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

Started Jul 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
Kaj E
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,865Gear list
Like?
Re: 95% of all applications are reductions of some sort.
In reply to Rick Knepper, Jul 24, 2013

Rick Knepper wrote:

This is true for most folks who use the D800 series cameras too. It would be ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Then the D800 may be overkill for most of their applications.

Just to remind you the sensor of a D800 or 5DIII is about 24mmx36mm so we are actually dealing with enlargments in in more than 95% of applications, if we want to deal with plain facts.

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.

How the images are downsized and post-processed have more to do with the apparent resolution of the dowsnized image than the difference between an original image of 36 MP or 22MP (which are different also in other ways than the pixel count).

I addition, even with the same lens on two different cameras there are differences. They may not be equally accurately focused, as you admit. They may have different alignment issues, Particulalry as an adapter is used on the Canon .

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.

I don't think I am obsessed by a 1800x1200 image, that was just the sample you provided.

Some of us may have sufficient knowledge and experience from working with different types of files, that we do not need to experiment with your files to know what we are talking about.

Your effort of trying to help people understand the facts of digital photography must be applauded.

Where is the fact or truth in your claim in the heading to this post?

I am not trying to discredit you or anyone else on this forum (are we seeing a hint of paranoia?). Just try to cool down a bit.

No offense whatosover intended by me. Sorry if you have unnderstood it that way.

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

A D800 file printed at 720 dpi (Epsons default) is not all that big 10.22"x6.82'" All my recent prints are larger than that (did you read the link I provided).

Please disregard any typos, as my spell checker did not, for some reason, work on this page.

Peace.

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".

Wishing you all the best.

-- 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

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