Reading mode: Light Dark

D700 owners: Do you need more resolution?

Go to last post
fotometria gr said:
teodorian2 said:
The myth is repeated over and over...

Truth is that every new Nikon sensor with higher amount of MP will result in better image quality as history has shown: The 16 MP D7000 is better than the 12 MP D300 which is better than the 10 MP D200 which beat the 6 MP D70 which is an improvement over the 4 MP D2h.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you do remember your last humiliation. However, now you decline logic completely! You have no right whatsoever, to judge analysis performance, based on time periods that equals centuries in tech advancement! Yet you do it and you use it as a proof ! Are you so corrapted as to do so?
fotometria gr said:
A 18 or 24 MP D800 will be superior over the 12 MP D700 just as the 16 MP D7000 is much better than the 12 MP D300 at any ISO setting.
Click to expand...
Even a 10mpx sensor of todays whould be better, that is because it's todays!
fotometria gr said:
If you want to compare a DX and a FX sensor you should use equivalent images (same FOV, DOF and shutter speed, different apertures, focal lengths and ISO settings). The difference will be neglectable and will not show up in a normal print. Using base ISO and equivalent images the D7000 is actually superior over the 12 MP FX cameras for DR and completely on par with the D3/D700 for SNR, tonal range and color depth.
Click to expand...
Now this is the best part of your insane theory, since with this, you are trying to compare any fx with any DX, can you please tell me, how you will compare a 50iso image at f2 with a Sony 900, AGAINST ANY DX CAMERA? Are you going to invent f1.0 on dx or will you invent iso 25 ALL OTHERS BEING EQUAL? I've told you before you first put the DX sensor to do its best and then, you compromise the FX sensor just to prove a "test" that only exists in your mind! GOT IT, GOT IT NOW?

But after all who am I to judge you, I only run one of the worlds WORST LABS, as it can be clearly be seen at http://www.fotometria.gr Plus, I'm world's WORST PHOTOGRAPHER as people may also, see there! While your picts really shine! GET A LIFE Cheers Theodoros!
Click to expand...
You repeat your misinformation, claim things without any evidence and disrespect others over and over and never ever seems to understand these fundamentals

1) the existance of equivalency is real:

Se here: josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ (URL blocked)

2) that other photographers experiencies and preferences are as valid as your own,

3) that your repeated disrespectful behaviour, overblown ego and forced agenda here at dpreview reveal a pathetic person that no one ever will trust and believe in.

The more you scream out your nonsense the more pathetic you are. Will you ever wake up to sanity and understand that you have nothing to gain trying to market your business in this forum?
 
teodorian2 said:
fotometria gr said:
teodorian2 said:
The myth is repeated over and over...

Truth is that every new Nikon sensor with higher amount of MP will result in better image quality as history has shown: The 16 MP D7000 is better than the 12 MP D300 which is better than the 10 MP D200 which beat the 6 MP D70 which is an improvement over the 4 MP D2h.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you do remember your last humiliation. However, now you decline logic completely! You have no right whatsoever, to judge analysis performance, based on time periods that equals centuries in tech advancement! Yet you do it and you use it as a proof ! Are you so corrapted as to do so?
teodorian2 said:
A 18 or 24 MP D800 will be superior over the 12 MP D700 just as the 16 MP D7000 is much better than the 12 MP D300 at any ISO setting.
Click to expand...
Even a 10mpx sensor of todays whould be better, that is because it's todays!
teodorian2 said:
If you want to compare a DX and a FX sensor you should use equivalent images (same FOV, DOF and shutter speed, different apertures, focal lengths and ISO settings). The difference will be neglectable and will not show up in a normal print. Using base ISO and equivalent images the D7000 is actually superior over the 12 MP FX cameras for DR and completely on par with the D3/D700 for SNR, tonal range and color depth.
Click to expand...
Now this is the best part of your insane theory, since with this, you are trying to compare any fx with any DX, can you please tell me, how you will compare a 50iso image at f2 with a Sony 900, AGAINST ANY DX CAMERA? Are you going to invent f1.0 on dx or will you invent iso 25 ALL OTHERS BEING EQUAL? I've told you before you first put the DX sensor to do its best and then, you compromise the FX sensor just to prove a "test" that only exists in your mind! GOT IT, GOT IT NOW?

But after all who am I to judge you, I only run one of the worlds WORST LABS, as it can be clearly be seen at http://www.fotometria.gr Plus, I'm world's WORST PHOTOGRAPHER as people may also, see there! While your picts really shine! GET A LIFE Cheers Theodoros!
Click to expand...
You repeat your misinformation, claim things without any evidence and disrespect others over and over and never ever seems to understand these fundamentals

1) the existance of equivalency is real:

Se here: josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ (URL blocked)

2) that other photographers experiencies and preferences are as valid as your own,

3) that your repeated disrespectful behaviour, overblown ego and forced agenda here at dpreview reveal a pathetic person that no one ever will trust and believe in.

The more you scream out your nonsense the more pathetic you are. Will you ever wake up to sanity and understand that you have nothing to gain trying to market your business in this forum?
Click to expand...
Anything to say about my quote, to your repeated to many quotes, ANNOYING NONSENSE ?
 
I've mentioned a few years ago, 8 to 10 MP is enough for normal use. It still applies. More MP is for sure nice to have (w/o degrading IQ). But the point is, for D700 owners, its 12 MP will still be good for a coupon of years.
Mato34 said:
As an aficionado I don't need more resolution than 12 MP, or even 10, or 8. But OK, performance is great so 12 MP doesn't hurt.

But if I want more resolution I can use my D7000, and someone else could get a camera with more resolutionon other brands: Canon 5DII, Canon 7D, Sony A900... Yep, Nikon should have something to fight that cameras, I'm right with this. D700x could have appeared time ago.

But so could have appeared the D700s, just to emphasize the strong and unique point of the D700: low light / high ISOs performance. I say unique because other than the D3/D3s there is no camera on market capable to get the level of the D700 in this field.

And I really enjoy the low light / high ISO capabilities of my D700. D700x might be OK, but so would be D700s.

Anyway let's wait and see how performs those 18 MP on the D4.

Saludos!

--
Please, excuse my poor english...
Click to expand...
 
At first I thought that more res would be better, it would mean that I could crop to my heart's content but since it's 12MP it's forcing me to think about the composition and framing of the shot before I take it.

Since I'm new to photography I'm kind of glad that it has a relatively low MP count as I'll be a more thoughtful photographer because of it.

It also enables such amazing ISO performance for the tech of it's day.

If the new one is higher then that will be great for those that really need it.
As for myself, I really can't see myself "needing" more res for a long time.
 
fotometria gr said:
teodorian2 said:
fotometria gr said:
teodorian2 said:
The myth is repeated over and over...

Truth is that every new Nikon sensor with higher amount of MP will result in better image quality as history has shown: The 16 MP D7000 is better than the 12 MP D300 which is better than the 10 MP D200 which beat the 6 MP D70 which is an improvement over the 4 MP D2h.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you do remember your last humiliation. However, now you decline logic completely! You have no right whatsoever, to judge analysis performance, based on time periods that equals centuries in tech advancement! Yet you do it and you use it as a proof ! Are you so corrapted as to do so?
fotometria gr said:
A 18 or 24 MP D800 will be superior over the 12 MP D700 just as the 16 MP D7000 is much better than the 12 MP D300 at any ISO setting.
Click to expand...
Even a 10mpx sensor of todays whould be better, that is because it's todays!
fotometria gr said:
If you want to compare a DX and a FX sensor you should use equivalent images (same FOV, DOF and shutter speed, different apertures, focal lengths and ISO settings). The difference will be neglectable and will not show up in a normal print. Using base ISO and equivalent images the D7000 is actually superior over the 12 MP FX cameras for DR and completely on par with the D3/D700 for SNR, tonal range and color depth.
Click to expand...
Now this is the best part of your insane theory, since with this, you are trying to compare any fx with any DX, can you please tell me, how you will compare a 50iso image at f2 with a Sony 900, AGAINST ANY DX CAMERA? Are you going to invent f1.0 on dx or will you invent iso 25 ALL OTHERS BEING EQUAL? I've told you before you first put the DX sensor to do its best and then, you compromise the FX sensor just to prove a "test" that only exists in your mind! GOT IT, GOT IT NOW?

But after all who am I to judge you, I only run one of the worlds WORST LABS, as it can be clearly be seen at http://www.fotometria.gr Plus, I'm world's WORST PHOTOGRAPHER as people may also, see there! While your picts really shine! GET A LIFE Cheers Theodoros!
Click to expand...
You repeat your misinformation, claim things without any evidence and disrespect others over and over and never ever seems to understand these fundamentals

1) the existance of equivalency is real:

Se here: josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ (URL blocked)

2) that other photographers experiencies and preferences are as valid as your own,

3) that your repeated disrespectful behaviour, overblown ego and forced agenda here at dpreview reveal a pathetic person that no one ever will trust and believe in.

The more you scream out your nonsense the more pathetic you are. Will you ever wake up to sanity and understand that you have nothing to gain trying to market your business in this forum?
Click to expand...
Anything to say about my quote, to your repeated to many quotes, ANNOYING NONSENSE ?
Click to expand...
You're a disrespectful troll...you lose credibility here every day!

Give up, don't post! We don't wish to hear your garbage anymore...

PS: Don't quote me back, not only will I not reply, but don't want to hear it!
--

Vancouver Based Entertainment, Environmental Portrait and Product Photographer...
 
calson said:
A D800 with a 16MP sensor would likely produce more noise and less image detail at high ISO settings.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
calson said:
Some will say that Nikon can increase the resolution and compensate for the increased noise, but that has yet to be the case.
Click to expand...
Again, nonsense.

You're refusing to accept facts and are clinging onto myths that you've read on the internet.
 
Some more pixels would be nice if Nikon can keep the low iso quality. I'd like to be able to crop a bit more.

But more important for me is the ability to shoot video with it. I work with different media (net/magazine). I would love to be able to produce both stills and video with the same camera. It's just a tool...
 
calson said:
With the move from the 6MP D1x to the 12MP D2x there was a 50% gain in resolution which was noticeable. Going from the 12MP D90 to a 16MP D7000 there is only a 14% gain in resolution and smaller photosites which tend to offset the gain.

A D800 with a 16MP sensor would likely produce more noise and less image detail at high ISO settings. As with the D3x there would be a practical limit of ISO 1600, best case ISO 3200. For many photographers this would not be a problem but for other shooting sports or weddings the small gain in resolution would not begin to offset the loss in high ISO capability.

Some will say that Nikon can increase the resolution and compensate for the increased noise, but that has yet to be the case. I could shoot at higher ISO settings with the D1x than I could with the D2x which had a practical threshold of ISO 640. Nikon was smart to design the D3/D700 with the large photosites even though it limited the number of MP.

I know from my own testing using a 70-200mm f2.8 and 105mm f2 lenses on a D300 and D7000 and a D3 that the smaller photosites result in significantly more noise and a loss of tonal gradations that are visible in the final print.
Click to expand...
If your assessment is correct, then the D7000 has worse noise and lower dynamic range than your D1x or D2x. Yup....looks like you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
 
260684 said:
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),
Click to expand...
I do not think it is so useful to compare the human eye with a camera because it just functions very differently. It is not the eye really, it is a complete unity of eye and brain that makes the image.

But speaking of cameras, the Fuji S3pro and S5pro that have the largest highlight range of all cameras already give a very natural look in it's files, with a "like the eye has seen it"- feeling. No Nikon or Canon that I have used (iincluding d700) comes close to that, although those are much sharper.

So the dynamic range of those Fujis (about 13 stops up to ISO800) plus maybe half a stop or one stop for extreme situations would be all I need. I do not see the need for 20 stops or more.

Bernie

--

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)
 
calson said:
With the move from the 6MP D1x to the 12MP D2x there was a 50% gain in resolution which was noticeable. Going from the 12MP D90 to a 16MP D7000 there is only a 14% gain in resolution and smaller photosites which tend to offset the gain.
Click to expand...
That is 40% gain in resolution not 50, but you already know, it's just an irrelevant TYPO, which I thought of mentioning. There is also some increase in highlight DR and that's very important.
calson said:
A D800 with a 16MP sensor would likely produce more noise and less image detail at high ISO settings. As with the D3x there would be a practical limit of ISO 1600, best case ISO 3200. For many photographers this would not be a problem but for other shooting sports or weddings the small gain in resolution would not begin to offset the loss in high ISO capability.
Click to expand...
Hm... I dont really know, could be..., could be not, we also have to take progress into account. The D3X is not really an example of what a D700 replacement will stand for, I doubt that D700 replacement will jump that high in resolution, a replacement is all about "retaining the values and even advance on them"! You are definitely right though, 24mpx can't keep the values of D700, it's physics and engineering, "the lower the pixel area...., more noise on pixel, more noise...., less DR & less pixel definition"! I think a small rise in resolution, should be expected though, it should be able to cope with tech advancement and solve the occasional D700 "moire" problems, it could even allow for a further AA lightening, this would be something, wouldn't it?
calson said:
Some will say that Nikon can increase the resolution and compensate for the increased noise, but that has yet to be the case. I could shoot at higher ISO settings with the D1x than I could with the D2x which had a practical threshold of ISO 640. Nikon was smart to design the D3/D700 with the large photosites even though it limited the number of MP.
Click to expand...
Only naive can argue that D700 isn't one of the best cameras ever made!
calson said:
I know from my own testing using a 70-200mm f2.8 and 105mm f2 lenses on a D300 and D7000 and a D3 that the smaller photosites result in significantly more noise and a loss of tonal gradations that are visible in the final print.
Click to expand...
Between D3 (or D700 for that matter) and D7K? I would say HUGE, you are absolutely right! Between D300s and D7K? Well..., you gain some, you loose some, It only goes to show that DX has much more restrictions, I personally prefer the D7K, not by much though..., ever tried the Fuji s5pro? Loved your quote, Cheers Theodoros http://www.fotometria.gr
 
Bernie Ess said:
260684 said:
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),
Click to expand...
I do not think it is so useful to compare the human eye with a camera because it just functions very differently. It is not the eye really, it is a complete unity of eye and brain that makes the image.

But speaking of cameras, the Fuji S3pro and S5pro that have the largest highlight range of all cameras already give a very natural look in it's files, with a "like the eye has seen it"- feeling. No Nikon or Canon that I have used (iincluding d700) comes close to that, although those are much sharper.

So the dynamic range of those Fujis (about 13 stops up to ISO800) plus maybe half a stop or one stop for extreme situations would be all I need. I do not see the need for 20 stops or more.

Bernie

--

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)
Click to expand...
Hi, to both,

IMO, another stop from the Fuji (perhaps not that much either), in the highlights only, and we are there! In lows? Nothing(!)..., we are there already! Although photography IS all about DR , the photographer must challenge the scene! But highlight DR of all other cameras than S5pro and MF DBacks, is simply unacceptable! 1.5 stops behind S5pro and 2 from film after 5 years, that's ridiculous! Cheers Theodoros
 
fotometria gr said:
calson said:
With the move from the 6MP D1x to the 12MP D2x there was a 50% gain in resolution which was noticeable. Going from the 12MP D90 to a 16MP D7000 there is only a 14% gain in resolution and smaller photosites which tend to offset the gain.
Click to expand...
That is 40% gain in resolution not 50, but you already know, it's just an irrelevant TYPO, which I thought of mentioning.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is not a 40% gain in resolution. From the D700 to the D7000, you have a 33% gain in the number of pixels, but that's only a 15% gain in resolution.

Think about a print at 100 ppi. Now double the resolution to 200 ppi. That doubles the X axis, and doubles the Y axis, so you need four times the pixels to double the resolution.

His example of the 6MP D1x is accurate. Doubling the resolution of a 6MP image requires 24MP.

--
Ken Elliott
Equipment in profile.
 
MasterOfGoingFaster said:
fotometria gr said:
calson said:
With the move from the 6MP D1x to the 12MP D2x there was a 50% gain in resolution which was noticeable. Going from the 12MP D90 to a 16MP D7000 there is only a 14% gain in resolution and smaller photosites which tend to offset the gain.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
MasterOfGoingFaster said:
That is 40% gain in resolution not 50, but you already know, it's just an irrelevant TYPO, which I thought of mentioning.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is not a 40% gain in resolution. From the D700 to the D7000, you have a 33% gain in the number of pixels, but that's only a 15% gain in resolution.
Click to expand...
Your mistake Master , he was talking from 6mpx to 12mpx, thats 40%. It's just that you missed the refer of my quote, IT wasn't about the D700 to D7K example, LOOK BACK TO IT, ...nothing serious, it can happen..
MasterOfGoingFaster said:
Think about a print at 100 ppi. Now double the resolution to 200 ppi. That doubles the X axis, and doubles the Y axis, so you need four times the pixels to double the resolution.
Click to expand...
.....................who says different?
MasterOfGoingFaster said:
His example of the 6MP D1x is accurate. Doubling the resolution of a 6MP image requires 24MP.
Click to expand...
.....................who says different? IT'S STILL 40 (or 41 if you prefer) from 6 to 12mpx.
MasterOfGoingFaster said:
--
Ken Elliott
Equipment in profile.
Click to expand...
Theodoros http://www.fotometria.gr
 
Aside from that error, I think it is purely a matter of taste or standards as to whether an image printed at the equivalent of 72 ppi is sharp.

As I understand the A0 size, which isn't a designation customarily used in the U.S., it is approximately 3 feet by 4 feet. If you stand back and the subject isn't highly detailed, the print will look fine. To me, using a D3 at 12 MP, images printed at one-fourth that size [one/half the side dimensions] are sharp enough for almost any purpose - that's about 150 ppi - much above that and the images will not be sharp to a critical observer [me] viewed up close, as too many people are want to do. You can blow up the image to billboard size and from 50 feet it will look fine, it just doesn't look good up close.

Almost everyone I know, consciously or otherwise, is using a software tool to make the images sharper as you make them larger.
 
a sensor capable of 16 stops - I would give up resolution for that!

I am going to guess that we will not get less DR than the D7000 in the next FF cameras, whatever the MPX count is. Not much more, still, a welcome improvement.

I personally don't have a lot of need for more resolution....

If we do jump to 24 mpx, I sure hope there is a "small RAW" option.

The only really attractive thing about a 24 mpx sensor for me is that running in DX mode becomes highly practical at that point....you end up with a 10 mpx file....fine for most shooting.

F
 
Fred Mueller said:
a sensor capable of 16 stops - I would give up resolution for that!

I am going to guess that we will not get less DR than the D7000 in the next FF cameras, whatever the MPX count is. Not much more, still, a welcome improvement.

I personally don't have a lot of need for more resolution....

If we do jump to 24 mpx, I sure hope there is a "small RAW" option.

The only really attractive thing about a 24 mpx sensor for me is that running in DX mode becomes highly practical at that point....you end up with a 10 mpx file....fine for most shooting.

F
Click to expand...
Agree. If we got 24MP and 16 stops that would be what 2 more than the D7000 and pretty damn impressive.
 
Neil Morgan said:
Want = YES
Need = NO

--
A Birth Certificate shows that we were born.
A Death Certificate shows that we died.
Pictures show that we lived!

http://www.nmphotoworks.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/knumbnutz/
Click to expand...
Agreed.

At one point I was a little concerned that 5DII users were benefitting from more deatail in landscape photos but from what I understand the advantage is negligable when shooting in RAW (NEF) mode with the D700.

Am I right in saying this or does the 5DII still have an advantage no matter what the file format?

Thanks :)
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57623308@N07/
 
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