Reading mode: Light Dark

D700 owners: Do you need more resolution?

Go to last post
260684 said:
fotometria gr said:
260684 said:
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...
Click to expand...
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!
Click to expand...
I am 100 percent sure many on here have 2 accounts and talk to each account on here. I'm with you on that.
Click to expand...
Man....that's gotta be lonely.....LOL
 
MasterOfGoingFaster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lets leave that for later, shall we? We are trying to convince people here, that are not so advanced, not to get influenced from crooks, that like wolves in sheep cover, are saying that APS-C is as good as FF! OF COURSE ANY MF IMAGE will make any FF DSLR MICKEY MOUSE image, to look like the CARTOON IT IS! But this applies to about equal proportion to the APS-C against FF relationship. Ah and another thing, I have quoted above that when printing there is a VERY GOOD chance that with larger format you may print at lower DPI AND STILL HAVE A MUCH BETTER PRINT. So please don't try to turn the conversation in "equal dpi" etc theories that are irrelevant. Please don't take this as an offense, its NOT! Its just that some of us are trying TO SAVE PEOPLE from wolves for a long time now! Please look at http://www.fotometria.gr and I am sure you'll understand that your (very good) quote has not been underestimated here!
 
MasterOfGoingFaster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed. For me, producing wedding and portraiture work, I find the D700 can do fine on Matte papers like HM Photorag 308 out to 20x30. For a landscape shot, it don't really like it much beyond 16x24. That's just me. I have made 24x36 and 32x48 prints from even my Pentax K20D which is just APS-C and 15mp....but it took a fair bit of work, and good technique at the capture stage.

For me, I'll keep the D700 and if the D800 is 24mp, I'll buy that as my high rez camera.
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
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!
Click to expand...
OH! common now! I'm sure we all've been through the same, but just not tell me that any of our prints coming out from 4x5 or even larger from our super angulons has anything to do (it has actually, its just an expression to quote that its even better now) with what I'm getting from my Imacon 528c when shot in 4x, (not to mention 16x) either through my Contax or through my P2! Please have a look at the 6 last images in "studio" at http://www.fotometria.gr . Cheers, Theodoros.
 
fotometria gr said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
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!
Click to expand...
OH! common now! I'm sure we all've been through the same, but just not tell me that any of our prints coming out from 4x5 or even larger from our super angulons has anything to do (it has actually, its just an expression to quote that its even better now) with what I'm getting from my Imacon 528c when shot in 4x, (not to mention 16x) either through my Contax or through my P2! Please have a look at the 6 last images in "studio" at http://www.fotometria.gr . Cheers, Theodoros.
Click to expand...
I'll still take my 4x5 over a 22mp back....even with multisampling. The multisampling works great in a studio, but for a landscape image where some things move slightly, it's still not that great. But for most uses, yes, 22mp in single capture is indeed plenty!

By the way...I love the B&W documentary images on your site.
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
I'll still take my 4x5 over a 22mp back....even with multisampling. The multisampling works great in a studio, but for a landscape image where some things move slightly, it's still not that great. But for most uses, yes, 22mp in single capture is indeed plenty!

By the way...I love the B&W documentary images on your site.
Click to expand...
Thanks, its really flattering when it comes from another photographer, you are right of course, but I bet you don't take the hard way... all the way (I'm not), if you do however , then BRAVO! It's difficult times and I admit I don't always do what my hart tells me to do. Most of the times, when things move, I just shoot one shot just because corruption tells my not use that bloody 4x5 heresy! Sorry for the confession, it just belongs elsewhere, may be over that glass of wine sometime, who knows... but we are in a different thread here and we don't want to spoil it. Do we? I'm counting on your support, its getting personal here with a batch of crooks, which you may have not noticed, but if you look at it its coming from another thread and I could use some help! Oh I am still a fighter alright! Cheers Theodoros!
 
PHXAZCRAIG said:
I suppose it would be useful for DX mode.
Click to expand...
Yeah - it would make me pretty much stop using my D90, and result in my Sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM II getting a lot more use.

But other than the crop reason, I honestly have no day-to-day need for more MP. That's not to say I won't upgrade as soon as I can, I tend to get panicky/overexcited when I see " In Stock ." ;)

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/
 
I bought a D700 in August 2008 and returned it. It was a nice camera, a lot better than my 5D in many ways, but Canon had just announced the 5D2 & rumors were flying about an imminent hi-res Nikon (which eventually turned out to be the ridiculously priced D3x). My photographic interest in natural landscape cries out for a lot of resolution and I seized the opportunity to return it. Admittedly, I had to wait 2 1/2 years before I could find a used D3x priced at what I think they are worth, but its been worth the wait. I carried 2 5D mkIIs to tide me over. $8000 for 24 MP then or 32 MP now - No!! I could swing the costs but I have an aversion to getting bent over. At $5000 I am a happy camper. And if the D800 has the resolution you are espousing below, it'll be the deal of the century.
JeffW84 said:
The rumor mills seem to be saying that the D700 and D3 replacements will be announced soon, maybe even this month.

Putting aside the current D700 shortages and resulting price hikes, what I’m wondering is if the higher resolution of the replacement (22 or 24MP?) might make it worthwhile to wait for the D800. Having read many glowing owner reviews of the D700, that’s the only possible improvement that might mean anything to me.

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
Click to expand...
 
Rick Knepper said:
I bought a D700 in August 2008 and returned it. It was a nice camera, a lot better than my 5D in many ways, but Canon had just announced the 5D2 & rumors were flying about an imminent hi-res Nikon (which eventually turned out to be the ridiculously priced D3x). My photographic interest in natural landscape cries out for a lot of resolution and I seized the opportunity to return it. Admittedly, I had to wait 2 1/2 years before I could find a used D3x priced at what I think they are worth, but its been worth the wait. I carried 2 5D mkIIs to tide me over. $8000 for 24 MP then or 32 MP now - No!! I could swing the costs but I have an aversion to getting bent over. At $5000 I am a happy camper. And if the D800 has the resolution you are espousing below, it'll be the deal of the century.
JeffW84 said:
The rumor mills seem to be saying that the D700 and D3 replacements will be announced soon, maybe even this month.

Putting aside the current D700 shortages and resulting price hikes, what I’m wondering is if the higher resolution of the replacement (22 or 24MP?) might make it worthwhile to wait for the D800. Having read many glowing owner reviews of the D700, that’s the only possible improvement that might mean anything to me.

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
JESUS!
 
Teila Day said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Coming from film to digital, I wasn't too happy with DX (the D40 came first) so I go the D700 and it is an amazing camera, but feels twice as heavy as my last 35mm film SLR!

The D40 just gives me the right kind of image without needing much PP, and RAW or JPEG, always puts a smile on my face. People with 12MP P&S think my D40 has 24MP in it and are truly gob-smacked when I tell them it's only 6MP .

I even owned a D90 for a short while, but sold it in favour of the D40.
 
Could be an absolute winner, even if it 'just' had a worked over D3X sensor in it...

Don't think I would want to pay more than $3000 for one although the US dollar and upcoming competition from Sony and Canon will be a part of the equation.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz
 
I love my D700. But I also want video (yes, I know some people don't care about video) so I can make use of my bucket full of lenses, most of them old AIS primes.

Otherwise, I will buy a GH2 or the forthcoming GH3 which should be amazing.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
Phil Flash said:
I love my D700. But I also want video (yes, I know some people don't care about video) so I can make use of my bucket full of lenses, most of them old AIS primes.

Otherwise, I will buy a GH2 or the forthcoming GH3 which should be amazing.
--
Click to expand...
If you are a cinema enthusiast, you'll find that FX is useless for video. The DOF is just too shallow, you can only use it in scenes with small depth. DX is the most creative, its got the same DOF with cinema 35mm films and hence can provide that "cinema look" on your video. A smaller sensor will have much larger DOF and thus, it will destroy creativity. It will also convert all your AIS glass into telephoto.
Phil Flash said:
It's not the camera. It's you.
Click to expand...
How true! Cheers Theodoros.
 
SiPat said:
Teila Day said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Coming from film to digital, I wasn't too happy with DX (the D40 came first) so I go the D700 and it is an amazing camera, but feels twice as heavy as my last 35mm film SLR!

The D40 just gives me the right kind of image without needing much PP, and RAW or JPEG, always puts a smile on my face. People with 12MP P&S think my D40 has 24MP in it and are truly gob-smacked when I tell them it's only 6MP .

I even owned a D90 for a short while, but sold it in favour of the D40.
Click to expand...
Kudos to you for using what you need as opposed to chasing every new rainbow released by Nikon. I'm sure the d40 will give you joy for several years to come.

When I opt to shoot my 4mp d2hs, it's always a joy, and compared to the Canon 5d2, it feels like a Ferrari instead of a station wagon!

Best in photography to you
--
Teila K. Day
 
I would like to see more. One thing is for sure, the new lenses will need the resolving power.

--
(i)lmtfa added to amino acid for molecular biological studies
 
fotometria gr said:
Rick Knepper said:
I bought a D700 in August 2008 and returned it. It was a nice camera, a lot better than my 5D in many ways, but Canon had just announced the 5D2 & rumors were flying about an imminent hi-res Nikon (which eventually turned out to be the ridiculously priced D3x). My photographic interest in natural landscape cries out for a lot of resolution and I seized the opportunity to return it. Admittedly, I had to wait 2 1/2 years before I could find a used D3x priced at what I think they are worth, but its been worth the wait. I carried 2 5D mkIIs to tide me over. $8000 for 24 MP then or 32 MP now - No!! I could swing the costs but I have an aversion to getting bent over. At $5000 I am a happy camper. And if the D800 has the resolution you are espousing below, it'll be the deal of the century.
JeffW84 said:
The rumor mills seem to be saying that the D700 and D3 replacements will be announced soon, maybe even this month.

Putting aside the current D700 shortages and resulting price hikes, what I’m wondering is if the higher resolution of the replacement (22 or 24MP?) might make it worthwhile to wait for the D800. Having read many glowing owner reviews of the D700, that’s the only possible improvement that might mean anything to me.

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
JESUS!
Click to expand...
Mother Mary!!
 
fotometria gr said:
Its just that some of us are trying TO SAVE PEOPLE from wolves for a long time now!
Click to expand...
Please state your experience with high resolution FF cameras.
 
MasterOfGoingFaster said:
Click to expand...
This chart is neat, but nearly completely meaningless. The number of megapixels often is not the limiting factor in print sizes. If it was just about megapixels then these 15+MP point and shoots should be able to print much bigger than the 6-12MP dslr's, which is false.

the quality of the pixels matters as much as the number of pixels. Take foveon images for example, they typically can scale 2x thier resolution for comparible prints becuase the quality of those pixels is fantastic.

I would take a 22MP medium format large print over a 24MP APS-C or DSLR image anyday (unless it was low light). Similarily i would take a 12MP FF image over a 24MP APS-C image anyday. In fact I bet using a good upscaler, the 12MP FF image would look just as good if not better.

Focusing on capture MP is lame, the actual detail is what matters more as you can upsample in post.
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top