D700 owners: Do you need more resolution?

[fotometria gr]

...personally not...

Coming from a D300, now I really, REALLY APPRECIATE the lower pixel density of my D700.

Only those who have this experience can understand it!

But I perfectly understand the long tele shooters needs (sport,nature,wildlife,etc.): they need crop !

The truth is that you print better from better pixel definition. With D700 you can print at 115x174cm at 72dpi on my Epson 9900 plotter. With a double the analysis camera you can print the same on 100dpi, however the result will be better from the better camera(!), not necesseraly from the higher analysis one! This goes to the quality of the file as well, you will print much better the SAME image if you convert it from RAW to TIFF 16bit, than if you convert it to JPEG! This means that: 1.You can print really large from a D700 2. You may crop from a D700 down to the size of D300s frame and still be able to print better at the same size, depending on the circumstances and the rest of the settings on the camera and the lens used, as well as your developing procedure of course. 3. The D700 is ONE OF THE BEST CAMERAS IN THE WORLD CURRENTLY. When printing of course you have to stay above 72 dpi, at less than that, the higher analysis wins, even if its a cell phone!

What I don't really understand are the pixel-peepers and techo-maniacs... but I realize that the market is also made from them and, thanks to them also, the technology can move forward..

Technology never moves forward if it misses ethics! Those people are dangerous to the rest of the world because they force industry to make bad products! Its even worst when they appear into forums with their ignorance and try to blackmail industry, presenting themselves as the ONLY MARKET.

I would appreciate so much a REAL and CLEAN 100 ISO (..like D7000 or D200) better than 18 or more mp sensor..

Only people that miss this, can really understand it!

...about video capabilities !?... Not for me, for sure. It's a plus..

Enjoy your D700, in a few years will be surely remembered as a Nikon milestone !

Cheers, Theodoros http://www.fotometria.gr

 

[fotometria gr]

Personally for me, no not really. However, when Nikon bring out a camera with the same dynamic range as the human eye (roughly 18 stops light in one quick glance at a scene, but up ato 24-26 stops after the eyes adjust - Moose Peterson talks about this), double the physical size of image (24mp does not give you a file thats double size across and height of 12MP), then yes I will upgrade, of course! But upgrading for 6-8MP with an extra stop dynamic range when I already own a D700? I don't think so. I'll save the body of the month club for someone else on here. If you haven't upgraded in a long time I can see the replacement making more sense...but upgrading every generation is a waste of money IMO.

Right now it's lenses that make the difference and oh - technique. I see my next upgrade a good few years off - not this generation coming, possibly the one after that but we will see.

Just think about 24 stops dynamic range - no more bleeding grad filters and HDR...(well unless you really want to...)

Bravo! Best quote yet! DR is off course the most importand aspect in photography, especially in B&W, but if I may add its much more important in the highlights, than the rest of the spectrum. Despite the agreement with all the above you state, I will change my D700 for the replacement, for only one more stop DR in the highlights(!), even it this would cause a stop loss in shadows. This of course doesn't mean that the camera is not among the top cameras in this respect, its just that I use my Fuji S5pro more, although the later IS NOT FX! Cheers, Theodoros.

 

[nikhgan]

Yes, need a little more resolution, 16MP or 18MP is enough. I don't like large file sizes.

Maybe Nikon should focus on the technology to reduce file size before introducing super large MP cameras.

 

[jabakus]

Thanks Theodoros, really appreciated !

Amazing BW Street examples in your site gallery !!

Ciao,
Silvio

 

[SiPat]

I have two cameras: D40 + 18-70mm and D700 + 24-85mm.

Also have Nikon 70-180mm, Nikon 60mm Nikkor-Micro, Nikon 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 70mm Macro.

The D40 gets much more use than the D700, and the images are just amazing.

MP isn't everything.

 

[Teila Day]

I have two cameras: D40 + 18-70mm and D700 + 24-85mm.

Also have Nikon 70-180mm, Nikon 60mm Nikkor-Micro, Nikon 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 70mm Macro.

The D40 gets much more use than the D700, and the images are just amazing.

MP isn't everything.

I'm thinking that if you're using your D40 "much more" than your D700, then you very likely didn't need the advantages that the D700 offers in the first place
--
Teila K. Day

 

[260684]

Yes, need a little more resolution, 16MP or 18MP is enough. I don't like large file sizes.

Maybe Nikon should focus on the technology to reduce file size before introducing super large MP cameras.

There's little logic in what you said. Take a 4MP rise, it will not allow you to print any noticably larger...it's nothing, a waste of time you might as well save your cash and work on your technique - good lens, good AF technique will get your sharper images and allow you to print larger than these 4MP will, trust me - if anything more MP will be more unforgiving on lenses and bad technique - look at the D7000 it shows up flaws in lenses that are alright on the D700 and the D700 is a very forgiving camera.

Take this, this always frustrates me. People think a 24MP camera means you get a x2 image out of the camera compared to 12MP. The size of the image is not double, by no means: the width and height is not doubled. This is pure geometry.

Going back to what I said...i'll upgrade when they get the dynamic range to the human eye (18 stops in a quick glance, about 24-26 stops after a few seconds), and have around 30-40MP (no I don't need it really except on the odd occasion but I'll take it - it's dynamic range that photography is all about).

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

24mp gives 42% more horizontal rez than the 12mp D700. So, if the largest you were willing to print from the D700 was 16x24, then 24mp would give you a 22x34 print...so say 24x36.

As to DR, if I can get a decent, clean, 14 stop range on a 24mp D800 sensor, I would easily be able to give up most of my film use.

 

[Teila Day]

Personally for me, no not really. However, when Nikon bring out a camera with the same dynamic range as the human eye (roughly 18 stops light in one quick glance at a scene, but up ato 24-26 stops after the eyes adjust - Moose Peterson talks about this), double the physical size of image (24mp does not give you a file thats double size across and height of 12MP), then yes I will upgrade, of course! But upgrading for 6-8MP with an extra stop dynamic range when I already own a D700? I don't think so. I'll save the body of the month club for someone else on here. If you haven't upgraded in a long time I can see the replacement making more sense...but upgrading every generation is a waste of money IMO.

[snip]

Excellent sensible post!

I agree that upgrading in small incremental (and expensive) purchases is absolutely a waste of money for most photographers, and I generally agree with you about not upgrading only to gain a measly 6 or so MP. However, there are some real-world exceptions based on good sense.

1. Sometimes the "new model" offers distinct advantages that can be immediately put to use by commercial photographers (wedding, sports, industrial, underwater, you name it). A good example would be a wedding or sports photographer upgrading from the D2x to the D3. The resolution didn't go up, but the upgrade offered many real-world advantages that photographers across the board could use. Dual slots, much higher iso performance, speed, deeper buffer, etc.

2. Printing, composition, and stock photography realities: Not too long ago, several entities (to include at least one microstock site) would require a 12mp file to be uprezzed just to get accepted (ridiculous I think, but that was the reality).

A 20-something MP upgrade really does eliminate problems or 'work-arounds' in several key areas..

Composition: One can often crop-for-composition and sometimes squeak out two different compositions from one shot and still have "enough" resolution left for the portrait, stock, etc requirement(s). This of course is a big advantage of shooting medium format, but even a 24mp camera can yield 4inches worth of cropping room on one side and 6 inches on the other over a 12mp camera. That's a real-world useful amount of cropping room.

Print: Mentioned above, an extra 6 inches on one side and 4 inches on another can offer the photographer the ability to offer 3 to 4 frame sizes larger with the same quality as the 12mp offering; potentially allowing the artist to reap a few more dollars on the sale of the frame as well.

I'd like another body- but I'm not opening my purse for a sub 20-something MP camera. If Nikon offered a D4 with iso 6400 as smooth as 1600 on my 5d2, and at least comparable video, then I might be inclined. Whatever the next body is, I hope Nikon wows us like it did with the D3.

--
Teila K. Day

 

[Mr Fartleberry]

For landscapes. This has the same rez as the D70. I'm amazed when I switch back to my D300 NEFs. Really, who uses a 5MP crop? Good camera otherwise.
--

Sold the (old) half-frame from Thailand. Bought a 700 under my own personal stimulus
plan.

 

[Joesiv]

More is ALWAYS better

More is also more expensive (even if it gets cheaper, as you still need to buy the newer stuff to get the benefits of faster/cheaper). Do I really want to buy UDMA 16gig cards to replace my 8gig cards, replace my 2TB drives in my computer with 3+TB drives, upgrade my i7 to..? Then you have redudant backup, not to mention transfer speeds.

All in all, i'm fine with 12MP, actually the low pixel density makes my lens' look even better than they did with DX. Ignorance is bliss, looping at 100%, i like to see sharpness.

Honestly, I wouldn't complain if it went to 16/18MP, as long as we get those DR increases and high ISO improvements that we all want. But going to 20+ MP might make me need to upgrade too much and slow down my workflow too much to make me bite.

If they could do 20+MP with better DR and D3S performance, i might just bite the bullet... but i'd have to think twice about it.

Honestly, while many shift over to 5D mkII for the resolution, the D700 has been a great seller from what I gather, and it has a really good rep for it's performance. I don't think keeping it at 12MP for the D800 would be horrible. if it was D3S in a D700 body with 1080 @24p video, it would actually do really really well!
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com

 

[fotometria gr]

Yes, need a little more resolution, 16MP or 18MP is enough. I don't like large file sizes.

Maybe Nikon should focus on the technology to reduce file size before introducing super large MP cameras.

There's little logic in what you said. Take a 4MP rise, it will not allow you to print any noticably larger...it's nothing, a waste of time you might as well save your cash and work on your technique - good lens, good AF technique will get your sharper images and allow you to print larger than these 4MP will, trust me - if anything more MP will be more unforgiving on lenses and bad technique - look at the D7000 it shows up flaws in lenses that are alright on the D700 and the D700 is a very forgiving camera.

Take this, this always frustrates me. People think a 24MP camera means you get a x2 image out of the camera compared to 12MP. The size of the image is not double, by no means: the width and height is not doubled. This is pure geometry.

Going back to what I said...i'll upgrade when they get the dynamic range to the human eye (18 stops in a quick glance, about 24-26 stops after a few seconds), and have around 30-40MP (no I don't need it really except on the odd occasion but I'll take it - it's dynamic range that photography is all about).

Second best quote from the same quoter! IT'S DR THAT PHOTOGRAPHY IS ALL ABOUT! Especialy highlight DR, If I may add. Cheers Theodoros, http://www.fotometria.gr

 

[260684]

Thanks.

I wonder how guys shooting film managed to print so large yet with digital everyone always want's that 3 MP more that will make all he difference in the world...

 

[SeeRoy]

It's a lovely camera. However other things being equal (a big if) the ability to crop heavily is a huge plus unless you work under very controlled conditions: in which case you're likely to want as much resolution as possible anyway, as the clients demand it...
Roy
Roy

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Thanks.

I wonder how guys shooting film managed to print so large yet with digital everyone always want's that 3 MP more that will make all he difference in the world...

It was kind of the same with film as well. We had those claiming 35mm with good glass was all that was needed. There where those that said a decent, large print needed MF 6x45, or 6x7. Then some of us went all in and used the 4x5 gear to get grain free 40" prints with a real 300+ppi. Depends on how far everyone wanted to go. Even 24mp won't get me the 40" print to equal 4x5 film....but it's getting better all the time!

 

[Richard]

If it is just more MPs, that may not be enough, if it is the same mp plus better dynamic range, that might not be enough, lower noise, again, that might not be enough because everything people have now seems to be enough or you have the ability to work around the limitations of what you have now without spending more money.

For me, not one of those reasons is enough, not even the move from DX to FX by itself.

But 24mp plus better DR and lower noise in an FX camera would make me want to upgrade my DX. The D700 was not enough to make me want to upgrade but improvements in all those areas would.

So IMHO, to get many D700 users to upgrade or even DX users to upgrade to a D800 increased resolution is part of what is "needed" along with DR and lower noise.

So, do any of you D700 owners have a burning need (or desire) for more resolution? I currently shoot a D300S semi-professionally and have gotten very good results with lab-produced prints of up to 20x30, but occasionally find myself wondering how much better they might look with a sensor of 18 or 24 MP or more.

Any insights are welcome – thanks in advance.

--Jeff

 

[fotometria gr]

Thanks.

I wonder how guys shooting film managed to print so large yet with digital everyone always want's that 3 MP more that will make all he difference in the world...

It's simple, they've never used film! This should answer to you, in why you have to shout about DR and technique. Well, don't shout, they'll never listen! Nor they will ever be photographers. They just try to find a life to live through the web. Some of them have 2 or 3 or even more code names and are talking to themselves(!) Try to recognize them and ignore them, they'll do anything to stop your voice. Other people have recognized them.... try to find who gets responses and who gets the same response from the same people! They are to be ignored. Cheers, Theodoros.

P.S. Never respond when they'll try to jump you... which they will surely do, they want to keep the starters and not mature potential photographers, ignorants to the wolves and you are dangerous to them! Ah..! and never respond to people that start with what Tom Hogan did, its more than obvious that internet money doesn't come without advertisement..... if you know what I mean!

 

[260684]

Thanks.

I wonder how guys shooting film managed to print so large yet with digital everyone always want's that 3 MP more that will make all he difference in the world...

It's simple, they've never used film! This should answer to you, in why you have to shout about DR and technique. Well, don't shout, they'll never listen! Nor they will ever be photographers. They just try to find a life to live through the web. Some of them have 2 or 3 or even more code names and are talking to themselves(!) Try to recognize them and ignore them, they'll do anything to stop your voice. Other people have recognized them.... try to find who gets responses and who gets the same response from the same people! They are to be ignored. Cheers, Theodoros.

P.S. Never respond when they'll try to jump you... which they will surely do, they want to keep the starters and not mature potential photographers, ignorants to the wolves and you are dangerous to them! Ah..! and never respond to people that start with what Tom Hogan did, its more than obvious that internet money doesn't come without advertisement..... if you know what I mean!

I am 100 percent sure many on here have 2 accounts and talk to each account on here. I'm with you on that.

 

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

The easy way to answer that is to look at how large you print. I have a 44" wide printer, and my D700 (on the short axis) can't print 44" @ 300dpi. I made this chat to evaluate my options. It included a non-existent model - the Nikon D4-32 - which I define as a model with double the pixels of the D7000 sensor.

For each camera, I used the number of pixels on the short axis, and divided that by various print dots per inch (DPI). That number is the length of a print on the short axis. The chart's vertical axis is the DPI and the horizontal axis is the width of the roll of paper.

This chart shows me three things:
1. what DPI I'd get for a given paper width
2. what paper width I'd have for a given DPI

3. what camera I'd need if I want to print at a certain DPI for a given paper size



How to use this chart:

How big can I print? Pick the DPI and see where it intersects each camera's line.

What DPI can I print? Pick the paper size and see where it intersect's the camera's line.

Which camera do I need? Pick the paper size and the desired DPI. You want a camera above that intersection.

If you look at the intersection of 150 dpi and 24" paper, you see D3x, 5DmkII are good choices. The D3 (thus D700) falls short of this point, and owners of 24" wide printers have a real interest here.

Now look at the intersection of 150 dpi and 36". The Pentax 645D is parked right on that mark. Very smart of Pentax. My imaginary D4-32 is a little shy of the mark, but with 2" margins all around, it is a good match.

At 300 dpi, only the medium format cameras and the D4-32 have enough pixels to print 16".

If you have a consumer printer that takes Letter size paper, any of these cameras will be fine. A 13" wide consumer printer starts to hit the limit of the D700 at 300 dpi, but all these cameras are fine. But professional 17", 24" and 44" printers are large enough that you are forced to reduce resolution below 300dpi unless you have a medium format camera.

Yes, I'm ignoring the "quality" of the pixel, upsizing and viewing distance considerations. This is just a simple chart to provide a graphic view of how our cameras compare to medium format camera.

I usually start with the print size, then decide if I can use my D700, rent a D3x, or rent a Phase One 60MP.
--
Ken Elliott
Equipment in profile.

 

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

Let me add that I print 24" x 36" prints from my D700, so I'm not trying to say it can't be done. But there is a bit of work involved to get good results and there is little room for error. With medium format cameras, there are pixels to spare. I can crop, beat up the pixels and still get an outstanding print.

--
Ken Elliott
Equipment in profile.