Quick rebuttal

Slideshow Bob · May 17, 2012

qianp2k said:
I don't underestimate anyone. You know I am not disputing whether D800 has more resolution than 5D3/5D2, not at all, that is a clear fact. I only dispute you have to shoot more carefully and use better technique, use best lenses and tripod to leverage the potential 36mp resolution, in order to look really good when you print big such as beyond 40" wide.

Treat D800 as a MF camera as it already in MF territory. How many serious MF photog if any shoot hand-held? You know the best time to shoot landscape is not under bright noon sunlight but on much dimmer dawn and dusk light so tripod is almost necessary for serious photog to fully leverage 36mp D800 resolution. Sure you can shoot in hand-held and still look nice when print below 30x20" but then you waste D800 capability. My argument is that if you're not a serious photog and willing to lug best equipment around and shoot mostly in hand-held, better to stay with 5D3/5D2 or wait rumored 24mp D600.

Right, but if you're not a serious photographer, why would you own a 5D3? It's more expensive than the D800, and also demands pretty darned good lenses if you want to get the best out of it.

You're approaching this the same way as chironNYC. The assumption that you magically lose 14mp the second you don't hold your D800 rock steady, but maintain 22mp from the 5DIII when holding it the same way, is ridiculous. For the same level of camera shake, you'll get a more detailed photo from the D800, if only because the blur caused by camera shake is motion blur, and (for most reasonable shutter speeds) affects just one direction.

Don't imply that people can't take advantage of the D800's resolution. You might have to work at it to get the full benefit, but people have been working on their technique since the beginning of photography with the same goal in mind. It's not like you can wave a 5DIII around wildly and take pin-sharp 2 second exposures, you know?

SB

qianp2k said:
Silverback1988 said:

I think you make some valid points too in your post.
a blurry photo is more noticeable in high resolution.

And it is not easy to get a high resolution picture even if a high resolution gear is in your hand.

BUT Joe has valid point too.
What he said is true.
I believe you already knew that.

-
Brian

qianp2k said:

You still fail to answer this question - how a blurry 36mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 22mp photo?

I don't think you understand what I said. I don't dispute D800 has more resolution than 5D3, of course. However as DPR said you need faster shutter in order to fully leverage 36mp resolution. For example under a non-ideal light, I can get a sharp 5D3 photo at ISO 200 at 1/20 hand-held while you likely must shoot under ISO 360 at 1/30 (just for an example may not exact number) in order to get similar sharpness when both viewed at 100% cropped. In another words, you need a better technique in order to achieve potential 36mp resolution. If you also shoot D800 in that scenario with ISO 200 at 1/20 you have higher chance to get a blurry photo.

Now assuming we both shoot ISO 200 at 1/20, I have sharp 5D3 photo while you have blurry D800 photo when both viewed at 100% cropped. Can you still say your blurry D800 photo is better than my sharp 5D3 photo, by either downsampling to 22mp or upsampling to 36mp? That's exactly what DPR means,

Can the D800 make good on its pixel count and provide a level of fine detail that trumps its DSLR rivals? It can. We emphasize the word can, because if you're truly after 36MP performance, be prepared to do some work. Flawless technique, fast shutter speeds and top-shelf equipment (particularly lenses and a tripod) along with a low ISO are requirements not options.

You need even more technique to leverage 80mp Mamiya MF camera.

So what this better technique for high pixel camera means? It means in order to have the best possible quality when print big such as 60" from D800, you really need to shoot under faster shutter or on tripod with the nice lens, at the base ISO and optimized F number (such as 5.6). Otherwise you probably waste D800 potential if you only print to 30x20". How many landscape photog using 40-80mp MP camera will shoot in hand-held?

Great Bustard said:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41527329

qianp2k said:

qianp2k said:

What's clear is that, all else equal, 36 MP will never look worse than 22 MP, and will usually look better. How much better depends on many variables.

Click to expand...

No true. You fail to answer this question - how a blurry 36mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 22mp photo?

Click to expand...

Sorry, qianp2k -- all else equal (same lens, same aperture, same sensor size, same relative AA filter strength), more pixels will always resolve more detail than fewer pixels.

For example, a 36 MP sensor will resolve between 0 and 28% more linear detail over a 12 MP sensor -- it will never resolve less (all else equal, of course).

Click to expand...

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

carlk · May 17, 2012

Yes this applies not only to camera shake blur but lens sharpness and diffraction effect as well. The higher resolution sensor will always be better, or at least as good, under the same condition print for print. There are people argue against this because they could not think through clearly and there are also a few people argue against it just for political reasons.

rhlpetrus · May 17, 2012

Great Bustard said:
rhlpetrus said:

qianp2k said:

I cannot believe you start another thread just for that.

You still fail to answer this question - how a blurry 36mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 22mp photo?

I don't think you understand what I said. I don't dispute D800 has more resolution than 5D3, of course. However as DPR said you need faster shutter in order to fully leverage 36mp resolution. For example under a non-ideal light, I can get a sharp 5D3 photo at ISO 200 at 1/20 hand-held while you likely must shoot under ISO 360 at 1/30 (just for an example may not exact number) in order to get similar sharpness when both viewed at 100% cropped. In another words, you need a better technique in order to achieve potential 36mp resolution. If you also shoot D800 in that scenario with ISO 200 at 1/20 you have higher chance to get a blurry photo.

Now assuming we both shoot ISO 200 at 1/20, I have sharp 5D3 photo while you have blurry D800 photo when both viewed at 100% cropped. Can you still say your blurry D800 photo is better than my sharp 5D3 photo, by either downsampling to 22mp or upsampling to 36mp?

Click to expand...

Well, following your reasoning, the D800 will give at least same result at same printing size, and that's absolutely correct, everything else equal. That's it, better or equal, is that ok with you?

Click to expand...

Not only is that OK with me, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Great Bustard said:

Now, in real life, usually there's no equal, since everything is approximate.

Click to expand...

Not everything. If I were taking a photo of a landscape, for example, and it called for 24mm f/5.6 1/200 ISO 100 on a 5D3, I'd shoot the same settings on a D800. What isn't equal is that the Nikkor 14-24 / 2.8G at f/5.6 will resolve considerably better than the Canon 16-35 / 2.8L II at f/5.6. Of course, we can find different pairings of lenses that favor Canon.

Great Bustard said:

Thus, it looks like better is more likely, since you will likely use camera settings not at your exactly limit of steadyness.

Click to expand...

Depends. It's not merely steadiness, but motion, especially in low light. So, as the motion in the scene increases, and the light dims, the advantages of more pixels melt away rather quickly, except inasmuch as more pixels results in a finer "grain" of noise and lends itself to NR (noise reduction) in a more pleasing fashion.

But while more pixels still retain the advantage over fewer pixels for lower light scenes with motion (assuming equally efficient sensors), that advantage is severely curtailed.

For example, at 1/100 ISO 1600, the advantage of the D800 over the 5D3 is basically nill, in terms of pixel count.

That falls into the "equal" part of "better or equal"

.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

rhlpetrus · May 17, 2012

qianp2k said:
rhlpetrus said:

qianp2k wrote:

and that's absolutely correct, everything else equal. That's it, better or equal, is that ok with you?

Click to expand...

Nothing is absolutely. A very blurry FF 36mp photo cannot be better than a sharp 22mp FF photo. You can get better photos from D800 but also you need to spend more efforts as DPR suggested.

Only needed if you want to use all the 14MP of advantage. Intermediate advantages would come from good handheld technique depending on SS used. Why would a 36Mp sensor produce blurrier images than a 22MP one?

qianp2k said:
qianp2k said:

Now, in real life, usually there's no equal, since everything is approximate. Thus, it looks like better is more likely, since you will likely use camera settings not at your exactly limit of steadyness.

Click to expand...

It depends. From serious photog who shoot mostly from tripod D800 will obviously trump 5D3.

True, many serious enthusiatas and many pros would like the opportunity to have that at hand.

qianp2k said:
From casual P&S photog who shoot mostly in hand-held, the difference will be pretty small to print to normal size such as 30x20" or below. I don't think 99% of photog want to print 60" wide will shoot in hand-held.

Casual P&S shooter will buy 3,000 or 3,500 USD bodies and lenses to go with that? Really? Maybe a few, but most people interested in a D800 or a 5D3 are likely people interested in ultimate IQ and other items that these cameras provide. And resolution is just part of that, DR is a big issue for many as well. In both depts the D800 trumps, as you'd say, the 5D3.

That's pretty much clear at this point. Now, that doesn't mean someone invested in Canon lenses has to buy a D800 and start a Nikon system. Just that, for now, Nikon shooters have a nicer tool for those situations where IQ is paramount (not all are interested in that, sure, those have not to worry).

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

gdanmitchell · May 17, 2012

carlk said:
Yes this applies not only to camera shake blur but lens sharpness and diffraction effect as well. The higher resolution sensor will always be better...

Not necessarily. The higher MP camera will be no better for diffraction at smaller apertures. At the right larger aperture with an extremely lens and perfect technique it might be very so slightly better, but only in very marginal circumstances.

As for "camera shake blur," there is no difference among various sensor MP values if you print at the same size. You'll have exactly the same amount of blur.

carlk said:
...or at least as good,

Yes. In terms of the parameters you mention, the higher MP camera will always be at least as good. There is no disadvantage in these areas from more MP.

carlk said:
under the same condition print for print.

Important criterion.

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/u/0/102554407414282880001/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell

Peter 13 · May 17, 2012

gdanmitchell said:
carlk said:

Yes this applies not only to camera shake blur but lens sharpness and diffraction effect as well. The higher resolution sensor will always be better...

Click to expand...

(1) Not necessarily. The higher MP camera will be no better for diffraction at smaller apertures.

gdanmitchell said:
(2) At the right larger aperture with an extremely lens and perfect technique it might be very so slightly better, but only in very marginal circumstances.

(2) contradicts (1).

Great Bustard · May 17, 2012

chironNYC said:
~~No.~~ Yes.

Each of your rebuttals is ~~wrong~~ on the money, really just ~~miss~~ nail the point being made.

Re-read what I wrote and think about it. For example, you DON'T need the same inordinate lengths with 22 mpix that you do with 36. Surely that is obvious to you? Each of your other assertions either assumes away the main point--that different uses may make the extra resolution unattainable without compromising the purpose for which the picture is taken, or adds an obscuring qualification.

More mpix ~~DOES NOT~~ automatically means more resolution, all else equal. How much more, as you've noted countless times before, depends on many factors.

Great Bustard · May 17, 2012

gdanmitchell said:
carlk said:

Yes this applies not only to camera shake blur but lens sharpness and diffraction effect as well. The higher resolution sensor will always be better...

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Necessarily, if by "better" we mean "resolves at least as much detail, all else equal".

gdanmitchell said:
The higher MP camera will be no better for diffraction at smaller apertures.

It will. However, diffraction softening will progressively eat into the resolution advantage as the DOF deepens.

gdanmitchell said:
At the right larger aperture with an extremely lens and perfect technique it might be very so slightly better, but only in very marginal circumstances.

With a very sharp lens, negligible motion blur or camera shake, at apertures not well into diffraction softening, the D800 will resolve up to 28% more linear detail.

gdanmitchell said:
As for "camera shake blur," there is no difference among various sensor MP values if you print at the same size. You'll have exactly the same amount of blur.

The same blur, yes. But that means that the system that began with more detail retains more detail.

gdanmitchell said:
gdanmitchell said:

...or at least as good,

Click to expand...

Yes. In terms of the parameters you mention, the higher MP camera will always be at least as good. There is no disadvantage in these areas from more MP.

More pixels will always result in greater IQ, all else equal. How much more IQ, however, depends greatly on the circumstances.

gdanmitchell said:
gdanmitchell said:

under the same condition print for print.

Click to expand...

Important criterion.

Is there another criterion that matters, in terms of the IQ of the final photo?

chironNYC · May 17, 2012

Pretty stupid response, really. Try again.

Your main point up on top is clearly wrong.

Great Bustard said:
chironNYC said:

~~No.~~ Yes.

Each of your rebuttals is ~~wrong~~ on the money, really just ~~miss~~ nail the point being made.

Re-read what I wrote and think about it. For example, you DON'T need the same inordinate lengths with 22 mpix that you do with 36. Surely that is obvious to you? Each of your other assertions either assumes away the main point--that different uses may make the extra resolution unattainable without compromising the purpose for which the picture is taken, or adds an obscuring qualification.

More mpix ~~DOES NOT~~ automatically means more resolution, all else equal. How much more, as you've noted countless times before, depends on many factors.

Click to expand...

--
Peter

qianp2k · May 17, 2012

Slideshow Bob said:
qianp2k said:

I don't underestimate anyone. You know I am not disputing whether D800 has more resolution than 5D3/5D2, not at all, that is a clear fact. I only dispute you have to shoot more carefully and use better technique, use best lenses and tripod to leverage the potential 36mp resolution, in order to look really good when you print big such as beyond 40" wide.

Treat D800 as a MF camera as it already in MF territory. How many serious MF photog if any shoot hand-held? You know the best time to shoot landscape is not under bright noon sunlight but on much dimmer dawn and dusk light so tripod is almost necessary for serious photog to fully leverage 36mp D800 resolution. Sure you can shoot in hand-held and still look nice when print below 30x20" but then you waste D800 capability. My argument is that if you're not a serious photog and willing to lug best equipment around and shoot mostly in hand-held, better to stay with 5D3/5D2 or wait rumored 24mp D600.

Click to expand...

Right, but if you're not a serious photographer, why would you own a 5D3? It's more expensive than the D800, and also demands pretty darned good lenses if you want to get the best out of it.

You're approaching this the same way as chironNYC. The assumption that you magically lose 14mp the second you don't hold your D800 rock steady, but maintain 22mp from the 5DIII when holding it the same way, is ridiculous. For the same level of camera shake, you'll get a more detailed photo from the D800, if only because the blur caused by camera shake is motion blur, and (for most reasonable shutter speeds) affects just one direction.

Don't imply that people can't take advantage of the D800's resolution. You might have to work at it to get the full benefit, but people have been working on their technique since the beginning of photography with the same goal in mind. It's not like you can wave a 5DIII around wildly and take pin-sharp 2 second exposures, you know?

In a perfect lab such as DPR lab samples or on paper, it's true that with the same technique D800 will get better resolution than 5D3. But in real world that's not quite obvious. It's more likely you'd need better technique in order to show noticeable advantage from D800 over 5D3.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41437180

Although D800 photo is bigger but not necessarily resolve much more fine details over 5d3/5D2 as the above test shows.

5D3 vs D800 in zoo

5D3 with 300L/2.8 IS II @f/2.8 wide open under appears cloudy day
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41382780

D800 with 300G/2.8 VR stop down under bright sunny day. They are bit of oversharpening to me and show some moire.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=41252393

Unfortunately 5D3 zoo photos are too small to judge clearly but in real world D800 advantage is not that quite obvious.

My two pano photos recently from 5D2, hand-held so in less perfect technique. I wait to see how D800 in similar scenario from a regular tourist can knock my photos into water. Due to DPR limit I only can upload 13+ mb size. Original sizes are several times bigger.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1906938/_img_6686-panorama?inalbum=landscape

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1906713/_img_5663-panorama?inalbum=landscape

As DPR said D800 can produce 36mp resolution potential but you'd need perfect technique and more efforts to do that on the purpose of 36mp camera to print and view really big. Otherwise you just waste its potential and not really much better than 22mp 5D3 in real world photo. If you're not serious enough or with most times with less perfect technique then I'd argue much benefits of D800 over 5D3 and rumored 24mp D600 as you might gain benefits from latter two cameras in other areas.

I will bring 500L to zoo tomorrow. I have to prepare now (with a newly purchased pelican 1510 case) I cannot spend too much time in threads. Later...

By the way these are photos from my last visit in the zoo. Yah I am an amateur (not make live on photography) and must take poor photos as said by a few

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=38702551

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

Great Bustard · May 17, 2012

qianp2k said:
As DPR said D800 can produce 36mp resolution potential but you'd need perfect technique and more efforts to do that on the purpose of 36mp camera to print and view really big. Otherwise you just waste its potential and not really much better than 22mp 5D3 in real world photo. If you're not serious enough or with most times with less perfect technique then I'd argue much benefits of D800 over 5D3 and rumored 24mp D600 as you might gain benefits from latter two cameras in other areas.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are numerous non-trivial examples where I wouldn't have to use the D800 with any more care than I use my 5D to get full use of the 36 MP.

Furthermore, even for those times I would have to excercize more care to get full use of the additional pixels, at least that's an option available to me, and regardless of what care I took, I would never get worse results.

It's really that simple.

Great Bustard · May 17, 2012

chironNYC said:
Pretty ~~stupid~~ cool of you to fix my response, really. ~~Try again.~~ Thanks.

Your main point up on top ~~is clearly wrong~~ was crystal clear, I just seem to lack the capacity to understand. But thanks for your efforts.

Rick Knepper · May 17, 2012

gdanmitchell said:
Rick Knepper said:

My jab at it: Given the same surface area e.g. a FF sensor, more pixels per line (horizontal and/or vertical) records more/finer detail at capture due to a finer "resolution" (the non-print big definition of the word).

All any Canon user had to do was compare their 5D to the 5D2 before selling off their 5D

Click to expand...

I kept my 5D when I purchased a 5D2, and I print photographs from both on an in-house Epson 7900, so I think I have a pretty valid basis for comparing the two in the way you describe.

The higher MP camera does, indeed, have the capability to record finer resolution picture data the the lower MP camera. In very carefully shot photographs that taken through a very careful post processing workflow

except when I am not.

But yes, I shoot on a tripod, cable release, MLU, balance my ISO and shutter speed for optimum IQ, blah blah blah.

I thought I was pretty conservative in my comments. Actually, we agree up to this point and I think most newbies should read your previous paragraph several times because, 1.) it is exactly what I said, and 2.) since you have a blog, they may listen to you, but then, they should ignore most of what comes next.

gdanmitchell said:
and then printed very large there are differences that may be visible to a person who knows what to look for and who looks very close. When printing on 13" x 19" paper, very few people would be able to consistently see a difference.

Here's where we deviate. I do not print on paper and the size that I am speaking of may be huge to some, may be tiny to others but with a trained eye you too, Dan, can pick out the additional detail in a 1800x1200 digital image displayed on a professional monitor viewed from 12 to 18 inches away (or closer if I feel the hankering), and I just know that you could.

I don't sell to the untrained masses in curio shops or off a blog. As a non-professional, there is just one consumer I have to satisfy - myself. I'm going to look at these photos, closely, for decades to come. They need to be good, better than good. The easiest thing in the IQ chain to improve is the equipment. Just brandish a CC. Why handcuff your talent and skill with Camera #2.

Before you get all jacked, let's stipulate that Camera # 2 changes when the criteria changes, wouldn't you agree? The criteria in this thread: detail. Canon = #2 - all else being equal. No biggie. So, give it up, man.

gdanmitchell said:
Somewhere around 16" x 24" or so, the differences may start to be more visible to those who look carefully, and I feel much less confident about making a 24" x 36" print from a 5D than from a 5D2.

Do you print at 24" x 36" much? Do you always work very carefully from the tripod? If so higher MP is one of several factors that can make a difference. All else being equal, you can make a print a few inches larger with a 36MP original with the same pixel resolution, so if you shoot in the ways I described you might see the small differences I mentioned if you look carefully at your well-made 30" x 40" prints - assuming impeccable shooting technique.

Print at 30" x 40" very often?

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/u/0/102554407414282880001/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell

--

Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

bigpigbig · May 17, 2012

NOt too long ago most monitors were 1280 pixels wide.

The new 17" MBP will be 3650 pixels wide.

In 3 or four years, the 30" LCD's will be ????? pixels wide.

The shots I was viewing and printing (A4) with my 6MP Canon 10D looked GREAT at the time.

6MP = 300 dpi at A4
16.3MP = 300 dpi at A3
32.8MP = 300 dpi at A2
65.7MP = 300 dpi at A1

My first external fire wire hard drive was 30GB. My first computer had 8mb of REM and I paid $500 for a 128mb RAM card.

In both cases I thought to my self, I'll NEVER need more than this.

Now we have laptops with 16GB of RAM and USB Flash drives at 512GB. CF cards at 64GB. All at fractions of the cost of the originals.

What does the future hold for DSLRs? I am pretty sure it is more megapixels.

qianp2k · May 17, 2012

Great Bustard said:
qianp2k said:

As DPR said D800 can produce 36mp resolution potential but you'd need perfect technique and more efforts to do that on the purpose of 36mp camera to print and view really big. Otherwise you just waste its potential and not really much better than 22mp 5D3 in real world photo. If you're not serious enough or with most times with less perfect technique then I'd argue much benefits of D800 over 5D3 and rumored 24mp D600 as you might gain benefits from latter two cameras in other areas.

Click to expand...

The simple fact of the matter is that there are numerous non-trivial examples where I wouldn't have to use the D800 with any more care than I use my 5D to get full use of the 36 MP.

Furthermore, even for those times I would have to excercize more care to get full use of the additional pixels, at least that's an option available to me, and regardless of what care I took, I would never get worse results.

It's really that simple.

You contradict to yourself to yourself in the precious thread. This is what you said

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=41508912&page=7

"Honestly, the 36 MP vs 22 MP is not a big deal to me. It's just that the D800 is offering 36 MP for $500 less than Canon is offering 22 MP. However, I'm waiting it out a bit -- the rumored 24 MP D600 for $1500 sits very well with me."

So I am a bit of confuse - 36mp is really matter to you or not? You seem can get along with 22mp provided 5D3 is below $3K (I hate that either). Do you must print more than 40" wide (do you have a mansion that can hang many 40-60" wide photos?) and ready to lug tripod and heavy lenses around? If not I really don't think you will benefit significant more resolution from D800 over 5D3/5D2. If you only print to 30x20" or below, then extra 14mp is basically wasted. You actually benefit more from 22/21mp as you can shoot faster, store more photos in memory cards and hard disks and process faster in computer. These are real benefits than bogus extra 14mp.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

qianp2k · May 17, 2012

The only problem is that human eyes cannot resolve much more in a 30" or even 40" monitor with these much higher resolution. You'd need 60" monitor probably but you have a limited space in real world. I read the news recently that Panasonic is developing 4K resolution ultra HDTV. However to leverage that resolution, you'd need a large, really large TV set in your home. Right, prepare 152" TV

http://www.buy.com/videoclip/panasonic-ultra-hd-152-plasma-hdtv-d-series-led-lcd-vier/77388.html

bigpigbig said:
NOt too long ago most monitors were 1280 pixels wide.

The new 17" MBP will be 3650 pixels wide.

In 3 or four years, the 30" LCD's will be ????? pixels wide.

The shots I was viewing and printing (A4) with my 6MP Canon 10D looked GREAT at the time.

6MP = 300 dpi at A4
16.3MP = 300 dpi at A3
32.8MP = 300 dpi at A2
65.7MP = 300 dpi at A1

My first external fire wire hard drive was 30GB. My first computer had 8mb of REM and I paid $500 for a 128mb RAM card.

In both cases I thought to my self, I'll NEVER need more than this.

Now we have laptops with 16GB of RAM and USB Flash drives at 512GB. CF cards at 64GB. All at fractions of the cost of the originals.

What does the future hold for DSLRs? I am pretty sure it is more megapixels.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

Great Bustard · May 17, 2012

qianp2k said:
qianp2k said:

qianp2k said:

As DPR said D800 can produce 36mp resolution potential but you'd need perfect technique and more efforts to do that on the purpose of 36mp camera to print and view really big. Otherwise you just waste its potential and not really much better than 22mp 5D3 in real world photo. If you're not serious enough or with most times with less perfect technique then I'd argue much benefits of D800 over 5D3 and rumored 24mp D600 as you might gain benefits from latter two cameras in other areas.

Click to expand...

The simple fact of the matter is that there are numerous non-trivial examples where I wouldn't have to use the D800 with any more care than I use my 5D to get full use of the 36 MP.

Furthermore, even for those times I would have to excercize more care to get full use of the additional pixels, at least that's an option available to me, and regardless of what care I took, I would never get worse results.

It's really that simple.

Click to expand...

You contradict to yourself to yourself in the precious thread. This is what you said
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=41508912&page=7

"Honestly, the 36 MP vs 22 MP is not a big deal to me. It's just that the D800 is offering 36 MP for $500 less than Canon is offering 22 MP. However, I'm waiting it out a bit -- the rumored 24 MP D600 for $1500 sits very well with me."

So I am a bit of confuse

...I know.

qianp2k said:
36mp is really matter to you or not?

It is as I wrote:

not all that important, but, for $500 less than 22 MP, I'll take 36 MP over 22 MP.

qianp2k said:
You seem can get along with 22mp provided 5D3 is below $3K (I hate that either).

Yes. Even better with the rumored Nikon D600 at 24 MP.

qianp2k said:
Do you must print more than 40" wide (do you have a mansion that can hang many 40-60" wide photos?) and ready to lug tripod and heavy lenses around?

The largest I print is 20x30 inches, and, as I keep telling you, over and over and over and over and over, there are many non-trivial types of photos for which I can make good use of the greater pixels count, but even for the worst situation, I will never be at a disadvantage with more pixels (all else equal) in terms of IQ.

qianp2k said:
If not I really don't think you will benefit significant more resolution from D800 over 5D3/5D2. If you only print to 30x20" or below, then extra 14mp is basically wasted.

As I explained and calculated for you earlier:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41541047

some might see a benefit in 247 PPI vs 192 PPI. So, while 200 PPI might be all you need...

qianp2k said:
You actually benefit more from 22/21mp as you can shoot faster, store more photos in memory cards and hard disks and process faster in computer. These are real benefits than bogus extra 14mp.

I take one photo at a time. The number of times I've fired off even three shots in quick succession, I can count on one hand. For others, however, the increased frame rate of the 5D3 over the D800 may be worth the extra $500. However, in that case, I'd think the 1D4 to be more their speed.

Remember, I am not saying the D800 is better than the 5D3 in every way. I am merely saying that more pixels results in greater IQ, all else equal. So, try to keep on topic, if you would.

Ergo, no contradiction. Only more confusion on your part.

Great Bustard · May 17, 2012

rhlpetrus said:
rhlpetrus said:

rhlpetrus said:

Thus, it looks like better is more likely, since you will likely use camera settings not at your exactly limit of steadyness.

Click to expand...

Depends. It's not merely steadiness, but motion, especially in low light. So, as the motion in the scene increases, and the light dims, the advantages of more pixels melt away rather quickly, except inasmuch as more pixels results in a finer "grain" of noise and lends itself to NR (noise reduction) in a more pleasing fashion.

But while more pixels still retain the advantage over fewer pixels for lower light scenes with motion (assuming equally efficient sensors), that advantage is severely curtailed.

For example, at 1/100 ISO 1600, the advantage of the D800 over the 5D3 is basically nill, in terms of pixel count.

Click to expand...

That falls into the "equal" part of "better or equal" .

Yes. Another situation where the advantage of a D800 over a 5D3 is basically nil is deep DOF macro. Then again, the advantage of either over a crop DSLR is essentially nil for that, as well.

However, for the vast majority of shooting situations, the D800 will have an IQ advantage over the 5D3. How large of an advantage will vary as a function of the scene and lens used, and how important that advantage is will vary as a function of the display size of the photo and the QT (quality threshold) of the viewer. But at no time will the IQ of the D800 be at a disadvantage compared to the 5D3 on the basis of pixel size.

The funny thing is that the pixel increase from the 5D to the 5D2 is the same as from the 5D3 to the D800. Yet, the 5D2 seemed to suffer none of these issues compared to the 5D, yet, apparently, there are those that are convinced that the D800 will somehow suffer where the 5D2 did not.

I wonder why.

amobi · May 17, 2012

Great Bustard said:
Faintandfuzzy said:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

We've always seen this going to higher MP cameras. I noticed is when moving from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2, and from the 40D to the 7D.

And by now, I'd hope realize that Qianp2k knowledge base is extremely limited. I'm surprised you even took the time to reply to him.

Click to expand...

Look who is talking. You are one confused fellow.

Click to expand...

amobi you're almost as clueless as qianp2k but you're still way better than him. Support of him will do nothing but pull yourself down a full level lower.

Click to expand...

While I rarely agree with Amobi, he at least is out in the trenches doing photography. It may be only a few times a year, I don't know, but at least he has to think on his feet and produce a body of work for each event. With that comes the experience of running a business, post processing, use of a variety of gear, etc. For that I can respect him. Qianp2k is just some recent hobbyist who seems to think that because his day job can afford him a few cameras, he's now in a position to talk above and beyond those doing it for a living with a great deal of experience. That is why I don't read his posts any longer...they never offer anything of value.

Click to expand...

FIrst up, yes, amobi is a talented photographer -- I enjoy his work. That said, being a talented photographer and technically competent, are, for the most part, independent.

That is, there are extremely talented photographers who say the most silly things, and and extemely knowledgable people who couldn't take a decent photo to save their life, and everywhere inbetween.

Just as a movie critic need not be able to produce, direct, or act to give an insightful review of a movie, and just as a producer, director, and/or actor can sound like a complete moron when talking about a great movie.

I mean, there has to be some level of technical competence, of course. But it's simple to see how a talented photographer can make the easy mistake of confusing 100% view of a photo with the quality of the photo as a whole, and coming to a completely incorrect conclusion, avoiding high MP cameras as a result, yet still producing spectacular photos with lesser equipment.

I work for IBM as a software Engineer out here in Research Triangle Park. I have been with IBM for over 8 years and before that I worked for SAS institute as business computer programmer and briefly for Caterpillar as a Product Engineer. As you can see I am not as dumb as I sound.

Just because I don't like to get involved in this type of technical discussion does not make me technically incompetent. All I have to say is that after playing with D800 and 5DIII all day today, when my D800 arrives I will designate it to backup. I don't care about DXO rating and all that technically stuff. 5DIII is a more rounded camera with superb AF.

BTW as far as I am concerned Qianp2k is very very talented guy. I enjoyed his pictures a lot. Carl is also good but not even close to Qianp2k talent. Carl is also very close minded. Faintandfuzzy fits into those knowledgeable people who couldn't take a decent photo to save their life, and everywhere in between. The guy is just terrible.

Great Buster I can't argue with you. You are the master. I pick my fights.

Logos007 · May 17, 2012

Just sold all my D7oo with all lenses for waiting and then upgrading, so i might be one of those rare photographers you mentioned.

Think i will buy the 5DMK3 because i mostly shoot handheld and cannot benefit of 36MP, will be better served with 22MP. And: the range of Canon-lenses seems to be better for me: 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 F4 IS. Nikon cannot deliver the same quality at this prize. The 24-120 of Nikon is much worse compared to the 24-105 of Canon.

And: Hate two things combined with the D800: the crumbled sky (reminds me on crop-sensors) and the greenish cast. Think, the Canon-colours are more pleasing.
--
http://www.whitewall.com/Logos

Quick rebuttal

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts