The D800, a case for the higher resolution

Started Feb 17, 2013 | Discussions
Chad Gladstone Senior Member • Posts: 2,608
The D800, a case for the higher resolution
6

I am a long time Nikon shooter and I (self admittedly) try an capture the best technical images I can.  I agonize over every lens and body trying to capture the the most I can with the equipment I can afford.  I read the lens reviews and compare the resolving potential of each lens and make painful compromises in balancing sharpness, bokeh, contrast, flare resistance, CA, focus acquisition speed, distortions, price and the like in lens purchases, and likewise, hypothetical sensor performance, dynamic range, moire management, feature set, price, etc., in body purchases and readily accept that all acquisitions represent a series of compromises.  Once in a while, however, a revolutionary product is revealed that dramatically alters the long held benchmarks and accustomed industry standards.  Enter the much maligned D800 and its polarizing 36mp sensor.

I have been reading threads here for a couple of weeks now where many experienced photographers have been promoting the idea the shooting a D800 is not advantageous and bodies with less resolving power would be better tailored for a given set of shooting circumstance or shooter mandated criteria.  I am having some serious difficulty assimilating how such guidance could be accurate (with respect to sensor performance), given both the empirical evidence the appears to contradict these assertions (DXO labs,etc) and my own quixotic observations that likewise suggest that whether upsizing or downsizing, the sensor capable of resolving more lines of resolutions will always provide a qualitatively superior starting point, as a blank canvas, to begin the journey from initial capture, to the artist's vision of what the image could become.  For the sake of academic discussion, I am proposing to deliberately throw out the miscalibrated AF issues that could skew the data exhibited by some early adopters of the D800 and "focus" on why anyone would deliberately desire to capture less information from their image than what they otherwise could with a higher capacity sensor.

Many here have advocated purchasing bodies with less resolution in their native raw files are desirable over the higher capacity D800.  They refer to workflow efficiency and file management and other well reasoned and articulate arguments in support of their conclusions, but I contend that, in an era where processing power and memory is so nominally accessible, compromising detail and flexibility in their original captures is extremely short sighted.

I would love other thoughts on this as I marvel at the possibilities the D800 files promise to provide,  Even if, for now, I am only scratching the surface of what is possible with versatility of what the sensor is capable of providing.

The question remains why would anyone recommend a body that delivers less native resolution?  I would like to know because it seems so counterintuative to me when we spend our resources so freely in acquiring the finest optics we can afford.  To then deliberately compromise the lenses available resolution by electing to use bodies incapable of taxing their potential for substantially greater performance appears self negating.

-- hide signature --

Chad Gladstone

 Chad Gladstone's gear list:Chad Gladstone's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +7 more
Nikon D800
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Biological_Viewfinder Senior Member • Posts: 2,207
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution

I think that you kind of go way too far into trying to be impressive sounding without being impressive at all. What you should have done was go out and gather that data and show everyone visually how DXO etc values the D800/e cameras.

However, I do wonder about people who abuse the one and only denominator that seperates the D800 from EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET by purposefully reducing that file size!!! I just can't understand the logic. (Well, there was one chap who said that the extended focal length modifier to DX helped him focus on his birding more, so I guess there's that 1 single logical ideal).

And don't even get me started on video. Can you imagine how useless the D800 video is going to seem compared to now after just a couple camera body generations? The dedicated video cameras don't feel that sort of disintergration of usabllity at all. That's because they are built specifically for video. It amazes me that gearheads UTTERLY REFUSE to appreciate this. They will defend the video properties of a dSLR to their death; but the actual reality is that it's a still camera with video capabilities in its infancy. They will certainly get better; but right now it's poop on a stick.

I almost never use the full resolution of the D800 in post-processing. I mean, you would have to print at 20x30 to do so!!!!! But the D800 is also extremely color accurate, and the contrast is amazing beyond most anything I've ever used. I enjoy the ability to know though, that I could print any small area of my image to an 8x10 pretty readily, and that if I did want to print large that I could print upto 48" without losing so much that people would start to see pixelation at normal standing to wall room distances.

I think most of the people who own a D800 don't even begin to understand it's capability. THey merely purchased a toy because it was such a completely hot ticket item at the time. I mean the hype over that camera was higher than anything I've ever known. It was crazy!!!! People were waiting for 4-6 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to own that thing!!!!!!!

I think the reality is that only a few people out of a thousand even begin to start using that camera to its fullest potential. The rest, well they just click and enjoy happy accidents.

-- hide signature --

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

gl2k
gl2k Veteran Member • Posts: 3,232
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution
8

Why would anybody not want to buy a Dodge RAM 3500 ? Isn't it shortsighted to buy a smaller car if you can get this behemoth ?

Ah well ... hmm ... let me guess ... maybe I DON'T NEED IT !!!

The same goes for the D800. What YOU need/want could be quite far from what I need/want. If the D800 is soooo great why bother with a D4 anyway ??? Hmm,  let me guess again ... ahh

  • maybe I need 10 fps
  • maybe I'm shooting for newspapers or websites only requiring abysmal low resolutions.
  • maybe I need an even more weatherproof and sturdy body
  • maybe I like the illuminated buttons and controls
  • maybe I want 400k cycles shutter
  • maybe I want a built-in ethernet port

Your post suggests that more resolution is always better. Truth couldn't be farther from that. The camera that gives me the best compromise of features is the most suited for me.

Robin Casady Forum Pro • Posts: 12,898
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution
9

A photographer that makes his/her money on volume will find high resolution a burden. A photographer who makes his/her money be producing high quality will find the D800 something to celebrate.

-- hide signature --

Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
— Bertrand Russell

OP Chad Gladstone Senior Member • Posts: 2,608
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution
1

Biological_Viewfinder wrote:

I think that you kind of go way too far into trying to be impressive sounding without being impressive at all. What you should have done was go out and gather that data and show everyone visually how DXO etc values the D800/e cameras.

I didn't mean to try and sound impressive, I just wanted to spark a discussion on how we fixate over obtaining the best lenses and yet appear exclamatory in advocating to others the sufficiency of bodies with lesser capable raw producing sensors - A point that you so emphatically stated - "as the single denominator that separates the D800 from everything else."  Even when downsizing, cropping and printing smaller than native resolution, this still exploits the major advantage that the D800 sensor more fully utilizes -  extreme file latitude - in cleaner, higher resolution images, irrespective of the output size.

We finally have access to a sensor so damned good I want to recapture all the images I shot for the past 8 years and yet there is a large contingent here that continue to advocate that since no one in their right mind is printing 20X30 images (or larger) on a consistent basis, the D800 is overkill.

It is just the first DSLR with a new generation of sensors that are finally accurate enough to expose all the other weaknesses in the system that we never knew we had.   CDAF tolerances that are "within specification," that are just not good enough anymore, poor implementation of the ultra low resolution live view masking discovery of previously latent focus errors readily apparent with high resolution monitors, focus throws too short for precision focus accuracy in MF, and the like, and line skipping video that is barely usable compared with the capacity of the sensor.

Simply using a less demanding sensor to blind the consumer is just not going to cut it much longer, even if that seems to be the conventional wisdom pronounced here regularly.  I know this is ancillary to the original discussion, but the problems are not going to go away.  I wonder if the corporate culture at Nikon has the capacity to quell the proverbial tide before consumers begin to realize that this is not about quality control, it is about the technology rapidly outpacing the critical system infrastructure and corporate ambivalence that is not just Nikon's problem, but rather industry wide.  Nikon just seems more vunerable because of their lack of diversification.

To the original discussion, embrace the higher resolution and preserve all the data the D800 has to offer.  Complacency in free markets leads to corporate demise and the consumer contentment with low resolution sensors will soon be eclipsed...when we figure out a usefulness for and how to market these ultra high resolution images.  Until then, we can continue to downsize them to our instagram accounts with some pithy comments and update our status and profile pictures on facebook.  Now if I can just get genuine fractals to get rid of the pixels for my 100X100 pixel web images without those troublesome sharpening halos.

However, I do wonder about people who abuse the one and only denominator that seperates the D800 from EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET by purposefully reducing that file size!!! I just can't understand the logic. (Well, there was one chap who said that the extended focal length modifier to DX helped him focus on his birding more, so I guess there's that 1 single logical ideal).

And don't even get me started on video. Can you imagine how useless the D800 video is going to seem compared to now after just a couple camera body generations? The dedicated video cameras don't feel that sort of disintergration of usabllity at all. That's because they are built specifically for video. It amazes me that gearheads UTTERLY REFUSE to appreciate this. They will defend the video properties of a dSLR to their death; but the actual reality is that it's a still camera with video capabilities in its infancy. They will certainly get better; but right now it's poop on a stick.

I almost never use the full resolution of the D800 in post-processing. I mean, you would have to print at 20x30 to do so!!!!! But the D800 is also extremely color accurate, and the contrast is amazing beyond most anything I've ever used. I enjoy the ability to know though, that I could print any small area of my image to an 8x10 pretty readily, and that if I did want to print large that I could print upto 48" without losing so much that people would start to see pixelation at normal standing to wall room distances.

I think most of the people who own a D800 don't even begin to understand it's capability. THey merely purchased a toy because it was such a completely hot ticket item at the time. I mean the hype over that camera was higher than anything I've ever known. It was crazy!!!! People were waiting for 4-6 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to own that thing!!!!!!!

I think the reality is that only a few people out of a thousand even begin to start using that camera to its fullest potential. The rest, well they just click and enjoy happy accidents.

-- hide signature --

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

-- hide signature --

Chad Gladstone

 Chad Gladstone's gear list:Chad Gladstone's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +7 more
BassFisher
BassFisher Regular Member • Posts: 425
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution
2

It's a tool. You buy a tool to suit the job. You don't buy a screwdriver to hammer in a nail, but then you don't buy a sledge hammer either. On the other hand you could purchase a nail gun.

-- hide signature --

BillD
Sydney, Australia
Time is the only thing I don't have enough of.

 BassFisher's gear list:BassFisher's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR XF 90mm Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +5 more
OP Chad Gladstone Senior Member • Posts: 2,608
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution

gl2k wrote:

Why would anybody not want to buy a Dodge RAM 3500 ? Isn't it shortsighted to buy a smaller car if you can get this behemoth ?

Ah well ... hmm ... let me guess ... maybe I DON'T NEED IT !!!

The same goes for the D800. What YOU need/want could be quite far from what I need/want. If the D800 is soooo great why bother with a D4 anyway ??? Hmm, let me guess again ... ahh

  • maybe I need 10 fps
  • maybe I'm shooting for newspapers or websites only requiring abysmal low resolutions.
  • maybe I need an even more weatherproof and sturdy body
  • maybe I like the illuminated buttons and controls
  • maybe I want 400k cycles shutter
  • maybe I want a built-in ethernet port

Your post suggests that more resolution is always better. Truth couldn't be farther from that. The camera that gives me the best compromise of features is the most suited for me.

I was inadvertent in compartmentalizing the contingent of working professionals who visit here occasionally.  Your comments are extremely well received.  I suspect the files you are working with are often too large and burdensome as it is.  Thank you for your insight.

-- hide signature --

Chad Gladstone

 Chad Gladstone's gear list:Chad Gladstone's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +7 more
marcio_napoli Senior Member • Posts: 1,251
Different opinions...
6

It pretty much goes like that:

If you just shoot, get back home, and develop your shots in Lightroom or whatever, and your work is done, you'll love the D800.

As the OP pointed out, buy a fast pc and you're done. Memory cards and hd are also cheap.

But for any kind of work that requires manual work (I mean, a guy looking at a giant monitor retouching for hours the skin of a model), the D800 files are painful.

Let's not talk vaporware here, let me provide figures:

I normally shoot fashion with a D700 and a 22mp Leaf Aptus digital back, and a while ago I used a 31mp Hasselblad.

D700 files usually takes me 30 min each shot, to manually clean all imperfections on the skin.

22mp Lead files takes me 45 min.

31mp Hasselblad took me over an hour per shot (1 hour and 10 min, most of the time).

So it's all about time saving? No, it's way more than that.

It I spend so much time retouching 36mp shots, I will have my daily production capability decreased.

I will also get (even more) tired by the end of the day.

I will also have respnded less emails, and made less business connections, once I spent almost the whole day looking at a Photoshop screen.

If I send these files to third party retouching houses, they will ask me larger deadlines and possibly more money too, because they will suffer to retouch these huge files as much as I do.

So, where does that "36mp benefit" leaves us? I really don't know. For a guy like me, I believe backwards.

22 - 24 mp is my personal maximum.

Please note, I do plan to upgrade to the D800 this year, but I'm totally sure I'll always convert the files in Lightroom to a lesser resolution, for the above reasons.

So the D800 may be Heaven sent for many folks.

But for others, like me, it's just the "only" upgrade path we have, but not exactly what we wanted.

-- hide signature --

Marcio Napoli

www.marcionapoli.com

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,992
Re: Different opinions...

I think the idea of having overhead for PP is a godsent. 
Which does nothing for file size(if that's an issue) and in this case, added system sludge(FPS etc). Though I can see where the added resolution could come in handy for studio work should the need arise. Otherwise, I'll likely resample from RAW.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,992
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution

Chad Gladstone wrote:

The question remains why would anyone recommend a body that delivers less native resolution? I would like to know because it seems so counterintuative to me when we spend our resources so freely in acquiring the finest optics we can afford. To then deliberately compromise the lenses available resolution by electing to use bodies incapable of taxing their potential for substantially greater performance appears self negating.

High performance
File handling improvements
Editing restrictions

On the optical side of things, I'd say there's a divide between optimum image quality and sensor resolution. ie, there is more than resolution at work in image characteristics.

-- hide signature --

This is where I'd normally write an impressive summary of my skills and proficiencies.

Biological_Viewfinder Senior Member • Posts: 2,207
Alright Chad
1

I think we're both right and wrong about the same things, which is okay.

I would say though that most people who own the D800 shouldn't own it. They wanted it merely because the hype machine for the camera was at a higher fever pitch than anything that has been witnessed in over a decade for a camera. And so they purchased it, not even knowing what they were buying. AND THEN!!!!!, they cried about file sizes and AF this and LCD that.

Meanwhile, people who understood the camera for what it was were out taking incredible pictures. It isn't that they did not experience the problems others did, but they certainly weren't crying like little kids who wanted a double-scoop vanilla/chocolate mint and didn't know the mint was part of the chocolate and were angry the color was green instead of brown. I MEAN it was and still is really that pathetic!

-- hide signature --

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

moving_comfort
moving_comfort Veteran Member • Posts: 8,205
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution
2

Biological_Viewfinder wrote:

I think that you kind of go way too far into trying to be impressive sounding without being impressive at all.

He actually articulated his point very well.

However, I do wonder about people who abuse the one and only denominator that seperates the D800 from EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET by purposefully reducing that file size!!!

If you're talking about downsampling, well, you've been this road several times IIRC, but in short, for others' benefit:  every time you print or display at less than native resolution you're downsampling.  36MP gives you a lot of raw material to do that - a great 'starting point' as the OP put it.

.

I just can't understand the logic.

We know.

.

I almost never use the full resolution of the D800 in post-processing. I mean, you would have to print at 20x30 to do so!!!!!

So you downsample, in other words.  

.

-- hide signature --

Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 moving_comfort's gear list:moving_comfort's gear list
Pentax K20D Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D +10 more
moving_comfort
moving_comfort Veteran Member • Posts: 8,205
a case for the higher resolution in the same body
1

gl2k wrote:

Why would anybody not want to buy a Dodge RAM 3500 ? Isn't it shortsighted to buy a smaller car if you can get this behemoth ?

Ah well ... hmm ... let me guess ... maybe I DON'T NEED IT !!!

The same goes for the D800. What YOU need/want could be quite far from what I need/want. If the D800 is soooo great why bother with a D4 anyway ??? Hmm, let me guess again ... ahh

  • maybe I need 10 fps
  • maybe I'm shooting for newspapers or websites only requiring abysmal low resolutions.
  • maybe I need an even more weatherproof and sturdy body
  • maybe I like the illuminated buttons and controls
  • maybe I want 400k cycles shutter
  • maybe I want a built-in ethernet port

Your post suggests that more resolution is always better. Truth couldn't be farther from that. The camera that gives me the best compromise of features is the most suited for me.

.

I may be wrong but I think Chad (OP) was talking about less resolution all else being equal, meaning less resolution in the same D800 body - why would anyone want that. "Because I don't need it" sounds shortsighted in that scenario, perhaps.

If you want a D4 for the body & perf advantages it has over a D800, that's understandable, but wasn't what the OP meant.

In the cases where the extra MP cause real deficiencies in other areas in tradeoff, like when FPS is truly needed or manual pixel-level editing needs to be done, the "I don't need it" translates into "I could use it, but I personally need those other things more," and that's quite legit.

.

-- hide signature --

Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 moving_comfort's gear list:moving_comfort's gear list
Pentax K20D Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D +10 more
AZBlue
AZBlue Senior Member • Posts: 1,063
Re: Different opinions...

marcio_napoli wrote:

It pretty much goes like that:

If you just shoot, get back home, and develop your shots in Lightroom or whatever, and your work is done, you'll love the D800.

As the OP pointed out, buy a fast pc and you're done. Memory cards and hd are also cheap.

But for any kind of work that requires manual work (I mean, a guy looking at a giant monitor retouching for hours the skin of a model), the D800 files are painful.

Let's not talk vaporware here, let me provide figures:

I normally shoot fashion with a D700 and a 22mp Leaf Aptus digital back, and a while ago I used a 31mp Hasselblad.

D700 files usually takes me 30 min each shot, to manually clean all imperfections on the skin.

22mp Lead files takes me 45 min.

31mp Hasselblad took me over an hour per shot (1 hour and 10 min, most of the time).

So it's all about time saving? No, it's way more than that.

It I spend so much time retouching 36mp shots, I will have my daily production capability decreased.

I will also get (even more) tired by the end of the day.

I will also have respnded less emails, and made less business connections, once I spent almost the whole day looking at a Photoshop screen.

If I send these files to third party retouching houses, they will ask me larger deadlines and possibly more money too, because they will suffer to retouch these huge files as much as I do.

So, where does that "36mp benefit" leaves us? I really don't know. For a guy like me, I believe backwards.

22 - 24 mp is my personal maximum.

Please note, I do plan to upgrade to the D800 this year, but I'm totally sure I'll always convert the files in Lightroom to a lesser resolution, for the above reasons.

So the D800 may be Heaven sent for many folks.

But for others, like me, it's just the "only" upgrade path we have, but not exactly what we wanted.

-- hide signature --

Marcio Napoli

www.marcionapoli.com

I also re-touch my photos, have been a graphic designer for over 15 years and do extensive work in Photoshop. I don't understand how touching-up skin tones on a 36 MP file takes you longer than with a smaller file. The process is exactly the same, the software works just as quickly with both types of files, the only difference is in the time it takes to save the files. Where is the extra time you talk about?

-- hide signature --

"I've been in more laps than a napkin" - Mae West

 AZBlue's gear list:AZBlue's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +1 more
marcio_napoli Senior Member • Posts: 1,251
Re: Different opinions...

Hi AZBlue,

Well, I might guess we go for different retouching tools or routines, because the larger the files, the more time consuming it is for me.

I always use the clone tool at 100% viewing screen (more often than not at 200%), and go manually from one skin imperfection to the next.

If you have an extremely detailed, 36mp image, the image itself contains tons of added details.

With such level of details, of course, you also get more detailed skin imperfections. In this 36 mp scenario, you get a great deal more of things to clean up.

I must be extra careful to retouch so many imperfections that didn't show up in the 12 mp image, in the first place.

Extra care means extra time spent.

On the other hand, whenever I retouch my older cameras files (6 and 10 mp), I experience a faster workflow.

A 6mp file takes me no longer than 20 minutes to finish, for example.

But naturally, we must use different techniques, and I understand for some of them, image resolution may not impact time spent.

-- hide signature --

Marcio Napoli

www.marcionapoli.com

Arretose Senior Member • Posts: 1,093
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution
1

Some of us were all happy accidents at one time or another!

Biological_Viewfinder wrote:

I think the reality is that only a few people out of a thousand even begin to start using that camera to its fullest potential. The rest, well they just click and enjoy happy accidents.


robertfel Contributing Member • Posts: 767
Re: Different opinions...

marcio_napoli wrote:

22 - 24 mp is my personal maximum.

If 24MP saves you time and is your maximum, just resize the D800 file before you retouch, problem solved.

I need lots of resolution because sometimes my clients ask me to zoom in on a very specific area after the fact.

 robertfel's gear list:robertfel's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +10 more
anotherMike Veteran Member • Posts: 8,689
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution
2

I think the concept of diminishing returns has something to do with it (suggesting or using lower rez bodies). At some point, along this ever flattening curve of returns, I think one has to decide when good enough is good enough. I mean, are you going to dump your Nikon gear later on when Canon one-ups us in the resolution game (most likely) with a 40+ mp Canon body just because it has a barely perceptible increase in megapixels, and then dump that newly funded Canon gear to get, say, a D4X or D5X or whatever that then again has a marginal increase? It wouldn't make much sense. I tend to view the curve of returns as having plateaus where are places one can "sit" for lack of a better word. Most photographers who are not excessively cropping or printing large on a regular basis can (and were) satisfied with their 12mp output. Those who printed larger or shot scenes with fine detail went to what I'd say is the next plateau, which the Canon 5D-II got a lot of user, around the 21-24mp mark. Of course at the current time the D800E represents the next plateau, but I'm not so sure the magnitude of difference between plateau #2 (24mp or so) and the D800 is anywhere as much of a jump as going from the 1st (12mp) to the 2nd (24mp or so). As a D800E owner, I can tell you that to really, truly, honestly extract all the resolution the body is capable of in terms of a resolution ceiling, let's say, isn't easy and doesn't occur automatically. If you're mostly shooting at F/11 or so, deep into the land of diffraction on that body, you're already tossing a good part of that resolution away. However, if you're doing some focus stacking and/or aperture bracketing, trying to live within the apertures around F/7.1 or so, then you will take advantage. But then again, whether you see this on print depends on the subject matter (how much fine detail does the scene really contain - the seascape vs mountain scene with flower/grass blades example I often give) and how big are you printing. At some point the extra resolution of the d800 just isn't going to be utilized. What I *do* think is important is the DR, particularly in the shadows. This is why I think a D600 or D800 is a better option than the Canon counterparts - more room to play, so to speak, with the cleaner shadows. My personal belief is that for a large majority of shooters, that 2nd plateau of resolution, combined with excellent DR, is the sweet spot for the modern day landscape shooter who prints, say, 20x30 or somewhat larger on a regular basis. Yes, the D800 can go bigger, but how often? At some point one has to get off the resolution war train once they hit a point that suffices for them. I'm actually going to be interested to see the reactions in Nikon land when Canon one-ups us on the resolution front - it will to me be sort of a litmus test for the maturity level of the photographers. Many will hop over or complain and whine why Nikon won't match or beat them, when in reality many who are doing that aren't even getting everything out of the camera they own today.

But I see the point of your post. Assuming a photographer whose skill level is at a high point, who has large print/fine detail needs, and who has good glass matched up to the types of work (and distances) he shoots at, the d800 makes sense (assuming of course they don't need the advantages of, say, a D4, so we're probably talking landscape shooters here). But I think you'd be surprised at how many people operate at that level, or need to. I'm pretty advanced technically, and I'm not so sure I wouldn't have gotten a D600 if it had come out prior to the 800 myself. I probably would have rather spent the money on more/better lenses at that time (and remember that lens performance is MORE than just resolution, which is why so many get misled by only looking at test site performance graphs of said lenses, and thus, you're still better off with an excellent lens on a 24mp body than a kit lens on a 36mp body in terms of image quality aspects outside of sharpness)

Interesting topic. Busy day ahead, probably won't be able to participate in it, but it's nice to see something here besides the carpet-bomber troll threads where someone from the other brands comes in to slam Nikon or the endless flow of oil/focus/impact damage Nikon threads. Have fun with it.

-m

phipop Contributing Member • Posts: 546
Re: The D800, a case for the higher resolution

hello

i will buy a d800 next month.

i could have a d600 instead, but i hate spots on pictures.

I will use it with a zeiss 35 f:2 mainly and i am not very experienced!

And for my kind of pictures it is not necessary at all (see phipop com if you want) but i want it.

What i would like to see is this please :

_______________

I think the reality is that only a few people out of a thousand even begin to start using that camera to its fullest potential. The rest, well they just click and enjoy happy accidents

Meanwhile, people who understood the camera for what it was were out taking incredible pictures.

-- hide signature --

____________________________

please tell me where i can see them, no pictures of dogs cats or babys or waterfalls(i like them all but...) or please write links where i can see incredible pictures with d800.

thanks in advance

Philippe

Thank you ! http://www.phipop.com/phipop/A11/A11p/phipop_dp.jpg

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 53,195
Re: Different opinions...
1

marcio_napoli wrote:

Hi AZBlue,

Well, I might guess we go for different retouching tools or routines, because the larger the files, the more time consuming it is for me.

I always use the clone tool at 100% viewing screen (more often than not at 200%), and go manually from one skin imperfection to the next.

If you have an extremely detailed, 36mp image, the image itself contains tons of added details.

You know, that is where it begins to make no sense. What you are saying is that you choose to work at a much higher resolution on the D800, therefore it takes you longer. If 100% on a D700 works for you, then why not edit the D800 at 60%? If the image has too many details, why not run a blur over it.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads