The D800, a case for the higher resolution

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

.

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.

.

Chad Gladstone wrote:

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

Didn't those folks state their reasons, either their perceived list of disadvantages of the d800 or their list of advantages of a lower spec'ed body?

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.

I've read the entire thread, which gets confusing, then re-read your original post here and I'm at a loss as to why you ask this question.  It was suggested that your question was more rhetorical, a type of "all else equal" question.  But, the d800 isn't "all else equal". There isn't really an all purpose camera, never has been. The d800 isn't a Swiss army knife, able to do anything and everything. That's why they sell the d4, at twice the price and why they sell the d600 at 2/3 the price.

The d800 is a fine camera and it produces wonderful images, if you do your part. But, it's best suited to the types of use where its resolution is warranted, like landscapes, product, or macro, for example. That's why I bought one.  But, I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't already owned the other cameras that do what I actually need done, the majority of the time. My d3s is my most used camera these days, by far. The d800 just can't touch it, but it wasn't designed and made to do the things that the d3s does.

The bottom line is that the sensor isn't the final arbiter.  It's only one piece of the pie that comprises the instrument that one needs to satisfy his photography.  It doesn't matter how good the IQ is, if the rest of the features of the camera don't fit your needs. It isn't a "one size fits all" scenario and likely never will be.

Kerry