Just curious, 36m pixels too many?

I'm a happy D700 user and will not upgrade for several reasons but I was just wondering if anyone is actually put off buying the D800 because it has too many pixels? Nikon have added USB3 to the camera for the first time, but i don't have USB3 on my computer. I don't need bigger files either. Also, some D3x users mentioned their 24m pixel sensors were very demanding of their lenses. Now we have 36m. I'd rather have better high ISO performance and more dynamic range and feel 50% fewer pixels would be better. Nikon have boasted in the past how they didn't worry about keeping up in the pixel race because they can get better IQ with less.

I'm not interested in video and like I said I am happy to stay with my D700 anyway, but I'm curious what people think?
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Yes 36 Megapixels is too many. The files are too large for the photography that I am interested in. The resolution is too high for the degree of enlargement that I am interested in. The capability of the D800 is far more than my meager skills; I'm sure a point&shoot is closer to my skill level.

However, I am not interested in absolutely EVERY generation of Nikon prosumer camera. I upgrade if and only if I have no choice. I also derive significant pleasure in using relatively high end photographic equipment.

I am currently using a D200. I missed the D300, D700.

Currently, my D200's hot shoe is flakey. I have had it in once not under warranty for focus issues. It is only worth $5-600 even in top shape. My MB-D200 has a broken door. It isn't cost effective to fix and/or replace.

Thus, I am interested in either the D800 (or possibly the D700 if the price is right).

Conway Yee

I had a D200. I skipped the D300 and D300s. I initially skipped the D700 until the price dropped. That was a more significant move up from the D200 than I expected. My photography has noticeably improved in the last two years (and I've been shooting Nikon since the 1980's). I'd certainly recommend it.

As I say, I'm sticking with the D700 regardless, but I still wonder if anyone is put off by 36m pixels as I would be. Big files, USB3 (which I don't have on my Mac), and perhaps more resolution than some of my lenses can handle. I like the idea I could use crop mode without giving up too much detail, but I have never felt the need to use crop mode on my D700. Curious. I thought more people would chime in with all the reasons they would love to have 36m pixels and start pointing out to me what I'm missing. 1 reply in 24 hours. Oh well, I'm still open-minded and looking for opinion.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

I am presently a D700 user and have pre-ordered a D800E. I do not plan on getting rid of my D700 as I feel it will still get plenty of use, faster frame rate is one reason. The D800 opens a few doors missing with the D700 which I will & or may find very useful. I doubt that 36MP is going mean a lot but the ability to shoot in DX mode and extend the focal length of my longer lenses while being able to still use 15MP is going to be something I would use. At present if I use the 10mm fish eye it reduces the image to 5MP. After converting it to a rectilinear image it is reduced even further. While it won't be a 10mm lens in DX mode it will be a very acceptable 15mm equivalent.

I'm not really interested in the video capabilities but they are improved to the point I might still play around with it. But I am more interested in the time lapsed feature as well as in camera's ability to merge two images at different exposure thus extending DR. And considering this comes at a price well below what I was anticipating I made the move. I am not into photography to make money but to enjoy myself and I think this camera is going to add considerable interest to my hobby.

slimandy said:

I had a D200. I skipped the D300 and D300s. I initially skipped the D700 until the price dropped. That was a more significant move up from the D200 than I expected. My photography has noticeably improved in the last two years (and I've been shooting Nikon since the 1980's). I'd certainly recommend it.

As I say, I'm sticking with the D700 regardless, but I still wonder if anyone is put off by 36m pixels as I would be. Big files, USB3 (which I don't have on my Mac), and perhaps more resolution than some of my lenses can handle. I like the idea I could use crop mode without giving up too much detail, but I have never felt the need to use crop mode on my D700. Curious. I thought more people would chime in with all the reasons they would love to have 36m pixels and start pointing out to me what I'm missing. 1 reply in 24 hours. Oh well, I'm still open-minded and looking for opinion.
--

Click to expand...

You might've gotten only one reply because everybody else whose read your question is saying to themselves, "Where has this guy been for the last two months?"

In other words, this topic has already been beaten to death in literally dozens of threads since the rumors of a 36mp camera started emerging. Many agree with you that 36mp is overkill for them. Others rejoice that the D800 looks like a fabulous tool for them. Just do a little scanning of the site and you'll see plenty of talk about it.

--
My photos: http://www.pbase.com/imageiseverything/root

I'd need a major computer and storage upgrade - at least $2,000. Of course, Thom Hogan says we'll all need to do that eventually. But in my case I might get another two years out of the present rig - plus changing systems is a major aggravation.
--
Jim

It's hard to say if it is too many. I guess it depends on who you are. D7000 output is superior to my old D300, but 12 to 16 is not such a great jump, and technology moves on. But in spite of all the people who claimed the D7000 was equal in IQ to the D700, I say baloney. If the D800 uses the same technology as the D7000 (doubtful I guess), then I don't believe it will match the D700 for those of us who are amateurs wanting great low light and all the other things that come with FX. I have seen a number of statements about "downsizing a D800 file will give ALMOST the same results". Well, they said that about the D7000. I don't think that was true (though my lack of skill to manipulate might be part of it), and I believe the D800 sensor is supposed to be pretty close to the D7000, just larger. If I have to do all that extra work to get ALMOST as good, I don't see the point. I know I don't want to fool with 36mp.

But there are a boat load of professionals who want this extra resolution, amateurs as well. And I hope they sell a gazillion D800s. That would be a good result for all Nikon users, I think. Possibly improvements in service and firmware updates for all models.

Entire forums posts were dedicated to how the D2x strained the limits of anything Nikon produced, and if you weren't on $5k worth of tripod gear, then you might as well use the D2h. Their might be truth to their assertions, but it didn't stop thousands of people from loving their handheld D2x files.

Now nobody thinks twice with the D300 or even the 17MP D7000 (although there has been grumblings on how the D7k taxes things, but that will subside when the D400 is released with the rumored 24MP).

Then the D3x, now the D800.

Sure, everyone knows that you get the sharpest photos on a steady tripod, no wind, remote release, mirror shutter delay, etc; but this in now way implies that the D800 is going to give crappy/soft results when being handheld (or requiring 1/8000 shutter).

The longer I'm on dPreview, the more it seems the "You don't have lenses that can resolve that resolution anyway!" agrument is nothing more than MP envy. The 4MP crowd was saying it to the 12MP crowd in the D2h vs. D2x days, but when we all went 12MP, nobody was complaining anymore.

Same with the D800. D3x/D3s crowd is going to spout off how irrelevant D800 files are, but when we eventually go 50MP and 408k ISO in 20 years nobody will remember how taxing the D800 was..

BackInTheGame said:

It's hard to say if it is too many. I guess it depends on who you are. D7000 output is superior to my old D300, but 12 to 16 is not such a great jump, and technology moves on. But in spite of all the people who claimed the D7000 was equal in IQ to the D700, I say baloney. If the D800 uses the same technology as the D7000 (doubtful I guess), then I don't believe it will match the D700 for those of us who are amateurs wanting great low light and all the other things that come with FX. I have seen a number of statements about "downsizing a D800 file will give ALMOST the same results". Well, they said that about the D7000. I don't think that was true (though my lack of skill to manipulate might be part of it), and I believe the D800 sensor is supposed to be pretty close to the D7000, just larger. If I have to do all that extra work to get ALMOST as good, I don't see the point. I know I don't want to fool with 36mp.

Click to expand...

Don't worry.

The D800 will have significantly better DR than any previous Nikon and it will handily beat the D700 with lower noise at any ISO and it will give sharper images than any previous Nikon with any lens at any aperture.
--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

when downsampling. With the D800 you have 17MP of data to work with to get down to 12MP.

With the D7000 you only have 5MP to work with when downsampling to a D700 image size.

So on equal print sizes, the "apperent" noise in a photograph is going to look better in the D800 print than the D7000 print -technology being equal- because the D800 has WAY more detail to average out and work with.

Remember, we are talking viewing a print here. Nobody is claiming the D800 is going to best the D700 pixel-per-pixel. The most enthusastic reviewer indicates "As good as", but most are hinting at 2/3 to 1 stop less.

That advantage of the D700 is negated the smaller you print.

With everything I've seen so far, and I'm no expert, so I have no problem if I'm wrong, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say an ISO 3200 shot printed at 8" x 10" on the D800, it will look just as good as a D700 image at the same ISO. Maybe even better at that print size.

Sure, the D700 will have better pixel-to-pixel quality, but to many pro-wedding photographers it's all about the print. @300dpi on a typcial 8x10, nobody is going to notice the D700's pixel advantage stacked up against the D800's resultion/downsampling-average advantage.

And at ISO 100 the 36" print of the D800 is going to be very noticable. (But @ 36" the D800's 3200 ISO shot is going to show some of the noise you guys notice at 100% crops.

Case in point, I remember my D2h's 6400 ISO to be extremely usable for 5x7 candids. The D2x also did AWESOME at ISO 800 on 8x10 prints with little noise reduction added. Those familiar with these cameras will recall that they were FAR WORSE pixel-per-pixel than the D800 is at ISO 3200.

Do I think the D800 equals or bests the D700? No. The tradeoff for this downsampling noise reduction is a whopping 75MB NEF file and 25MB JPGS. For moderate print sizes at high ISO, the D700 is a rockin' kick-butt extremely versitble camera capable of not only sports photography, but also decent landscape work.

Yeah, I agree about small print sizes. I do a lot of that, and actually my V1 isn't to shabby for small prints (not too shabby for anything). Everyone in my family passes those 4x6 prints around like potato chips. But on big screen TVs and larger prints there is just no comparison. A lot of it is DR, I guess, which should be fine with the D800. But I doubt anyone with my expectations would be willing to give up a D700. I will say that it sounds like the D800E would be a lot of fun for hobby shooters like me.

The D800 should be between a stop and a stop and half better than the D7000, about equal to the d700, just based on sensor, not downsizing, I believe there is a post with some tests on the forum already starting to verify that. The D800 is similar to the d7000 technology, but one must take into acount the larger sensor size and a couple of more years of sensor technology.

Move on people at this point you're beating a dead horse with all this 36MP talk.

The new rule is 36MP makes great 8x10 prints. The new myth buster is you don't need new computer equipment to open 36mp files.

Next myth, yes the D800 will out sell the D4 by a wide margin.

The last Myth buster is the D880E is not the worst camera on the planet because the filter is removed.

slimandy said:

I'm a happy D700 user and will not upgrade for several reasons but I was just wondering if anyone is actually put off buying the D800 because it has too many pixels? Nikon have added USB3 to the camera for the first time, but i don't have USB3 on my computer. I don't need bigger files either. Also, some D3x users mentioned their 24m pixel sensors were very demanding of their lenses. Now we have 36m. I'd rather have better high ISO performance and more dynamic range and feel 50% fewer pixels would be better. Nikon have boasted in the past how they didn't worry about keeping up in the pixel race because they can get better IQ with less.

I'm not interested in video and like I said I am happy to stay with my D700 anyway, but I'm curious what people think?
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...

Andy your complaint is unfounded. The D800 is about half a stop better than the D700! Also remember when you downsize and image to 12mp you cut out alot of the noise, another option. The DR is likely to be at least the same or more than the d3x. That's 14stops! What more would you want! The D700 manages 12.2 at base. Wait and see, your complaints are unfounded on this. 36MP might be too much for you but it's a non issue really - you'll get more detail, you can downsize files etc etc. Just keep the D700 but don't tell us that just because it is 36MP that the ISo and DR won't be better than the D700. It clearly is, look at the samples.

knickerhawk said:

In other words, this topic has already been beaten to death in literally dozens of threads since the rumors of a 36mp camera started emerging.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I tend to ignore rumours and wait for facts. I also tend to stick to the lens forum until new bodies are announced.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

260684 said:

Andy your complaint is unfounded.

Click to expand...

It's not a complaint. It's a thought I wanted to discuss.

260684 said:

The D800 is about half a stop better than the D700! Also remember when you downsize and image to 12mp you cut out alot of the noise, another option. The DR is likely to be at least the same or more than the d3x. That's 14stops! What more would you want! The D700 manages 12.2 at base. Wait and see, your complaints are unfounded on this. 36MP might be too much for you but it's a non issue really - you'll get more detail, you can downsize files etc etc. Just keep the D700 but don't tell us that just because it is 36MP that the ISo and DR won't be better than the D700. It clearly is, look at the samples.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the lecture but I wasn't telling you anything, I was asking a question. I have more info and opinion now. I still don't regard it as a non-issue, but thanks for your opinion.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Noone will ever make a camera that suits everybody.

This camera is a more specialised tool than a D700 but landscape and studio photographers will like it. Not such a great travel camera perhaps unless you have a laptop with you that has a very large hard drive

slimandy said:

I'm a happy D700 user and will not upgrade for several reasons but I was just wondering if anyone is actually put off buying the D800 because it has too many pixels? Nikon have added USB3 to the camera for the first time, but i don't have USB3 on my computer. I don't need bigger files either. Also, some D3x users mentioned their 24m pixel sensors were very demanding of their lenses. Now we have 36m. I'd rather have better high ISO performance and more dynamic range and feel 50% fewer pixels would be better. Nikon have boasted in the past how they didn't worry about keeping up in the pixel race because they can get better IQ with less.

I'm not interested in video and like I said I am happy to stay with my D700 anyway, but I'm curious what people think?
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Steve

Strobes are the way to go when I need to really pull that detail out of a shot. And I can't wait to try some strobe setups with that kind of resolution at my disposal..

As someone who travels a lot, I will now not have to bring my Canon handycam along, plus when I do wildlife, birding, I can switch to DX with my telephoto lens for better reach and still end up with 15.4 MP, isn’t that sweet? Well I can't complain. Don't forget you can always shoot a lower MP if you want, so I guess it is a very versatile camera and the price tag is a killer. With this camera Nikon has thrown a spanner in the Canon gear.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bingard/galleries
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38519080@N00/sets/72157594443652688/

Why on earth would you need that? 1000$ would more than suffice, even if you had to replace everything. And odds are that a upgrade of specific components would be enough.

JimPearce said:

I'd need a major computer and storage upgrade - at least $2,000. Of course, Thom Hogan says we'll all need to do that eventually. But in my case I might get another two years out of the present rig - plus changing systems is a major aggravation.
--
Jim

Click to expand...