Quick rebuttal

Started May 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
rhlpetrus
Forum ProPosts: 22,778Gear list
Like?
Re: Better is likely, let's see Re: Quick rebuttal
In reply to Great Bustard, May 17, 2012

Great Bustard wrote:

rhlpetrus wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

I cannot believe you start another thread just for that.

You still fail to answer this question - how a blurry 36mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 22mp photo?

I don't think you understand what I said. I don't dispute D800 has more resolution than 5D3, of course. However as DPR said you need faster shutter in order to fully leverage 36mp resolution. For example under a non-ideal light, I can get a sharp 5D3 photo at ISO 200 at 1/20 hand-held while you likely must shoot under ISO 360 at 1/30 (just for an example may not exact number) in order to get similar sharpness when both viewed at 100% cropped. In another words, you need a better technique in order to achieve potential 36mp resolution. If you also shoot D800 in that scenario with ISO 200 at 1/20 you have higher chance to get a blurry photo.

Now assuming we both shoot ISO 200 at 1/20, I have sharp 5D3 photo while you have blurry D800 photo when both viewed at 100% cropped. Can you still say your blurry D800 photo is better than my sharp 5D3 photo, by either downsampling to 22mp or upsampling to 36mp?

Well, following your reasoning, the D800 will give at least same result at same printing size, and that's absolutely correct, everything else equal. That's it, better or equal, is that ok with you?

Not only is that OK with me, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Now, in real life, usually there's no equal, since everything is approximate.

Not everything. If I were taking a photo of a landscape, for example, and it called for 24mm f/5.6 1/200 ISO 100 on a 5D3, I'd shoot the same settings on a D800. What isn't equal is that the Nikkor 14-24 / 2.8G at f/5.6 will resolve considerably better than the Canon 16-35 / 2.8L II at f/5.6. Of course, we can find different pairings of lenses that favor Canon.

Thus, it looks like better is more likely, since you will likely use camera settings not at your exactly limit of steadyness.

Depends. It's not merely steadiness, but motion, especially in low light. So, as the motion in the scene increases, and the light dims, the advantages of more pixels melt away rather quickly, except inasmuch as more pixels results in a finer "grain" of noise and lends itself to NR (noise reduction) in a more pleasing fashion.

But while more pixels still retain the advantage over fewer pixels for lower light scenes with motion (assuming equally efficient sensors), that advantage is severely curtailed.

For example, at 1/100 ISO 1600, the advantage of the D800 over the 5D3 is basically nill, in terms of pixel count.

That falls into the "equal" part of "better or equal" ;).

-- hide signature --

Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
No.New
TrueNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow