D800E vs. 5D3: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

Started Jul 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rick Knepper
Forum ProPosts: 10,332Gear list
Like?
95% of all applications are reductions of some sort.
In reply to Kaj E, Jul 23, 2013

This is true for most folks who use the D800 series cameras too. It would be ridiculous to claim otherwise. I asked you to reread the OP because you are missing the point while unwittingly agreeing with my point:

That is, there is a diminishing return, no return (as you are claiming here) or reversal of return at play for the D800 depending on the reduction application.

For example, if you go back to the first thread where I posted a down-sized version of the Nikon image to match the dimensions of the Canon image, even the detractors of that methodology claimed they readily saw more detail in the down-sized Nikon image. Therefore, your statement:

"If you need to downsize for your output the D800 and 5D3 are overkill, provided your lenses and technique (inlcuding diffraction and lens aberrations) are up to snuff."

would seem to invalidate their observations, right? Of course, your statement as written, is imprecise and worthy of being ignored. No offense. IMO.

Let me get you on record right now. You see no difference in the two 1800x1200 images as posted by others in this thread who have down-sized (and equalized the images as prescribed by the forum's "gurus")? No difference at all?

Not every 1800x1200 down-sizing is equal by the way.

You (and a few others) are obsessed with the 1800x1200 example because you (and a few others) appear to be more concerned about discrediting me and the comparison which I must stress again was provided with RAWs and the strong sugestion for readers to do one's own tests. I think it important for those who are just trying to learn to consider the possibility that the objecting arguments are motivated by something other than the facts or the truth. It would be advisable for those trying to learn and arrive at a group of unfettered facts to download the images and resize them up and down for themselves. IOW, don't listen to me, Kaj or et al.

The great value of high resolution sensors for all of us is in the capture of detail. The output issue of Printing Big is a concern for a few. IMO

Kaj E wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

Kaj E wrote:

If you only need 1800x1200 pixel output both cameras are overkill for your needs.

Reread.

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

Why buy a high resolution camera if all you are intersted in is size reduction. You wrote:

>"The criticism came mainly from those whose applications apparently call for enlargement. I mean, >do we even need to see such a comparison? Can’t we just stipulate that more MPs will >always help in Printing Large.

>It is that other 95% of photographers and their applications (myself included) which >involve reductions that need some special illumination. I am sure this percentage could be >hotly debated but for example, 100% of my applications involve reductions.

>My primary application: create 1800x1200 images for display on my NEC 2690 monitor. There are >future applications I am consideing but I will save that discussion for the end of this post. >1800x1200 isn’t a typical web-sized image, it’s nearly as physically large as a 13x19 print when >viewed on my monitor though the dimensions are significantly reduced from its originals. I don’t >know what pixel pitch folks are viewing with or how DPI factors into how others view these files.

>So, we know information is being thrown away as we down-size, but what is the point >at which too much information has been thrown away?"

Downsizing always reduces IQ (resolution), there is no magic point of dimishishing returns. When you print you should never downsize, only upsize if needed to acheive max printer native resolution (720ppi for Epson 600ppi files for Canon printers). This means you don't even have to print large.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=48894.0

See Jeff schewe's comment at end of page 1.

If you need to downsize for your output the D800 and 5D3 are overkill, provided your lenses and technique (inlcuding diffraction and lens aberrations) are up to snuff.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Nikon D3X Nikon D800E Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow