Too many megapixels?

[Ellis Vener]

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.

[jgbowerman]

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

[jeremypayne]

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 ...

[SpiritShooter]

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.

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[David Watson]

Thanks for all your comments and help.  I will continue to continue (as a 60's duo suggested.

[Greg D]

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.

[LKaven]

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.

[MatthewCromer]

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).

[LKaven]

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.

[LKaven]

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. 

[MatthewCromer]

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.

[Ray]

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.     

[LKaven]

Sony Alpha 850 and Alpha 900.

I did not know that.  Thanks for the correction.

[EgillBjarki]

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.

[David Watson]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[David Watson]

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

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Petrus]

 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!