What has happened to Nikon?

Started Feb 14, 2013 | Discussions thread
yray
Contributing MemberPosts: 773
Like?
Re: The D700 is 12 MP
In reply to Chad Gladstone, Feb 16, 2013

Chad Gladstone wrote:

I am substantially certain you can replicate the image with the D700, but to do so at 36 mp resolution is a ground breaking achievement not realized by any other body or any other manufacturer that exists on the market today, at any price. When the specification and price were announced for the D800, I genuinely believed it was a hoax. After printing my first few 20x30 prints at near native resolution, I was speechless. I am suggesting that the D800 shatters all previous expectations of what images are not only now possible, but can actually be captured by the vast majority of shooters, given its extremely aggressive price point. Other bodies may be operationally more intuitive, or more robust, etc, but for IQ, the D800 has no peers. People wanted a D700 successor and they got it, it is the D4. People wanted a D3X successor in resolution and the D800 promised to provide that.

--

Chad Gladstone

Chad, -- all I was saying is that you don't need 36MP to shoot basketball in a dark gym. You don't print those pics at 20x30 -- do you? I'm not denying that 36MP is groundbreaking for some applications, but probably not for sports shooting, particularly under the conditions you described. I've shot my share of basketball in dark gyms with D700 and D3s, and I wouldn't print anything of that nature larger than 12x18 at the most. On the other hand, I printed 24x36 from the 12MP D300 (as a matter of fact one such print is hanging in front of me right now) after using upscaling with CNX2, and it looks very good when viewed from perhaps a little over a foot away, and that is if you're really a pixel peeper. Of course, it was shot under very good light. Now, do you imagine most people would look at the prints that size with their noses smashed against them? Obviously not, three feet is probably the closest reasonable viewing distance if you want to absorb an entire image that large (and I don't see myself ever needing to print larger than 24x36). I wouldn't argue that under optimal conditions D800 would provide a higher definition print, but it is only meaningful for some types of landscape and nature shooting. It is mostly not relevant for sports shooting, and where it could possibly be, it would have to be under very optimal lighting, not in basketball gyms.

I'm glad you find D800 an enjoyable tool to use and have nothing against it whatsoever. However, D4 is not a D700 successor at over twice the price, but rather a D3s successor for those who wanted better video and a slightly higher MP count. We'll see a D700 successor if and when the D4 sensor makes it into a D800 style body, hopefully without any AF issues. Until that time, the only real D700 successor for those unable or unwilling to shell 6K for D4 is a used D3s in the 3 to 4K range.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow