and with the help of live view on a screen the size of a cinema. On top of which, they change the plane of focus, so things off that plane are still out of focus, so you could get the tree trunks from here to infinity in focus, but the branches would still be blurred.

DoF is only what it is after you decide on the enlargement and viewing distance.  Change either of those and the DoF will change.

With PCE/tilt-shift lenses, you can benefit when shooting planar surfaces - and 10x live view, especially with DoF preview button and exposure simulation on engaged, gives you an experience/control something akin to LF ground glass with a loupe - near/far/tweak rinse and repeat!.  The example you cite for trees and leaves is nothing new because the subject does not conform to a planar surface.  Even film camera movements suffer that.

[torger]

Using film definition of DOF (on sensor fixed size CoC, regardless of the system's resolving power) is just confusing in the digital era. In the film days the format size (=film size) kind of set the limit of resolution. This is no longer true. With very sharp lenses and small pixels one can get a lot of resolution out of smaller formats. For maximum DOF applications the smaller formats will use shorter focal lengths and can thus have larger apertures (less diffraction, allows smaller pixel size) for the same DOF, so they behave exactly the same as larger formats with the same resolving power except that the focal length and f-number is different.

[jeremypayne]

that's not my point

We get it, Rob.  You suffer from a serious case of 'good old days' bias.  Comes through crystal clear.

[Rob C]

We get it, Rob.  You suffer from a serious case of 'good old days' bias.  Comes through crystal clear.

Well that's a relief; for a moment there I thought I'd been having difficulties with making myself understood! But hell, you were able to get it...

;-)

Rob C